Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:40:54 PM
I have been hearing one of the biggest lies ever recently. The Democrats, and others on the left, continue to claim the nation has roundly rejected conservative principles, embraced big government and that conservatives are destined for oblivion. And a evidence, they point to Obama's victory, the repudiation of Bush and the loss of the Republicans.
However, the truth is, the message I take form such events is exactly the opposite.
You see, Bush, and the Republicans, were not conservative. Think back to Bush's reaction to financial crises. He inflated the money supply, he enacted tariffs, he forced mergers, bailed out companies and promoted a stimulus and bailout plan not too much smaller than Obama's. Bush, and the Republicans, spent the last 8 years proving they were nowhere near small government conservatives. There may have been a handful of left over conservatives from the class of 1994, but they had little say in policy. No, the Republicans, and Bush, were representatives of that group that is supposedly the "future of the GOP", "moderate Republicans".
But notice what happened to the moderate Republicans. They bent over backwards to appease the Democrats, as on pharmaceutical assistance and No Child Left Behind, and what did it get them? Not only were they reviled by the left, caricatured as "arch-reactionaries" and called criminals and villains, they were also blamed for every failing of the system, even when it was clearly the policies of their opponents that were to blame (Community Reinvestment Act? Freddie and Fannie?). And finally, when it came time for the voters to speak, what happened? The voters tossed them out.
So, what does this tell us, especially about conservatives?
Not much about conservatives, as there was no one representing conservative values. What it does show us is that if you offer a moderately big government party and a fully big government party, it will draw only voters supporting big government, and they will support the more consistent, fully big government party. In other wo5rds, between moderate Republicans and Democrats, the Democrats will always win, being the consistent party.
And what about conservatives? Well, it is hard to tell, as they have not had a voice in many years. When Romney is called the "conservative candidate" you know the conservatives are poorly represented. However, we do know from 1980 and 1994 that counting out conservatives because of the losses of RINOs can be a losing bet. When the people are given a "choice not an echo", they often seem to embrace the core values of small government conservatives, low taxes, less interference, fewer regulations and emphasis on self-reliance. It is not accidental that Reagan won by such huge majorities, nor that the Contract with America proved popular enough that Clinton tried to steal credit. There is much of the conservative agenda that appeal to even centrist Americans, even many on the left.
The question is why the Republicans, having before them such a winning position, so often sell out and adopt the losing proposition of appeasement?
POSTSCRIPT
If this sounds familiar, it is because I said something similar in "
I Disagree with the WSJ". Then again, I have been saying the same thing in different words for quite some time, it is just that my most recent post on the topic is very similar in argument to this, close enough I thought I should mention the similarity.