Professor Zywicki has an interesting review of what appears to be a fascinating book.

I am pleased to see that my reposting of ”Who we are instead” generated two excellent, thought-provoking responses by Joel and Centinel. Needless to say, this is an important topic, and I am interested in hearing what others have to say about the future of conservatism in these United States.

So, in addition to any comments generated by the posts noted supra, I invite other bloggers/readers to submit their own posts on “The future of the GOP and Conservatism,” which I will link to or republish in this master post.

My hope is that these posts will spark discussion in the conservative blogosphere, and help us visualize where we need to go from here.

It’s about ideas and principles, folks. It always has been.

Never one to shirk away from aping my betters, I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Joel and Feddie. I also have enough hubris to think I can wrap it all up in a neat package: We do not need pro lifers, pro gunners, and anti taxers. What we need is a return to what our forefathers believed. We need to have an overriding philosophy. Part of the problem is that we keep electing people by using a checklist. Is she pro-life? Does he agree that estate taxes are morally reprehensible? While we are quibbling over details, politicians on both sides of the aisle are making off with the store. I do not think I have to detail how far we have slid in 230 years. Suffice to say that our federal government has become the black hole at the center of our political universe — sucking in powers and rights that were once reserved to the states and growing exponentially with each passing year. Republicans now routinely vote for multitrillion dollar budgets loaded with home-district perks. They support massive new spending programs and encourage more and more regulation under the name of “security” or “fair elections.” The party is fat, dumb, and despondent. It has somehow found its way out of the Promised Land and back into the wilderness where it will remain for another 40 years if something does not change. (more…)

I read Feddie’s thoughtful post below and I believe he makes some good points. He is absolutely correct that the Republican Party lost its way after the 1994 elections. The party that promised limited government and restrained spending in The Contract with America ultimately morphed into the pork barrel party that lost the majority in 2006. I also agree with Feddie that what is needed for the Republican Party to resume the majority is a committed return to first principles. Feddie lists these principles as the following: (1) promoting family values and protecting innocent life; (2) personal and national defense; and (3) fiscal responsibility.

Although I agree that the above principles are important they represent only a partial list. The Republican Party must also be the party of limited government and taxation as well as personal freedom. Furthermore, fiscal responsibility, while important, is not really an end in itself. You could have a fiscally responsible large invasive government that meets its budget through high taxation. Conservatives need to promote fiscal responsibility within the context of a more limited government. (more…)

[Ed. This is a post from my "Alexham" archives over at RedState. I am reposting it here because I believe the overall message of the post needs to be restated before we gather together for the national convention in September.]

I can still remember the day after the 1994 midterm elections. It was an unusually sunny day in the Southland, and all seemed right with the world. After all of those years in the wilderness, the Republicans had finally taken control of the House, and soon thereafter, the Senate. We would do things differently, we promised. We were a different kind of political party. Unlike the Democrats, who only care for power for power’s sake, we sought power to make a profound difference in the lives of every-day Americans.

How different things look thirteen years later. Somewhere along the line, we lost our way. I think most Republicans instinctively know this, but have trouble articulating exactly when things began to unravel for our party. What we do know is that the Republican Party is at crossroads. We are a party in search of an identity, and the path we choose will have long-term ramifications not only for the GOP, but for these United States. (more…)

“What gross deception and fatal delusion! Although very considerable benefit might be derived from strengthening the hands of Congress, so as to enable them to regulate commerce, and counteract the adverse restrictions of other nations, which would meet with the concurrence of all persons; yet this benefit, is accompanied in the new constitution with the scourge of despotic power, that will render the citizens of America tenants at will of every species of property, of every enjoyment, and make them the mere drudges of government. The gilded bait conceals corrosives that will eat up their whole substance.”

 I’m sure we’re going to be the best of friends.

If you are conservative, what brand of conservative are you? Have we all become postmodern political mongrels that defy any of the classical labels? In this recent editorial, Rod Dreher examines the neocon thinking that may have been responsible for ‘06 Republican losses. It’s all worth mulling over. Dreher says in part….

You will search the conservative canon in vain looking for the principles that justify the corruption and incompetence that helped deliver the well-deserved thrashing to the GOP. The incorrigible spending that destroyed the GOP’s reputation for being trustworthy stewards of fiscal sanity was actually a violation of conservative principles. And as for the disastrous Iraq war, Jonah Goldberg writes, “it is not the conservative position to botch wars.”

Now wait a minute. If a liberal offered a defense of failed Great Society policies by saying, “It is not the liberal position to create a vast helpless underclass wholly dependent on the government,” conservatives wouldn’t let them get away with that. The obvious reply is that failed welfare-state policies grew out of flawed liberal ideas about human nature and society, not just bureaucrats who applied those policies ineptly. Ideas, as conservatives never tire of saying, have consequences.

Here is Rep. Ron Paul’s tribute to Milton Friedman. 

In an age of Big Government Conservatism, American Greatness Conservatism, Christian Conservativism, Crunchy Conservatism, South Park Republicanism, and more, it may be worth another look at a great political paradigm.  Classical Liberalism awaits.

It’s been a long time since many of us in the “conservative movement” have protested that we are not truly conservatives, but are rather classical liberals.  The media refuses to pick up the distinction and the mass society doesn’t grasp the point.

S.T. Karnick is a stubborn classical liberal who insists on prolonging the conversation on classical liberalism, what it means, and how it fits into the current American political scene.

If you’d like an education on the point or would just like to get geeky in debate, Professor Karnick is holding a clinic.  In order of appearance, you can get his posts on the topic here, here, and here.

Where did the revolution go astray? How did we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today – from passing welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and same-sex marriage?

The answer is simple: Republican lawmakers forgot the party’s principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect – and we have no one to blame but ourselves. ….

We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots.

When we act like us, we win. When we act like them, we lose. Let’s win.

Dick Armey comments on the Republican rout and regaining lost ground.

Much ado is being made about Rush saying yesterday that the GOP losses of the House and Senate were liberating for him. Many say it puts the lie to Rush’s rhetoric, and that it shows he was misleading his audience. Whatever.

For what it’s worth, I share Rush’s sentiment. How many bloggers here at SA have, at one time or another, written or said “I know the current GOP isn’t doing what I’d like them to do, BUT…” only to spend a paragraph or ten explaining, as a conservative, that the GOP’s brand of big government was the lesser or two evils or that Bush’s plan for Iraq wasn’t ideal but preferential to what Kerry would have done?

I know I’ve done that, not only here but in conversations with fellow Federalist Society members, and with Democrat and Libertarian friends. For the longest time, conservatives of all stripes have been a people without a party. We took what was available to us, and invested our votes and confidence there. When our investment proved unwise, we explained how a loss in one area was OK because we would win in others (mostly judges for me).

That’s all over, at least for now. The Supreme Court was never fully delivered, though progress was made. The House and Senate will be locked in mortal combat with the White House for a good bit of time. Iraq will get a once-over with a fine-toothed comb, but little will change immediately. In the mean time, those of us who have been holding the conservative line for the GOP don’t have to explain our support of a party that lost its direction long ago.

I can freely say - without fear of turning the undecided conservative voter into a non-voter or a protest voter - that the GOP ain’t what it used to be. If you’re a conservative, don’t count on the current incarnation of the GOP to help you. To the extent the current GOP lost its control, it was a deserved beating.

There. I feel better.

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence wrote a piece lamenting the recent Dick Armey comments regarding Dr. Dobson’s power politics in the Beltway. I respect Mike Pence and I understand what he’s trying to do here, to wit: can’t all us Christian conservatives just get along?….after all, I’d like you all to vote for me. Yes, indeed, negative attacks can divide conservatives. Sometimes, however, it helps refine the movement. I applaud Armey for saying some things that need to be said…. in this piece, Christians and Big Government.

I think this is an extremely shrewd move on Newt’s part. Sometimes it’s better to be kingmaker than king.

Paul Weyrich makes some great points in this essay.  At base, her argues that conseveratives getting in bed with the GOP essentially destroyed the movement.  Here is a snippet: 

 At the same time, every political movement that succeeds pays a price for its success. In its early stages, as an outsider, it can be true to its agenda. But once it takes power, it inevitably comes to find much of its agenda politically inconvenient. It gets in the way of making deals, gaining more power and collecting money. In time, it ceases to be a real movement and becomes an Establishment.

Regrettably, I have to say this has happened to most of the existing conservative movement, with the exception of the Religious Right. It has gotten in bed with the Republican Party, which provides access, influence and resources to those who will play along. The price has been a “conservatism” that in many respects bears little resemblance to what many of us thought we were fighting for. Most conservative institutions support or are at least silent about a Republican Party government that will not control spending, has driven deficits up to dangerous levels, exports America’s industrial base through “free trade,” promotes ever-larger and more intrusive Federal government and follows a Wilsonian foreign policy. In the face of this abandonment of our old agenda, it is not surprising that it is hard to speak of a conservative “movement” anymore, again excepting the Religious Right. Most of the troops have gone home in disgust.

How true.  It also reminds me that we do little good this November if we head to the polls and mindlessly vote for the GOP out of fear the Democrats will be a little worse.

Alan Wolfe over at the Washington Monthly has an interesting piece from a month or so back on “conservatives” in power.  It is an interesting read.  For all the faults of the piece, the one question that I find fascinating is whether a movement aimed at reducing the amount of government and influence of government in people’s lives can or should aspire to hold office and manage a federal governement, that absent some total collaspe because of war or depression, will most likely forever remain its bloated self. Here is a taste:

The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush’s incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president’s principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay’s ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it. (more…)

From the SA mailbag:

I know you do not care for Barry’s views on abortion, but it was interesting.

Better than I thought it would be (or rather not half the hatchet job I expected, given they chose commentators such as Hillary, Al Franken, and James Carville to opine on a conservative libertarian lion).

Which begged the question–why no commentary by WFB? Was he not asked?

It fairly showed what a raw deal Goldwater got from the left. Whenever anyone complains about Karl Rove’s tactics, they should be forced to watch the Goldwater-Johnson part of that documentary.

Did anyone else get a chance to watch the Goldwater documentary?

Roger Kimball’s essay in the September issue of The New Criterion is also available online.  Recommended!

At The American Conservative, Heather Mac Donald laments the rhetoric of the religious conservative. The link will take you to the complete article. There’s much there to chew on. In part, she says….

Skeptical conservatives—one of the Right’s less celebrated subcultures—are conservatives because of their skepticism, not in spite of it. They ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument. And the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion to the exclusion of these temperamentally compatible allies.

Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort. ….

Nonbelievers look elsewhere for a sense of order, valuing the rule of law for its transparency to all rational minds and debating Supreme Court decisions without reverting to mystical precepts or “natural law.” It is perfectly possible to revere the Founding Fathers and their monumental accomplishment without celebrating, say, “Washington’s God.” Skeptical conservatives even believe themselves to be good citizens, a possibility denied by Richard John Neuhaus in a 1991 article. …

What Heather is calling “skeptical” sounds more like secular conservatism to me. If current cultural trends continue, the religious conservatives will be the subculture within the movement and she’ll no longer have that issue to wring her hands over. For the sake of this discussion, I suppose it all depends on where you think moral authority comes from.

Update: There’s some interesting chatter on this topic at Right Reason.

I’m posting two posts I put up on American Spectator’s blog. I think they’re of interest to the SA crowd: (more…)

I just spent the last 10 minutes reading GQ’s takedown of Ralph Reed. It is, in a word: devastating. And if I had read this piece before the election, I would not have voted for Reed or supported him in any way.

So, mea culpa. I am ashamed that I believed anything Ralph Reed ever said.

You’re in my prayers, Ralph; but I will never trust you again.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go take a really long shower.

(LvMike)

Courtesy of Right Wing News:

Honorable Mentions: George Voinovich (4), Arnold Schwarzenegger (4), Ralph Reed (4), Mitt Romney (4), Kevin Phillips (4), Bob Novak (4), Trent Lott (4), Rush Limbaugh (4), Katherine Harris (4), Tom DeLay (4), Duke Cunningham (4), Tucker Carlson (4), Michael Bloomberg (4)

16) Debbie Schlussel (5)
16) Michelle Malkin (5)
16) Dennis Hastert (5)
15) James Dobson (6)
12) Ted Stevens (7)
12) Olympia Snowe (7)
12) Bill Frist (7)
11) Andrew Sullivan (9)
9) Bill O’Reilly (10)
9) Chuck Hagel (10)
Jerry Falwell (14)
7) Lincoln Chafee (15)
6) Ann Coulter (17)
5) Arlen Specter (19)
3) Michael Savage (22)
3) Pat Robertson (22)
1) John McCain (26)
1) Pat Buchanan (26)

Who would you add to or delete from this list?

Yes, I am, and always have been, a huge fan of the Newt. See, e.g., here (imagining a Gingrich presidency would be a good thing). So it was with glee I read Rich Lowry’s latest, which I now pass along to all.

I listened to Newt Gingrich on a radio news program (not a conservative talk show, but plain news) discussing the current situation involving Israel and Syria last night.  What struck me about him was that he speaks from a clear conservative viewpoint without sounding apologetic at all and comes off smart as a whip.  This is a guy who is comfortable speaking without notes because he absolutely knows his stuff.  He is a scholar and a hard-nosed politico, which is a combination one does not easily find, particularly in the GOP ranks.  Perhaps most importantly, he has and has always had vision.

Conclusion:  I think we have to seriously consider supporting this guy for the White House in 2008.  He is probably the best of the best.  Of course, supporting Newt would be uncomfortable for conservatives because he has clearly had sexual indiscretions and we don’t like those.  I think if he can successfully deal with that issue via candor and repentance, then we may have something with Mr. Gingrich.

I was in a hospital waiting room yesterday listening (unavoidably so because of volume) to a few women discussing the difficulty of having borne children prior to marriage to men who promised they’d marry them and then disappeared. All in all, highly confirmatory of my own views on the subject, particularly since these ladies talked about how they wished they could take it all back and do it differently, withholding sex until a family had been legally formed.

Despite my ideological agreement with what they were saying, I was a little disturbed by the exceedingly frank tone of their conversation. The talk got fairly graphic at a few points, which doesn’t bother me too much, but I kept wondering how some of the older folks felt about it. There was a time when you simply wouldn’t have talked that way around strangers and I think it might be better to regress to that point.

Here’s the abstract for “Lawyers of the Right: Networks and Organization,” a recent paper by Anthony Paik (Iowa, Sociology), Ann Southworth (Case Western, Law), and John Heinz (Northwestern, Law):

Lawyers for conservative and libertarian causes are active in organizing and mobilizing interest groups within the conservative coalition, and networks of relationships among those lawyers help to maintain and shape the coalition. Using data gathered in interviews with 72 such lawyers, the article analyzes characteristics of the lawyers and the structure of their networks. The findings suggest that the networks are divided into segments or blocks that are identified with particular constituencies, but that a distinct set of actors with an extensive range of relationships serves to bridge the constituencies. Measures of centrality and brokerage confirm the structural importance of these actors in the network, and a search of references in news media confirms their prominence or prestige. This “core” set of actors occupies the “structural hole” in the network that separates the business constituency from religious conservatives. Libertarians, located near the core of the network, also occupy an intermediate position. Causal analysis of the formation of ties within the network suggests that the Federalist Society has played an important role in bringing the lawyers together.

Methinks Senator Clinton just guaranteed that Ann’s latest book, “Godless,” will be number one on the next NYT’s bestseller list.

For those of y’all around here who have a fondness for NR’s Derbyshire (I don’t), just a reminder regarding his unalloyed support of all things surrounding the culture of death.  Ponnuru responds to Derbyshire’s characteristically unreasoned fit here.

Human Events Online is all over this issue. You can see how your senator voted here. As far as Republicans…..it’s getting easier now to seperate the wheat from the chaf and see who the real conservatives are. It’s clear to me that for many senators this issue is not about immigration. It must be about government espansion and pandering to a group of potential new voters. Gag me. And, by the way, Human Events wants to hear from you regarding the impact of this vote on Republican presidential wannabes in ‘08. So far, senators such as Cornyn and Sessions are doing the Lord’s work.

Earlier today on the Senate floor:

…When the 77 million Baby Boomers begin to retire in 2011, our nation will be faced with the greatest economic challenge in our history. If we continue to indulge in earmarks, the gateway drug to spending addictions (emphasis mine), we will never address these complex challenges, particularly if we can’t resist the urge to abuse the earmark process on a bill designed to address the emergency needs of our troops and displaced people in the Gulf Coast.

Well said, Senator.

Don’t you love her madly?

Me? I love her because she drives the folks on the left to the brink of insanity (see, e.g., Eugene).