Conservatives vs. Leftists

Like you, I was horrified by the results of November’s presidential election.  And I was dispirited.  And not a little angry.  I’ve not been sure how (or even whether) to continue a political blog because it seemed so pointless and that all our work was for pretty much nothing.  But then I remember that it was apathy, even more than ignorance, that got us into this mess, and slinking back onto the couch in disgust really isn’t the answer (tempting though it is).  Worse is staying home and not voting at all (that is not in the least bit tempting. To me, anyway.).

So then I started thinking about what went wrong for conservatives and what went right for leftists, and I had these inchoate thoughts swimming around amidst the other emotions and thoughts.  There seem to be a few of key problems on the conservative side, and these are being heightened and played quite ingeniously by leftists.

First, I think we really need to figure out what we want.  Do we want more government and less freedom?  Do we want what we have now, to maintain the status quo in terms of the government-freedom ratio? I was talking with a friend the other day, and he laughingly brought up the time when we, in Florida, could buy drive-thru beer, wine, even mixed drinks.  I’m not talking about bottles and six packs, here, I’m talking about draft beer.  In a cup, in your car.   Sounds nuts, right?  Even I think it sounds nuts.  But then we got to talking about other Floridian responses to new laws, particularly the seat belt law that coincided with serial killer Ted Bundy’s death penalty appeals.  The bumper sticker of the day was “I’ll buckle up when Bundy does” (referring, of course, to Florida’s electric chair).  He did.  We did.

And no, I’m not saying that we need to all be drinking drive-thru brew, with or without our seat belts.  What I am saying is that we adapt to encroachments on our liberty, so much so that we are (or least I am) horrified at the thought of not only buying a glass of wine in my car but of leaving “park” without my seat belt on.  Frog meet pot of water.

The more laws we have, and this is the foundation of regressivism, the fewer freedoms we have.  Regressives are about totalitarian control, right down to who can have children and how many they can have.  Remember, it was progressives who brought us prohibition, eugenics, and a host of other equally intrusive and/or downright evil threats to our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

When it comes to the economy, we seem to agree that the entitlement culture is a big big problem, but then we defend massive programs that will bankrupt us if they are not reformed.  I’ve written recently about entitlements and how I think that conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  Part of that, I think, is that we tend to get defensive when “called out” as hypocrites by the left.  We are not hypocrites for taking social security, medicare, etc.  Were the first wave of feminists hypocrites because they still depended on their fathers and husbands?  Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites before the American Revolution?  They rejected tyranny but lived under it, after all (so goes the crazed leftist logic on entitlements and conservatives).  You get my point.  Any change requires living in the existing condition until that change occurs.

When it comes to politicians, we want fiscal and some of us want social conservatives . . . so much so that we are willing to let die-hard commies be elected if we can’t have our way.  Obama did not win by a landslide, nowhere near one, and he definitely would have lost if conservatives–yes, conservatives–had their act together and not played into the hands of the leftists (newsflash: they have their best interests at heart, not ours).  Some conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones (by the way, I lean libertarian with the noted and huge exceptions of foreign policy and defense), voted for “anyone but Romney” not “anyone but Obama.”  This boggles the mind, and has had me spinning since November.  I just didn’t get it (actually, I’m not sure that I do now, and yes, I’ve read all the crap about how they are practically the same person, blah blah blah. What tripe!).

Then I read J. R. Dunn’s article at American Thinker, and it sort of clicked for me.  We need to break out of this mindset that we must have the most pure conservative on every issue or on our own pet issue.  If we don’t, we will continue to lose, and worse, our losses strengthen the very people who are destroying this nation.  Let’s look, as Dunn does, at the Akin horror show.  I was right there with everyone calling for that silly silly man to withdraw from the race, so I’m not pointing fingers here, or if I am, I’m including myself at the end of my pointy pointy finger.  I must have tweeted 30 (or more) Akin-related tweets that mocked him, urged him to withdraw, etc.  And I was right.  He should have withdrawn.  But I was also wrong because guess who won that race, Air Claire Corrupt Lying Commie McCaskill.   Yeah, that’s a much better choice than some guy who doesn’t know much about the woman’s body or how to answer questions and avoid obvious errors and is guilty of general idiocy.  Um. No.  It’s not better.  It’s a thousand times worse.  She’s a freaking communist, people (including myself here, what the heck was I thinking?).

But that’s the ploy, right.  The left hammers on one slip, one thing, until conservatives are beaten down, backed into a corner that is painted for them.  But look what the left does, it rallies around pedophiles, tax evaders, philanderers, liars, fake Indians, druggies, drunks, murderers . . . you name it, and there is some Democrat in Congress or at the state level who is up to his or her eyeballs in that crime.  Crime, people, not stupidity–actual crime.  No wonder they are so gleeful when we turn on some numbnut who made a stupid statement, they are laughing all the way to tyranny.

Now, I am in no way saying that we should send our own list of criminals to Congress nor that we need to moderate our own views or values, but what I am saying is don’t listen to them anymore.  It’s not even hypocrisy from them; they truly believe that a murderer or a pedophile is better than a conservative.  But here’s the thing, we have to stop caring what they think.  I think that a screw up like Akin is ten times better than Air Claire, but they clearly don’t care what we think, and pandering to their standards is killing not only us but our country.  They are heavy into Alinsky, right?  And they are busily holding us to our own impossible standards, and it’s working.  Like a charm.

Second, once we figure out what we want, we need to work for it in every area of our lives.  Where’d the TEA Party go?  Are you working in your community to keep that fire alive?  Our Second Amendment rights are under attack; this is far bigger than the 0CareTax, so where are the rallies?  Are we waiting for a bill to be introduced?  If so, fine, but plan on rallying because something IS going to happen on “gun control.”  Count on it.

And what about those of us who are appalled by the leftists’ repeated victories in the culture war?  Are we still forking out our money for their propaganda?  Financially supporting actors and companies who hate us, our country, and everything we stand for?  What about those of us who are appalled by what is happening in our schools and universities?  Are we involved, making our voices heard?  Or are we doing what generations of conservatives have done (up until ’09, anyway) and sitting on our couches muttering in impotent frustration and anger?

Third, we need to focus our attention on 2014.  If we lose the House, it’s over.  Heck, it may well be over already as so many conservatives proclaim, but it doesn’t look over to me.

Not yet.

But it will be if we don’t stop this litmus test stuff and start supporting candidates who may not be perfect in every way but who are . . . yes, I’m going to say it, better than the alternative.  That is really all we can do now that we’ve lost so much ground; we don’t have the luxury of choosing the very bestest conservative the planet’s ever seen for each and every office (or for any office).  Does that mean that we have to “compromise our principles”?  Sure, I guess so, if you want to think of it that way.  I prefer to think of it as electing people who are not known communists.  Because guess what, our choices are often going to be some nutter like Akin versus the corrupt commie Air Claire or a moderate like Romney versus the corrupt commie Obama.  By sitting home or voting for some obscure loon who will never ever win (what the hell was that guy’s name again?), we are electing corrupt commies.  We, conservatives, are doing that.  Let’s not.


15 thoughts on “Conservatives vs. Leftists

  1. yes! this is exactly how i feel! but as i said to mark the other week, conservatives are a bunch of individuals, unlike progressives, who can’t think any thoughts unless they get permission from the group.

    • So true, Kerry. But then again, we should be able to agree on some fundamental principles or we wouldn’t all be “conservatives.” *Sigh* Sometimes it seems like such an uphill climb, you know?

  2. Ok, so you’ve gotten me to thinking. I agree that there must be some kind of consensus on what we (who’s that?) want. This will be hard unless there is further fracturing on the right, because Kerry is right (above) that conservatives are a bunch of individuals. We’re scared to death of groupthink because it is what we see on the left.

    The TEA party developed because of O-care. Taxed Enough Already. Republicans seem to me to be all over the map but when it comes to crunch time, things go the way party bosses want them to go (i.e., selecting candidates, creating platforms). How do you break through that?

    Good post, Fuzzy!

    • I so agree with you (and Kerry) that we do tend to be free-thinkers, but that is our strength in many ways. We just have to figure out what those core principles are that makes us “conservatives” and not “indies” or “liberals” or “leftists” or “moderates.” Those core principles exist, we can and do agree on them, but then all of a sudden something like Akin’s idiocy or Romney’s not being a hard-core conservative comes along, and we’re running over ourselves trying to see who can get furthest away. It’s nuts.

      We DID break through it, but then . . . we just stopped. I’m not sure why, but it all dwindled, and the establishment GOP who had been cowering in their boots and ready to fight for fiscal responsibility got the upper hand.

      We cannot, ever ever, stop putting pressure on Congress, both Houses. Once we do, we lose our footing and end up slipping back. As we have. It’s sad, but it’s not something that we can’t break through. We already did! Remember in ’09 and ’10? The establishment GOP were not in control of a damn thing–they knew it, we knew it. What we didn’t know–and they did–was that it wouldn’t last.

      Now former TEA Party “heroes” like Rubio are strong-arming and bullying the very people who put him where he is. And he knows that as long as he cozies up to the establishment and the amnesty leftists, there’ll be no real backlash. But he’s shown his true colors more than once, and they may be red, but they’re not Republican red.

      • Agreed, they’re red, and as you suggest in the post, which I agree with, is that voting for them is better than the opposition. I think they know that, and so were back where we started. I don’t like it, but it seems logical to me that there does need to be a formal conservative “entity”, whether it be a subgroup of a party or a separate party altogether. Aaaaauugh!

        • Oh no, that’s not what I meant at all. We have to get back into TEA Party mode (that subgroup within the party you speak of), but it’s up to us. As we can see, as soon as they could, the establishment marginalized whomever we sent in ’10 and even more in ’12 and worked to defeat our candidates in the primaries. Rubio refused to join the TEA Party caucus, fgs. That’s not acceptable.

          It seems to me that people on our side expected immediate miracles and massive change after only a few elections, that the losses hit too hard for some to carry on (and I can so relate to this), but that’s not good enough. Either we believe what we believe and will fight for it, or we don’t and the commies win.

  3. First, let me define myself — I am a social conservative, very conservative. I am for strong States’ rights and want the power of the national government cut down to the bone. I expect government to respect and keep their grimy hands off the rights endowed me by Our Creator. Period.

    All that said, when I was deeply involved with the Republican Party years ago, I was able to get along with many folks in the local Rep Party who did not think like me, especially on the social issues. I liked and got along with everyone. Gay, pro choice, etc. How did I do that? Simple — we were all capitalists and wanted governemt pulled back from interfering with our freedom to work and enjoy the fruits of our labor. Now I butted heads with some of these folks in other contexts but we came together to try and elect those who understood that government was to butt out of our businesses.

    Egads I hope this all made some kind of sense. Sorry to babble on, fuzislippers. Thanx for your patience.

    • I think that the problem comes in when leftists (and even some of us) confuse being a constitutional conservative with being a Republican. The GOP is not run by constitutional conservatives; it’s run by big-government pols who have far more in common with Obama ideologically than they do with we, the people. Our struggle is in getting them out one by one over the next however-many-it-takes election cycles. We can do it. We must do it. But we’ll have setbacks, we’ll lose (as we’ve already learned), but we cannot give up on purging the GOP of these people.

      It’s the only way that I can see to save our republic. So yes, you make sense! 🙂

  4. Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (No Opposition Edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

  5. As our fight goes on, we all get a little tired and weary. What is so challenging is the career politician and the Sheeples that support them. I will never give up, but then it’s easier when one strives for silliness. Someone has to do it. So, you keep doing what you do so well.

    • I can’t give up, either, Odie, even though it does seem to be like we’re fighting a losing battle here. But our country is worth the effort, and as you note, someone has to do it.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s