Is Conservatism Dead in America?

Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' McCain was not and Romney is not. Add to that the fact that young people are rejecting the social conservative agenda in a big way. Was the Tea Party inflammation in 2010 the last dying gasp of this movement? Can we look forward to a future without government interference in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?

If GW Bush was not a conservative what was he? its always puzzled me these distinctions in American politics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If GW Bush was not a conservative what was he? its always puzzled me these distinctions in American politics.

He stopped being a conservative after his popularity plummeted.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?

You'll appreciate this.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/326050.php#326050

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If GW Bush was not a conservative what was he? its always puzzled me these distinctions in American politics.

He was a State-ist. He believed in big government and believed in Big Business and Big government working hand in hand.

Conservatives believe in small government. A perfect example of big vs small government is the federal department of education. Ronald Reagan did away with the department while GW expanded it with "No Child Left Behind".

The only difference between GW and a liberal democrat is instead of 'tax and spend' GW believed in 'don't tax, but do spend'.

Originally posted by Eladar
He was a State-ist. He believed in big government and believed in Big Business and Big government working hand in hand.

Conservatives believe in small government. A perfect example of big vs small government is the federal department of education. Ronald Reagan did away with the department while GW expanded it with "No Child Left Behind".

The only dif ...[text shortened]... liberal democrat is instead of 'tax and spend' GW believed in 'don't tax, but do spend'.

Ron Paul is the closest to being a conservative. He is fiscally conservative without a doubt. He is socially conservative only partially. Pro life, pro 2nd amendment for example. He is socially liberal with cannabis and ending the stupid drug war for example.

The republicans will reject him because he won't invade other countries though. Most republicans want to kill Persians and pay a higher price for fuel at the same time. They support their children being put into economic slavery to pay the interest on the debt. Forget about paying it off. Once we invade Iran that ship will have sailed.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?

If you ask me, Goldwater was the most conservative serious national candidate in the modern era. He lost. Reagan, although he talked a good game, increased the size of government and spending. Perhaps he thought government would be forced to cut spending back. If so, he was mistaken. If not, he is just like the rest.

Fiscally speaking, I think most Americans are conservative. Socially speaking, I think the gay marriage issue is where they are weakest, however, anti-abortion sentiments are alive and strong are will always be there.

As for myself, I have shifted closer to a libertarian outlook and I think it to be the wave of the future. You can see this with the youngsters supporting Ron Paul. Of course, this movement has just begun and will only grow.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?

The problem is having to cater to too many interest groups. Some of them overlap, but they are big money, evangelicals and other social-issue partisans, the so-called TEA party and the "Republican establishment." Then they get elected and have to decide between party loyalty, ideological loyalty and loyalty to their electoral base, factors which are often at odds. An example of this is the conflict between the interests of at-home voters, who want jobs, leading to porky earmarks, and ideological purity, which leads to cutting spending wherever and whenever possible. Then there is scratch my back I'll scratch yours pragmatism.

One element is less influential on the Democrat side -- the ideological purity is not as influential as a factor. The downside of this is a lack of fervor.

This is not to say that Republican ideological fervor is all that sincere, but it is available to be stirred up and marched behind.

For example, how many believe that Newt is ideologically conservative to the point of sincere fervor?

Originally posted by Eladar
He was a State-ist. He believed in big government and believed in Big Business and Big government working hand in hand.

Conservatives believe in small government. A perfect example of big vs small government is the federal department of education. Ronald Reagan did away with the department while GW expanded it with "No Child Left Behind".

The only dif ...[text shortened]... liberal democrat is instead of 'tax and spend' GW believed in 'don't tax, but do spend'.

INCONVENIENT TRUTH ALERT (article from October 1988):

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion,

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

Originally posted by whodey
If you ask me, Goldwater was the most conservative serious national candidate in the modern era. He lost. Reagan, although he talked a good game, increased the size of government and spending. Perhaps he thought government would be forced to cut spending back. If so, he was mistaken. If not, he is just like the rest.

Fiscally speaking, I think most Am ...[text shortened]... the youngsters supporting Ron Paul. Of course, this movement has just begun and will only grow.

Everyone is "fiscally" a "conservative". No one (except a few idiots) believes the government ought to run large deficits consistently.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Now that we've seen that the 'conservatives' cannot even nominate one of their own in the Party they claim to control is it time to a conclude that 'conservatism' is finished as a political force in America? After all, if you use their own reckoning, the last 'conservative' President was Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton.) Neither Bush is a 'conservative.' ...[text shortened]... e in our private lives and increased government investment to improve our public lives?

The last conservative nominated by the Republican party was Ronald Reagan, and before that Barry Goldwater.

In the distant past, moderate Republicans like Nixon and Eisenhower could win election, because their opposite party opposition was moderate as well.

Carter, and Reagan were ideologues of their respective parties, and governed accordingly.

Republicans since won by slim margins, Bush the elder on Reagan's coattails, and his son by pretending to be conservative enough to squeak by.

You may well get your wish of increasing government controls, European style socialism, and a period of increased dependency and lack of prosperity. The other alternative, is that the Tea Party breaks away, and the Republican party goes the way of the Federalists.

You are correct, though that Conservatives/libertarians have no place to turn, except Ron Paul who will not be the nominee.

If you think that Democratic party politics doesn't interfere with your life, I don't know what planet you live on.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Everyone is "fiscally" a "conservative". No one (except a few idiots) believes the government ought to run large deficits consistently.

So you are calling both parties idiots? No one in DC wishes to balance a budget or ever has any intention of doing so.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Everyone is "fiscally" a "conservative". No one (except a few idiots) believes the government ought to run large deficits consistently.

Everyone talks the talk, but hardly anyone is willing to walk the walk.

Originally posted by normbenign
Everyone talks the talk, but hardly anyone is willing to walk the walk.

What do you mean hardly anyone? No one does. Zip. Nodda.

Originally posted by whodey
If you ask me, Goldwater was the most conservative serious national candidate in the modern era. He lost. Reagan, although he talked a good game, increased the size of government and spending. Perhaps he thought government would be forced to cut spending back. If so, he was mistaken. If not, he is just like the rest.

Fiscally speaking, I think most Am ...[text shortened]... the youngsters supporting Ron Paul. Of course, this movement has just begun and will only grow.

When assessing what an administration did, one can't overlook that Congress has control of legislation, while the President has the bully pulpit, and final approval.

Where spending bills originate Reagan constantly faced an opposition Congress, and most of the time an opposition Senate. Still his record of accomplishment is to be admired.

I can only hope that Ron Paul has set off a libertarian uprising, which could find a home in a new and separate Tea Party, outside the Republican party. I think this campaign is Ron Paul's last hurrah, but perhaps his son will continue to fight the fight well.