I spent a few hours with Ben Dover and Loudoun Insider tonight. We hashed out the great issues of the day over buffalo wings, sliders, quesadillas and towering vessels of mead. The obscure local establishment, nomenclatured oddly enough after my favorite day of the week, provided a convivial atmosphere for debate and argumentation.
What I provided to them, I believe, was an insight, a window if you will, into the Far Right in American Society. It is not often that the hard core right wing is willing to expose itself to the mainstream, but I have to say I was drawn out of my bunker and almost felt comfortable among these political moderates. They, in their turn, offered a surprisingly welcoming form of fellowship.
What I learned, first of all, was the backstory to so much of the local political controversy of the past two years. I always want to hear both sides of a story and up till now I really had not heard the “RINO” side of the local story. And let me tell you, this “RINO” business in Loudoun seems to me to be frickin’ nonsense. I stand at the ready to be proven wrong, but that is how I see it.
I got a few interesting insights from the conversation.
I have a strong affiliation with the social conservative wing of the Republican party, but much of that is based simply on my belief that everyone should have the opportunity to have their opinions expressed in the public sphere.
I think abortions should be reduced to about zero by telling people what an abortion actually accomplishes. I think people who oppose gay marriage should be able to express their opinion about the significance of traditional marriage without being shouted down.
What appears to have happened in Loudoun County, Virginia, is that people who sympathize with the social conservative viewpoint have been glommed into an ideology that includes fealty to an oddball political correctness on issues related to land development. As though support for the unborn or second amendment rights or traditional marriage also entails support for certain commercial interests.
I’m sorry, but I just do not necessarily see the connection.
Needless to say, the local illegal immigration problem presents a similar fissure in the ideology: What is best for the citizens may not be what is best for the corporations. So what is the real “conservative” stand on the issue?
In the end I am skeptical about the Republican party. I think the party has some serious issues that need to be worked out because its mission has become skewed by competing priorities. In Loudoun, I don’t see the pro-development wing having any relevance whatsoever going forward. I think the party has to be focused on more essential issues.
I’m still tied up in a big work project so I can’t help right now in this little issue of fixing all that is wrong in Loudoun. Please be sure to check in to TC regularly because they are as much on top of these matters as anyone.
And in case you are interested, the next meetings with LI and Ben Dover will involve a new mandolin, electronic drums, and a piss-poor rhythm guitarist, singin’ the blues.
As usual Joe your observations are spot on.
The marketplace of ideas and conservatism in general is far more dynamic than advertised. The assumptions and false connections of some on several sides, have elevated and widened divisions within the Republican party in Loudoun. It is safe to say that some of it from is simply crap.Not only crap, but very counter productive crap.
Your example of the immigration issue is sound.
Advocating for local action on the behalf of citizens may very well put one at odds with a wide variety of commercial interests. At the top of those interests is the pro-development community with deep alliances within the Republican and to a lesser extent the Democrat parties. Development interests have money and therefore their influence is felt at every level of the political game. Nothing new here.
In general competing ideas are in the end a good thing. Engage, compete and move on should be the mantra. Get into the marketplace of ideas, make your case and then congeal around a game plan with like minded allies against those whose ideas and policies you deem to be inferior. Again, nothing new here.
I can agree with you both but still see that the constant beating down of the ’social conservatives” does not rest well with me. I was not a part of what happened in the past with the “RINO hunting” and land development. I’d like to be part of the future of the Republican Party here in LoCo, but it gets pretty hard when you are smacked down daily by the moderates as being unwelcome.
The solutions are out there, but I can tell you what is not the solution – party infighting, faction against faction and operating in the past. It does not appeal to me, many people I talk to, and people that are interested in getting involved in the Republican Party but do not feel welcome. We won’t grow and win elections by beating each other down, let’s save it for the Democrats.
Joe, a pleasure as always to hang with you and imbibe, same with Mr. Dover.
I will take a little issue with your description of me as a “moderate”. I think there are simply too many issues to weigh in on these days to describe anyone as moderate, conservative, or whatever. Of course there are those who fit the stereotypical mold, but most people have a wide range of positions. I’m very conservative on many issues, but I take a pragmatic view when it comes to political reality.
CathyMac, I do not beat down the “conservatives” and welcome them to the mix, but they need to get over their own self-importance and rigidity. The litmus test BS is what has caused the shrinkage of the GOP. We must do better to reach outward and draw people in, rather than looking further inward and kicking people out.
“We must do better to reach outward and draw people in, rather than looking further inward and kicking people out.”
“We must do better to reach outward and draw people in, rather than looking further inward and kicking people out.”
LI, I await your posts and comments/actions to follow these words. And please feel free to apply the following to yourself as well:
“……but they need to get over their own self-importance and rigidity.”
There is rigidity even in “moderate” views.
LI,
“need to get over their own self-importance and rigidity”
I stop by TC frequently and see plenty of non-conservative self importance and rigidity. Being a stiff necked know it all is hardly exclusive to any part of the political spectrum. The statement istelf shows a bias LI, any statement that in broadstrokes labels an entire community as ‘X’, is nothing BUT prejudicial.
Frankly, considering that the favorite and most recurring theme in the comments on TC is the evils of social conservatism, I can only wonder.
Both of you are free to stop by or not stop by. I have no official party role. I post up my own thoughts and observations. Take them or leave them.
LI, labeling you “moderate” and me “far right” has more to do with playing around with prevailing stereotypes. Since the two of you are still incognito, I will take the liberty to riff on you now and then, more than someone I actually have to name. Hope you don’t mind. If you were a “real person” at this point I would be less cavalier.
LI presents an interesting and relevant subject for debate. Unfortunately, he too quickly made the mistake of antagonizing his interlocutors by applying the terms “self-importance and rigidity” to them in a negative connotation.
The “self-importance” claim is rather irrelevant. In truth, some of the primary practicioners of “self-importance” are those who create politically-oriented blogs on the internet and regularly throw out their own opinions for public consumption.
But don’t get me wrong on this. I do not see that as a negative thing. It is, in truth, absolutely human and even laudable. Indeed, it is a fulfillment of what the Founding Fathers sought in establishing our unique system and one of the reasons why they thought it so absolutely necessary to enshrine the worth and rights of the individual in the First Amendment.
Where we go wrong is mixing selected abuse of the system in the same bag as this very natural “self-importance.” I do not consider it wrong to hold a strong view and to express that view openly and persistently. I do, however, object to a growing tendency to attach nasty labels to one’s interlocutors. That, in my opinion, is undermining the entire system itself. We have arrived at a point wherein a certain part of the citizenry has become hesitant to exercise their First Amendment rights out of a fear of ridicule or other forms of retaliation, e.g., the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Instead of responding with reasoned opposition, we have taken too often to subtle jabs or even to open ridicule through the use of such ugly labels as “Neanderthal” or “racist” or “wing nut” or “crazy Christian” or “liberal idiot” or “commie”, ad nauseum. And, yes, I do include “self-importance and rigidity” in that mix. They are just as much a debate turnoff as “flaming a**hole.”
Now, what really does set me off is the term “rigidity.” Translation: “I have my beliefs and you have yours. Your failure to compromise your beliefs and move in my direction makes you rigid.” Say that again, please? Am I the only one at this table who is being “rigid”? Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes! Old Nikita, he of the long ago shoe pounding at the UN: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable!”
I came from a very blue-collar and somewhat insulated background. I, however, had the good fortune to become the pupil of a very cosmopolitan and erudite college professor who provided my first introduction to the wider world of literature and the arts, both old and contemporary. I quickly noticed, however, that, in a world being turned upside down by the “Age of Aquarius”, this professor never backed down on his core social beliefs. He did not flaunt them, He simply practiced them openly and without self-consciousness. When questioned about them, he calmly and rationally defended them.
There came a day when I could not longer refrain from asking him about the seeming dichotomy between his personal social beliefs and what were then certain growing trends in contemporary literary and art circles. His response was simple: “If a person has specific beliefs, he should hold firmly to them, practice them openly, and defend them whenever the occasion arises. Otherwise, what good does it do a person to have any beliefs at all?”
I personally found that to be a worthwhile philosophy of life and have tried to follow it, admittedly not always successfully. By any definition, you could label me as “conservative.” I, however, select my battles carefully. For example, I am a firm believer in the free market system but one who opposes strongly the turning of semi-rural Western Loudoun into just another bedroom community. I am an “internationalist” in a sense with long experience living in foreign nations and working side by side with almost every race of peoples on the globe. Yet, when you cross my home borders illegally and proceed to turn my own neighborhood into a gang-filled, trash-strewn, and law-ignoring mess, you will be facing me on the ramparts and will find me an implacable foe. I am a strong supporter of legitimate civil rights and a philosophical follower in many ways of Martin Luther King but a very strong opponent of affirmative action for the sake of affirmative action. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment; but you will not find me very amicable if you consider gun ownership to be some sort of macho thing to be flaunted — this from someone who has seen up close and personal in war and “peace” what weapons do to fellow humans. In many instances, you might call me a mixed-bag “conservative.” You can never count for sure on ascertaining where I will stand on many issues.
There are, however, some instances where you will be able to judge me accurately: social issues. These views are not only philosophical but also religion-based (I was raised Fundamentalist Protestant; my wife and children are conservative Catholic). I do not take kindly to suggestions that I should be the one to compromise on these views in order to gain temporal political power. That may be just fine for “moderates”, who will then waltz into positions of political power and enjoy the associated benefits, usually leaving the likes of me on the sidelines with a “thank you” and see you at the next election. Such compromise also leaves me to deal with my own conscience, having, in effect, sold what I consider to be my birthright for a “mess of potage.” That’s no skin off your back. You don’t have to deal with it. I do.
The rejoinder, of course, is that I have relegated myself permanently to the political sidelines and will leave my fate in the hands of the opposition. Ain’t necessarily so. This poitical landscape is a whole lot more complex than just social issues and imbued with whole lot of the unforeseen and the unexpected. You just have to look at the political landscape of the past half-century: FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon(Ford)-Carter-Reagan-BushI-Clinton-BushII-Obama. No consistency in that. The wind changes. I’ll compromise on certain issues if a see a chance because the wind is changing; but don’t ask me to sell out on the most basic values of my own social conscience just so those of you who do not necessarily hold as strongly to those values can enjoy temporal power.
But you want compromise? I’ll give you one. Anybody who calls me a “crazy Christian” to my face is in for a terrific tongue-lashing and possibly more, Good Book or no Good Book! “Mr. Nice Guy” does have its limits.
All the rest of you, please forgive my lengthy discourse here. I am just sick and tired of being told that I am always in the wrong because I won’t compromise on my innermost beliefs.
Wolverine,
stick to those beliefs! Never compromise ones beliefs
Amen Wolverine. You write beautifully and I alway enjoy your “lengthy” posts. I learn something, I laugh and I think – 3 things that are key to good reading!
If you ever write a book about your life and become a multi-millionaire, please remember your friends here and throw us a bone occassionally.
Ditto regarding Wolverine, we are lucky to have him around here.
First off…
YOU @!#$%^&*(*&^%$ BASTARDS!!!!!
Did anybody pick up the phone???
Noooooooooooooooo!!
Secondly, let’s address the context of some of the comments that LI has been attacked for…
“LI presents an interesting and relevant subject for debate. Unfortunately, he too quickly made the mistake of antagonizing his interlocutors by applying the terms “self-importance and rigidity” to them in a negative connotation.”
You have to put this in actual context. And in order to do this, you have to run into a couple of the golden nutjobs he bases this on. Most of the folks left inside the LCRC are great, solid and very pragmatic folks, who I’m proud to have worked beside for the past election…and whom I will gladly work with in our upcoming elections of the future.
Mr. Stone is one of those folks. The guy was tireless, and he was ALWAYS there. Do we agree on everything? Hell no. But when it came time to shoulder a load or stand around and complain, I know which way he went. In return, Stone and I have deepened a respect for each other (I hope) and will work much better in the future, because we have walked a good distance down the same road.
Those who ran only stood by and ran their mouth, but never delivered…well, we can all do without their input in the future. The difference is…now we know who they are.
That is way too much to reply to at this early hour. My biggest point in all my “wingnut” criticism is most often directed to those in party leadership positions, or those running for same. Of course I know there are plently many would label as wingnuts in the party body politic, and they MUST be part of the mix. The GOP has no chance without them. My big problems come when these types rise to positions of party power and uise that power to enforce their philosophy on the entire party and candidate selection processes. That has led to electoral disaster.
I imagine a cartoon with a bully beating up a weakling and a bubble from the bully saying “Pity me, pity me, I’m getting smacked down!”
So it’s ok to be a wingnut if you are just part of the rabble, but don’t try to advance in the party. This is tantamount to “sit down and shut up.”
Interesting.
Feel free to advance at your leisure. Just don’t complain about being smacked down when for so many years you were doing the smacking. (And still are outside the “G”OP.)
Sorry Sanity, I don’t have a history of smaking anyone down so your snide remark is displaced.
I don’t mean you personally, of course, I mean you the “social conservatives” of #2.
#19 is just another generalization. how interesting
“In return, Stone and I have deepened a respect for each other (I hope)…… ”
You are correct Mr. Monk. Now if we can only get you to paint your war wagon another color.
“First off…
YOU @!#$%^&*(*&^%$ BASTARDS!!!!!
Did anybody pick up the phone???
Noooooooooooooooo!! ”
Don’t worry Monk. The next time I am in your neck of the woods we will hook up for a few brown pops.
All this talk about “wing nuts,” “RINOs,” and “moderates” drives me nuts. The REAL litmus test ought to be whether you are willing to support the MOST ELECTABLE Republican candidate even if you don’t agree with him/her on every issue (that means even the big ones).
I just commented about this in my Brian Moran post at TC. Those I refer to often as wingnuts bitch and moan about that constantly here and at TC. So I put up a post skewering ultra-lib Brian Moran and no one comments. For all the talk about how we should be bashing the Dems instead, where’s the pile-on on Moran?
Joe – A good time, and a good discussion.
Monk – No harm intended – this was pretty impromptu (Besides – I like to spread out collecting beer debts).
Wolverine – A fine and thoughtful post. Everyone should stand by their beliefs, but neither should we stop being introspective about what we believe. Joe’s post referred to me as a “moderate,” and while I have no issue with that label, I would prefer to tag myself as a pragmatist. I am inclined to believe that often times the very best solutions are those that leave both sides of the debate feeling somewhat, or perhaps entirely uncomfortable.
That said, I would reiterate that one should never compromise his or her “social conscience.” Not surprisingly, I agree with your stated positions almost uniformly.
I think that the problem before us is that people have become so strident in their views, that it has become entirely acceptable to marginalize (or attempt to marginalize) those who have a different view or perspective, without giving them the benefit of an honest hearing. If the starting point in any debate is, “I can’t hear you,” or, “I don’t care what you think,” we all lose. No one person, or group, or party for that matter has obtained a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. That’s why we must all attempt (as difficult as it may be at times) to keep listening.
“For all the talk about how we should be bashing the Dems instead, where’s the pile-on on Moran?”
We don’t like picking on the defenseless.
Common Idiot,
Most electable according to whom? The NYT’s said that the idiot from AZ was the most electable Republican. He lost with a bigger margin than anything seen in years.
The focus is not about electability, it is about principles. Principles will get you elected. Reagan HAD principles that where radioactive to the 70’s press, and he kicked *ss and took names on election day.
THANK YOU Jacob, electable smectable, McCain is the perfect example.
I do have to mention that McCain was outspent 4 to 1, which gives me hope for the future. Principles and good fundraising is a winning combination.
Yeah, except in most ways Reagan was more liberal than McCain. How soon you forget!
The problem is that you guys have turned so hard to the right that you’re not anywhere near anyone any more. You need to moderate or pretty soon the only states you’ll win are Mississippi and Utah. Maybe Idaho. Maybe.
Here’s the facts guys:
* You had Reagan who was not nearly as socially conservative as you seem to remember. He won because he talked trash to Russia. And we had Carter .
* You got Bush I, hardly a “true conservative” who won against a lousy opponent.
* We got Clinton, twice.
* The majority of the country wanted Gore, but you guys won 5-4.
* Bush squeaked by again because we were in the middle of a trumped up war.
* People are in full-blown “buyer’s remorse” about Bush so even a black unknown kicked your guy’s ass.
How in the hell do you figure you’re even in the game any more? You were 528 votes away from having dems for 20 straight years.
Since you have your heads so far up your rears, your only hope, and I mean only, is that the Dems do something really stupid. If they govern anywhere near the middle for the next 8 years, it won’t matter what kind of candidates you have.
You may want to read up a little more on your history, there, Sanity. The 1988 and 2004 elections were each decided by a good bit more than 528 votes. Hard to believe, I know … but it’s true.
Add in the Perot factor in 1992 and it’s frankly a bit of a miracle anybody younger than 40 would have even the slightest familiarity with the concept of an actual Democrat president. But for a quirk of history, it could have been Roosevelt, Truman, Carter, Obama as the entire Democrat roster.
Oh, Kennedy too, of course
Sanity,
I forget nothing, you are just engaged in wishful thinking. Reagan was far from a fiscal liberal like Bush. Go read what WFB said on the matter.
As for the social conservatism, he was socially conservative, I think you beleive that conservative means ‘gay bashing’ or someting.
Reagan would be a RINO to many of these people. Spare me all the BS about McCain – ANY Republican candidate was doomed this year because of the miserable performance of GWB. Reagan succeeded in large part to his sunny optimism. I have yet to see that in evidence of many current “conservative” leaders. Most of them come across as grouches.
LI,
1. Name one prominent current conservative who wold call Reagan a RINO.
2. Obama is an empty suit, with speaking skills. The Democrat party should have picked sHrillery, instead they picked Mr Feelgood. This should have given the Republican a shot. Yes, GWB is an problem, but that could have been overcome.
3. McCain ran a lousy campaign …
a. could not raise 1/5 of what Obama did
b. his BEST speech was at the press club in NYC, otherwise he was flat
c. he totally blew it on the bank bail out, 700B without strings, he should have called for a better package, not agree with GWB
d. Obama kept linking McCain to GWB, a smart campaign would have linked Obama to his pastor, his real estate partner, and his boss at the Annandale foundation
e. ACORN?!?
f. McCain never got over SC in 2000. He spent the next 7 years kicking conservatives, he should have made a real effort to reconsile with the Republican base, the very social conservatives you love to hate. Instead he went after moderates, and lost
4. There was WAY more to Reagan than ’sunny optimism’, while I am not advocating a grouchiness, this is shallowness writ large.
Common Idiot,
“The REAL litmus test ought to be whether you are willing to support the MOST ELECTABLE Republican candidate even if you don’t agree with him/her on every issue (that means even the big ones).”
Not just no but HELL NO! I’ve already had a discussion with someone about compromising principles. The times may change but your principles should not. If it is what you believe in what do you accomplish with electability? When the people refuse to give in to fads and empty promises, politicians will turn into civil servants. I may not get the candidate that I want but once in a lifetime but when I do, it makes the rest of the time livable!
Thank you again Jacob, I had a response to LI on “Reagan is a RINO” and his optimism and it read eerily similar to yours, but I got annoyed and deleted the whole damn thing.
So basically, thanks for typing out my thoughts.
Great posts Joe and Wolverine.
As for Reagan=RINO… Sorry, I had to pick myself off the floor from my laughing. Reagan was a conservative across the board. I know of not a liberal view in him. Perhaps you are confusing him with his wife, or perhaps his son by the same name…
“Since you have your heads so far up your rears, your only hope, and I mean only, is that the Dems do something really stupid. If they govern anywhere near the middle for the next 8 years, it won’t matter what kind of candidates you have.”
You mean like maybe Iran, or perhaps talking about “economic malaise” when we had 20% interest rates and 13% unemployemet? Or maybe you remember someone by the name Lewinsky? Had Algore actually been elected, remember he did lose the Electoral College vote, which is how we Constitutionally elect our President, he would have screwed up as well, just like every other Dem President since I can remember.
Reagan was once a Democrat, remember? At certain Republican conventions that would get RR tossed as a delegate by some. If you think you are going to win a majority of the electorate like this, you are out of your minds.
You can debate all you want about whether Reagan was truly conservative or not. However, I can tell what I saw in him: determination and decisiveness. For four long years under Carter, we fought a silent battle against nasty foes with the proverbial one arm tied behind our backs. From DAY ONE, Reagan unloosed those bonds and sent us back to that front with what we really needed: the full backing and support of the C-in-C. That for us was a whole world of difference.
Bush I, although not quite so adept as Reagan, pursued the same policy; and I can guarantee you that there are Americans walking around today who, although they may not realize it, owe their very lives to those two men. And then came Clinton. And then came the shackles again. You saw the results in the late 1990’s and beyond. After 9-11, Bush II tossed those shackles into the trash can. Let us hope that Obama imitates his Republican predecessors in this regard and not his Democrat forerunners.
My problem with “support the most electable” is that the sentiment is become a Democrat, stop being a Republican. Either the Republican party stands for principles, or there is no need for a Republican party. The Democrats are the party of no principles … they change their tune to be all inclusive so much they have nothing on which they stand other than what is popular at the moment.
I find both parties worrying too much about “winning” and not worrying about doing what is true truth. Neither party wants to say this is truth and it cannot change. Both just want power. This is not a plan for good government, it is a plan for tyranny.
LI, Reagan was a Democrat in the 40’s, and as he said – the Party left him. If we keep up with the “pick the most electable” and ignoring the principles of the Conservative movement, we will continue to lose people – because the Party has left them.
Please name me one issue Reagan was a so called “RINO” on.
L.I.,
Having been a Democrat and then becoming a Republican does not a RINO make. The party of Jefferson has drifted ever leftward both socially and economically. When Clinton declared he was a ‘new’ Democrat in the mold of Truman, many believed him, and where excited that a Democrat in the old mold had emerged.
A tad off topic; but I just read a recent quote from Joe Biden on the subject of counterterrorism: “…the way in which we have conducted our policy in terms of surveillance as well as the detainees has hurt our reputation around the world.”
Thats an “oh-oh” moment, folks. Our reputations or our lives. We had all better hope that Obama returns the vice-presidency to its once traditional role as a “bucket of warm spit.”