From: stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:23:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca>, chrisf@brtph316.bnr.ca (Chris Fulmer) writes:
> In article <1gt8g0INNb4l@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> |> [...]
> |> Talk about seeing what you want to see.  In 1992 the Republicans did 
> |> terrible in the voting booth, but they did an excellent job of demonstrating
> |> clear ideological differences between the two parties.  [...]
> 
> Well...
> 
>   What happened this year was that George Bush's presidency was not marked
> by conservativism, but rather by moderatism.  (Remember Pat Buchanan's cry 
> that Bush had "Betrayed the Republican Party"?)  Reagan's, on the other
> hand, was clearly conservative, and (despite what current revisionists would
> say) he ended up as one of the most popular presidents in history.

It is my honest contention that Bush's presidency was marked more by
complacency (toward the domestic economy) than any of the above issues.  The
majority of Americans don't particularly base their vote on what happened at
either of the Conventions.

>   The campaign is the thing that more-or-less tried to paint Bush as a 
> true conservative.  The party conservatives: Quayle & Kemp, for example,
> managed to interject some conservative issues, Family Values being one 
> of them.  However, the campaign itself see-sawed between portraying
> Bush as a moderate and as a conservative.  The result was a mixed 
> message of a wishy-washy president who didn't really stand for anything.

First off, although both Quayle and Kemp could be considered more on the right
than Bush, Quayle and Kemp are two completely different kind of conservative
republicans.  Kemp is more pragmatic than Quayle, and holds beliefs that have
close similarities to those of the Libertarian party.  Quayle, on the other
hand, is primarily interested in relaying conservative social anticdotes on the
American public.  Comparing Kemp with Quayle is like comparing William F.
Buckley with Beaver Cleaver.

I agree that Bush tried to have it both ways, and didn't get away with it.  But
what hurt Bush the most was that he wasn't telling the American people "what he
would do for the country, what his mandate is" as much as he was saying "Don't
vote for my opponent, you can't trust him."  Well, a lot of Americans in fact
took George's advice, and voted for Perot.  Bush needed to say "This is what I
stand for, vote for me."

>   Rush said a few days ago that people like somebody who stands for
> something, and when they try to "moderate" their beliefs, it doesn't
> come off quite right.  LBJ & his "great society" programs are an example.
> Bush lost because in part because it was never really clear what he
> actually stood for.

No argument here.

>   The advantage of this for conservatives is that solid conservatism
> is where we've come from, so it sound vaguely familiar and wholesome --
> Family Values, Small Government, Praying in school, etc....  I don't 
> think that there'll be much disagreement that "Traditional" family 
> values are disappearing, or that government is getting bigger.

Wait a minute... maybe you can use say those three things in one breath
(Family Values, Small Government, Praying in School) without a problem, but I
see a blatant contradiction here.  If the GOP are going to impose their beliefs
on the American people through the devices of Family Values and Prayer in
School, then I call that BIG GOVERNMENT.  It's government ON the people's
backs, not OFF.  There is a festering inconsistency here that republicans have
made an art of glossing over.  I have argued in another thread that the R party
really loves big government and won't admit it.  There are several facts I
could state to back this up... the R party's stance on abortion, the imposing
of their "family values" on the rest of us who happen to live in a
constitutionally plural society (separation of church & state), various other
social issues, the protection of and catering to the wealthy and the corporate
interests, and the biggest festering contradiction of all -- the shrinking of
the private sector (small business) and the unprecedented growth of government
jobs during the last 12 years.  The R party secretly LOVES BIG GOVERNMENT and
they've done it better than the D party.

>   The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
> Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
> Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
> result are kinda scary.

Oh dear, it appears you were not a history major in college.  You might want to
study a little of it to get a more balanced perspective on the above
assertions.  Homosexuals have been around since time immemorial, they weren't
suddenly invented by some evil liberal conspiracy.  Homosexuals fighting for
their rights has occurred in societies throughout history, and many societies
around the world do not have the same draconian social belief system still
pervasive here in America.  Many of civilization's first great philosophers,
particularly the Greeks, were homosexuals.  As for "obscene" art, that debate
has been going on since the Dark Ages and even further beyond.  I believe
Michaelangelo and DiVinci were not exactly seen in their time as conformists. 
They have only become revered in the art world in retrospect; during their
time, they were considered heretics by the powers that be.  And as for the flag
burning issue, it is again one of those "slippery slope" issues (like the
banning of 'obscene' art) which goes against the very nature of the
constitution -- the issue of the protection of FREE SPEECH.  Many republicans
would like to define for the rest of us what is acceptible free speech and what
is not.

Glen Stegner
University of Colorado at Boulder
stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh