Are conservatives still welcome in the GOP?
Conservatives are uninterested in politicians who do not behave conservatively with regard to fiscal issues, the ability to advocate prioritization in the midst of required difficult funding trade-offs, or who abdicate the optimistic embrace of and faith in a people who can build their own prosperity and opportunities without a consistent level of high subsidy and regulation from its governments.
We don't need additional GOP politicians who can give progressive support to leftists that simply want their way lest they throw a tantrum, shut various government services down, and blame it on the conservative opponent.
Rather, the demographic that would support a conservative candidate is looking for conservative behavior. And that behavior wants spending reductions rather than tax increases - as we already take in trillions in revenue per year.
Conservatives want government run much more efficiently, and thus the meager faux cuts of the Sequester ought to be directed to that objective and then increased!
But most of all, conservatives are looking for courage, principle, and judgement.
When fiscal conservatives split to a third alternative, the progressive opponent wins - witness Bill Clinton's win over George H. W. Bush as a result of Ross Perot's candidacy.
Thus, their strategy is to slowly convert the existing GOP. Seems to be working, regarding judgment conversion. Can the GOP win with that? Questionable. But the electorate already has a progressive alternative. We don't need two.
It is the progressive element that would like the GOP to split into mainstream and conservative versions. That would be a great outcome for them, of course.
It seems to me that the only folks who really believe the GOP is dysfunctional are the progressives. Clear eyes don't see any real compromise coming from the Democratic side - only demonization.
The GOP should stick with principle, and they've been elected to move us toward fiscal responsibility.
Fiscal responsibility is not defined as "raise the limit on the credit card." Rather, it is characterized by prioritization, and a move to efficiency. It also cannot at all be defined as supportive of Obamacare, which is an employment destroyer, makes our total health care more expensive, reduces choice, etc.
I support fiscal conservatives as qualified to lead the nation. There are some in the GOP, but too few. I have no idea where they can be found in the Democratic party. So, we have obvious strategic challenges, with very little qualified leadership, and an electorate that for the most part probably in a poor position to be able to pick that leadership.
The name of the game, however, should be qualified fiscal leadership, rather than qualified popularity winner. That's a tough one, I admit.
In our current system, once winning an election on principle occurs, re-election pretty much becomes a popularity contest again. Why? Well, check out the brief Tea Party (approx.) history. They won a bunch in 2010. Then, several abdicated their principles in order to get re-elected.
So eventually, the human beast, both politician and electorate, being what it is, we have to realize that self-interest, which drives the market economy nicely when there are a few rules, doesn't drive politics very well, when all the rules can be ignored, remade, or wished for publicly but never delivered.
Parties are like religion. Folks cling to those too, long after they have begun to feel disaffected by them. And yet, the faithful can be brought along through an evolution. Why split the GOP rather than evolve it? Especially since splitting it will only give the opposition we recoil from quite a bit of power for quite a very long time - long enough in fact to addict a majority to the nanny's teat?
The Tea Party didn't exist before the unchained liberal left, possessing temporary and bare undivided government, indulged in an orgy of progressive transformational excess. They arose and organized as the natural response to that monumental liberal arrogance that lost almost all it sought except a very bad healthcare law that it rammed without a single Republican vote and in the teeth of resistance by about half the country. And they elected a House majority in response with a very simple charge: stop the liberals dead.
You can find Jacksonian ideals across a very broad swath of America, and I'd even own to seeing them in a lot of the liberals, and certainly they're the backbone of Tea Party convictions.
But that's not what caused the Tea Party to rise. Obamacare caused it to rise, a failed cap-and-trade initiative caused them to rise, vastly excessive and unconstitutional regulation caused them to arise, a creeping, non-stop assault on personal liberty justified by abuse of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses caused them to arise.
A vision of America consisting of dependent people consuming entitlements paid for not by all of us collectively but by a small slice of us caused the Tea Party to arise. But mostly monumental liberal hubris that regards its convictions as revealed knowledge delivered from a burning bush caused them to arise.
And those whom they elected are fit for nothing but doing what they were elected to do: stop progressives dead. They're extremely good at this, and very successful at it. We shouldn't blame them for being world-class at precisely what they were elected to do.
But there are a lot of people in this country who support them, and our broken governance will not be fixed by business "switching sides". It will be fixed by a recognition by liberals that they are not going to get solely what they want, that they are not going to transform America into some sink of dependency on the backs of a thin slice of us, and that they must negotiate a middle-ground.
I negotiate all the time with people I might not agree with -- I won't even require that they change their absurd notions. But for us to move forward, they will acknowledge that half the country, and the most dependent half at that, will not call the tune for all of Americans living today and for our children.
Conservatives are trying to prevent the economic collapse of the country by encouraging fiscal sanity via entitlement reform and deficit reduction. Are conservatives the only group of Americans that recognize that regardless of your political affiliation as Americans we all share the same dollar? If our dollar becomes worthless, what happens next to our economy?
The federal government borrows money to pay its bills thereby adding more debt that will incur more interest incurring more deficits incurring more debt. When this vicious cycle ends, America will cease being a great economic power.
We cannot afford to spend a trillion more than we make. We cannot afford to make half the country (or more) increasingly dependent on government. We cannot sustain this nation by widening the welfare state and making our taxes increase and become even more complicated. Stupid, complicated systems like this tend to collapse under their own burdensome weight.
Math will win this debate in the long run. Conservatives are fed up with our out of control government spending and ever increasing nanny state. Who can blame us for being angry? I am. Aren't you?