Saturday, December 10, 2005

Musings on the Conservative vs GOP "debate"

As y'all might surmise, I've been busy elsewhere.

However, I do have thoughts about the "conservatism" versus "GOP" arguments. And boy have I come across some plug-ugly nasty so-called "conservatives". If their argumentation style is representative of conservatism, then, no thanks.

Here's the rub for both "parts" -- each can sound too much like liberals in their "we support the troops but not the war".

And that's the nexus the Dems are counting on.

Unfortunately for the "conservatives", many of their group have been infiltrated by "special interest groups" and "cells".

Is there a way through this?

Yes. Keep your eyes on the GOP.

2 comments:

Rastus said...

As someone who falls, I suppose, generally in the Christian socially conservative/economic libertarian corner of the room, please allow me to toss in my two pennies.

It seems to me that the problem here isn't so much to do with this war, whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, genius or misguided. The wisdom of the so-called war on terror is a discussion that can stand on its own. It, like all wars, also isn't something that can be judged according to the day-to-day news feed. Wars aren't like that; they ebb and flow. Their wisdom or foolishness only appears clearly in the light of history. We won't have an inkling of how wise this one was until at least mid-century. To debate the future of conservatism, a philosophical approach to overall governance, in the context of an ongoing war is therefore foolish in the extreme.

What the debate SHOULD be about is where the party is going overall, and what exactly does constitute conservatism in general. That can certainly include a discussion of what criteria should, in the future, be used to determine when there is justification for engaging an enemy, and under what circumstances, but it should never engage in second guessing.

More importantly, and something everyone seems to have forgotten, just like they've forgotten the rest of the Constitution, why not stop fighting amongst ourselves and simply obey that esteemed document and disallow the president from committing troops to a war without a formal declaration of war from Congress? In the present partisan debate, Congress would not only have the authority to rescind any declaration of war and direct the president to seek a peace treaty, but all the voters would know precisely where his senators and representatives stood on the issue.

To me, I can't think of anything more conservative than that.

Alia said...

Excellent post, Rastus. I agree.