An interesting piece from the Economist talks about the Delay indictment and the growing split in the Republican Party about the direction the party should go. The article brought up five areas where many conservatives are on the verge of revolting against the White House.


Questions for Debate: Is a section of the Republican Party likely to revolt against the White House now that Bush is in his second term? Which side represents true conservatives?

Within the text of your opening post question are some very important issues. But, you have shrouded it all within a debate of labels. The issues are important. The labels take away from the importance of the issues. Labels are for ad men and charlatans. Labels mean nothing. Labels present a blanket description for people which rarely rings true. Labels are disingenuous. The discussion of the important issues would be a real and important debate.

I don't think a "revolt" is likely, as you point out, there are two sides to every issue. It is where the party leadership choses to find the median, and what compromises are made, that will make the party successful or make it fail.

The divides are at least as deep within the Democrat party, although I like to think us elephants are more reasonable, read less "militant", than the donkeys. I can't imagine trying to hold together the Jewish vote, which is traditionally Democrat, with the likes of their maiden, Cindy, and her ilk publicly putting the Jews only behind GW as the world's greatest enemy. Us Republicans have it easy

As far as who is a "true conservative". I guess I'm nearly a Geri-Conservative, as opposed to a neo. My view is anything that reduces the impact of the Federal government is conservative. This means less regulation, less spending. As far as I'm concerned, things actually work better when the Congress and Presidency are split. When the federal government is paralysed the people win. Let the states decide if the want to spend money, and let them tax to do it. The populace will let them know when they've had enough. The Feds should stick to defense, foreign policy, and infrastructure. By infrastructure I mean things that impact interstate or international commerce, not a dog path in a park in Idaho (Nothing against Idaho! ). Nation building, to the extent that one feels it will make us more secure, would qualify under "defense" and "foreign policy" in my view. Each case is individual and open to debate on it's own merits. It worked quite well in Japan Post-WWII, and to a lesser extent in Europe under the Marshall Plan. As for things like education, why should we blame Washington if Joey or Jane can't read after they get out of school? Isn't there a school board? Why aren't they held accountable? As for religion, again the place for it is local, as in the home and Church, should one choose. The Feds should neither endorse, nor impede.

Agreed. I guess what I'm getting at is which side is correct, and which side will win out in 2008?

All 5 of those issues are things that I have generally disagreed with the administration on. To me a conservative is small government(which means anti-Washington lobbiest), doesn't interfere in people's private lives, and is pro-economic growth(or pro-business). As for manifest destiny or whatever, I'm torn. We used to be a very hands off country in terms of foreign conflicts. It's a major investment and risk the path that has been chosen in the Middle East. But then again, it could work and as the world superpower perhaps we have some obligation.

I think that true conservatives are fed up and will push hard in the '08 primary to win the nomination. Sadly, I think they'll lose. McCain or Rudy look strong now, but the money will go to some Lobby loving tool bag that the media will annoint as the chosen one.

This is a topic thaat I have had continual discussion with conservatives and liberals alike. I see a huge rift in the Republican Party and it is articulated very well in this Economist article. I am a conservative who is deeply troubled by the power of the hard right in our party and how their influence is going unchecked by more moderates or non-religious conservatives. From the labels shown, I would consider myself a small government, insurgent, and business conservative of doubt. When it comes to being traditional v neo-con...the line is a little hazy. I much prefer to stick to the traditional mindset in world politics...but i do believe tht the spreading of democracy would have a positive affect on entire regions. So call me what you will.

The GOP at this point in time are pandering to the hard right for votes instead of doing what is consistent with the conservative agenda set out by House Republicans in the early 90s. Bush's policies have increased the federal bureacracy immensely and has done little to cut unnecessary programs. His immigration policy along with all the other politicians in Washington is abysmal and threatens our national security. But even with that, we are having amazing growth so perhaps he is doing something right. He dropped the ball with social security letting the Dems frame the debate, but scored big points with the Roberts success.

When it comes to the '06 and '08 elections, i am not going to lie, i think that the GOP may lose ground in Congress. And the presidential election is still too early to call. But i definately see a rift in the party between the more moderate conservatives (in comparison with evangelical republicans) and the hard right. The party needs a strong leader like Mccain or Giuliani to take the party down the correct path. I think either of these men with the other as VP (or Powell as VP which would be a VERY good ticket) would be very formidable against any Dem ticket.

It's going to be a fight, no doubt about it. I just don't want to see a party i support to be 'corrupted' into something it should not be.

TheocracyWatch.org (which now appears to be defunct) did a great job of exposing the religious right's influence upon the Republican party. Frankly, reading that site gave me chills.

I believe that both parties have certain deep divides. However, the pro-social-control religious conservatives vs. the anti-social-control economic conservatives seems to me to be the biggest divide within the Republican ranks.

I think (pray) that the religious conservatives are going to burn themselves out. More precisely, I think they are inspiring serious opposition that will become organized and will fight against them.

If you look at the polls (www.pollingreport.com) you will see that the more centrist candidates are nearly always more popular with the people.

I think that the revolt has started. Look at this last round of Senate votes. Even when the President was pushing for spending cuts Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, and Lincoln Chafee all voted with the Democrats to force a 50-50 tie on already dimmed down budget cuts. The big government Patriot Act was filibustered and eventually extended by 6 months thanks to Larry E. Craig (Idaho), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Sununu (NH). Drilling in Alaska? Shot down. And the anti-torture amendment stays on the defence bill. Not to mention that the Social Security overhaul has not gotten off of the ground. The leadership has wisely made some compromises, but they have also sustained some losses on both sides of the President's agenda.

And pretty much every person you mentioned is treated horribly by the right wing- and in fact- most say that they are Rino's anyway-

There is no such thing as an economic conservative in the republican party with any real power right now- and even the spending cuts are window dressing- and even worse- only target programs for the poor and have no effect on the budget whatsoever as far as any real progress to reign in spending-

The #1 area were REAL savings can be found is to stop the bleeding of money to Iraq- I find it ironic that the <ahem> republican conservatives want to cut money to American programs while funding essentially the same programs in Iraq- we don't have enough money for schools, health care or infrastructure here- but we seem to have billions to be able to spend on the same items in Iraq!

Now- how is that a conservative ideal?

The most whacky change is this idea that "tax and spend is bad, borrow and spend is good" mentality in the republican party we have today. Definately NOT a conservative ideal now- is it? If so, things have REALLY "flip flopped" in the republican party.

In reality- the religious right owns the republican party, lock, stock and barrel. There is no way that the republican party can fix that- Reagan gave them the power as his price for admission to the white house- and it has been downhill every since.

The only place for a fiscal conservative now is the Democratic party or libertarian party- period.

The fact that GW doesn't even count the "iraq budget" in the regular budget tells how far we have come from being what a conservative USED to mean vs what it means today.

I will go so far as to say that the #1 threat to freedom in the US is the republican party-

every single bill passed in the last 8 years is either :

1) a boondogle entitlement program designed to mollify religious right -ers (NCLB, vouchers etc

or

2) something designed to limit rights of citizens: Patriot act, anti-gay marriage and on and on and on.

Not one bill designed to limit goverment into private lives- all bills designed to restrict freedom.

I guess that is what conservatism means today- spend all you want on foriegn countries- while decrying the same spending on our own spending.

Cry about big goverment- while inflicting it on poeple with different belief systems than you- even though there is no harm whatsoever to you by thier behaivor.

I fear conservatives and the republican party's assault on freedom and thier attempt to "talibanize" America far more than any terrorist organization or Saddam or foriegn power- those folks simply don't have the ability to harm me like GW and the party of Reagan post 1980 has. Almost every abuse of power in this nation- confiscation laws, massive ramping up of the drug war and all it's abuses etc etc- can be laid at the feet of conservatives today.

Barry Goldwater would be a libertarian or Democrat today- they are the only hope now for a free America.

CR. What is it about the Democrats that make you think that they deserve the fiscal conservative vote? I believe that all but 2 Democrats in the Senate voted against the budget cuts.

I'm with JLMA here CR...Democrats are not fiscal conservatives...Simply not being a Republican doesn't make you a fiscal conservative. If you can give any evidence that the Democratic Party, if given control of the House and Senate would be fiscally conservative, fine, if not, then saying they would is baseless...Now, to the questions at hand.


If it can be done, it must be done by the small government conservatives and the government doubters. Most people don't believe in a strong federal government and I can't imagine that people enjoy being told what is right and wrong by the government...So I think those two groups would most appeal to real conservatives.

CP

Um- how about Clinton- you know, paying down deficit- stuff that no republican has attempted?

What about it?

So okay, Clinton talked fical responsibility...So surely that means, becasue one Democratic president decided to TALK about balancing the budget, that means that the whole party is the last beacon for fiscal conservatism...Please, in the words of Bill Engvall, "Evil Kinieval couldn't have made that jump".

One man's lip service [and maybe some token effort] does not make up for the whole party. Just because Bill Clinton did something once doesn't mean the Dems are fiscally responsible.

CP

What about him? He simply passed a bunch of Republican legislation. This is well documented. What's your point? Never mind, rhetorical question.

On to the actual topic of debate....


There are no big government conservatives, per se. There are those who favor strong defense and security measures, which, in the recent administration, has led to large increases in budget and governmental employees. I'm curious...who is actually against improvements in these areas?



Conservatives of doubt? Stupid term. Wonder what side of this one the author fell on? Other than that, this does sound like a valid potential issue.



As I said above, there are no big government conservatives. (which doesn't mean there aren't plenty of big government Republicans)



How is this different from the second item? I don't think it is...but, as with the other, I do think it is a valid facet to describe differing conservative views.


Good question! Here's your answer....perhaps because they believe that transforming the region now is better than transforming it later.

Questions for Debate: Is a section of the Republican Party likely to revolt against the White House now that Bush is in his second term? Which side represents true conservatives?

Second question first...for me, there is only one true definition of conservative, and that is someone who favors smaller federal goverment. These other facets here might represent different factions within the Republican party, but that doesn't mean they're conservative movements. The author makes a fallacious assumption, although one I'm sure the GOP would strongly encourage...that being that the Republican party is conservative. In many ways, this is hardly the case. So, to define conservatism by examining facets of the current Republican party is not a valid approach. The same would be true if one were to try to define liberalism by examining the different facets of the Democratic party. So, the question isn't really is the Republican party conservative. The question is, knowing that it's not, where does a conservative cast their vote? This is what might cause a real split in the party. If enough conservatives decide that the Republican party is indeed not the best place to cast their vote, and there are indeed many reasons why that might happen, and in great enough numbers to sway the next election, then that would be the revolt to watch out for. It's not really whether any of the groups the author mentions might win influence....its what those who lose out might then do that matters.

To the extent that I accept the term "conservative" to describe myself, it's only with "Goldwater" in front of it. Otherwise, I prefer "Old Whig", "classical liberal" or simply "strict construction constitutionalist."

• Small-government conservatives v big-government conservatives. .

I'm with the small government folks.

• Conservatives of faith v conservatives of doubt.

That strikes me as a strange dichotomy, being a person of faith who also believes the federal government should avoid interfering in people's private lives. That's because I believe God gave us free will for a reason, and that one deserves praise for virtuous behavior only if it is freely chosen.

• Insurgent conservatives v establishment conservatives.

I'm a "hostile to Washington" kind of conservative, if I am one at all.

• Business conservatives v religious conservatives.

Again, a rather odd dichotomy. I'm religious and a conservative of sorts, but not a religious conservative, but neither do I especially identify with business interests, except those of small business. I want to see strict constructionists appointed to the Supreme Court because for me the integrity of the Constutition is paramount, and IMO that's what best assures it, but I'm for stem cell research.

• Neo-conservatives v traditional conservatives.

Government is very fallible, but even so freedom and democracy are powerful ideas, and I'm not at all sure the entire Middle East can't eventually be won over to them. It's also possible that Bush and company are overreaching. Time will tell. My own inclinations in foreign policy are hawkish but not neo-con interventionist: rather a blend of the best of Robert Taft, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, which makes me a very traditional conservative on at least that issue.

Questions for Debate: Is a section of the Republican Party likely to revolt against the White House now that Bush is in his second term? Which side represents true conservatives?

Hmm. Some of the recent instances of Congressional Republicans straying haven't represented insurgent conservatives at all, but rather people who are truly RINOs.


RINOs all, liberal Republicans, not remotely the type of insurgent conservatives the Economist piece outlines.


Wisely or not, and I have my doubts, that does represent libertarian concerns.

As to whether "real conservatives" will be able to take back the party, from the currently powerful neo-conservatives and religious conservatives? I'm not optimistic in the short term, but I prefer even the current GOP leadership to anything the Democrats are showing me.

Although McCain or Giuliani would be strong in the general election, I don't see either of them having much of a shot at winning the nomination. McCain is too much of a maverick for the base, and Giuliani too much of a social liberal. I think Rice is more probable - though she doesn't want to run, the Dick Morris scenario in which she's drafted as the only one able to beat Hillary seems to me increasingly likely.

I suggest those of us who work with the GOP should join and support the Republican Liberty Caucus, aka the libertarian Republican faction. At the same time, I also support the Libertarian Party, but am deeply unhappy with their current dovish direction on foreign policy, which why I was unable to bring myself to pull the lever for Badnarik last time around.

I'm a small-government conservative, I think the government is trying to do too much for too many and is doing most of it badly. We've gotten to the point where people expect the government to coddle them at every turn, and that's something that both the democrats and the Bushites are promoting.



Strictly a conservative of doubt here. I want the government out of people's private lives entirely, it's none of their business. Society should shape civic virtue, not the government.



I really don't care one way or the other, I'm not much of a fan of political goodies regardless of where they lie. There are far too many political pork projects already, we don't need any more.



Strictly a business conservative here. Religion has far too much power in this country, especially since it gives absolutely nothing back. Fundamentalist Christianity is going to be the ruin of the United States if something isn't done to slap these people down from their lofty political goals.



Neo-conservatives are not conservatives, sorry. They're the mutant offspring of religion and the control-freaks. The only rational, intelligent conservatism is traditional, small-government, personal responsibility conservatism.



It would be nice, but far too many Republicans vote without thinking. If the GOP says it, they do it, no matter how stupid it is, and of course, the Democrats are the same way. Luckily, Bush can only do so many stupid things before people start to notice, and with his approval rating under 40%, last I heard, hopefully people will start to stand up and realize that there are idiots in the White House and we need a fundamental change in the way we allow government to operate.

I doubt it though.