The American Spectator : The Hundred Year GOP War

Text Size

The Hundred Year GOP War

By Jeffrey Lord on 1.10.12 @ 6:09AM

Centennial of first conservative-moderate GOP presidential fight -- a final winner in 2012?

(Page 3 of 4)

If progressivism is deathly sick, moderate Republicanism is dying.

Take a look at the 12 presidential election returns separating that famous 1912 opening battle from 1964 and the rise of the conservative movement. Of those races, moderates were nominated ten times, conservatives twice. Of those ten races with a moderate as the nominee only three -- three! -- resulted in victory. Those three would be Hoover's 1928 run and Eisenhower's 1952 and 1956 victories. The Eisenhower victories, it should be noted, were due in considerable part to the moderate Ike's status as a hero general of World War II. The two conservatives nominated -- Warren Harding in 1920 and Calvin Coolidge in 1924 -- won both their races in a landslide.

This would suggest that as the progressive movement erupted, peaked, and began to level off and finally start a long slow fade in popularity as the bills financially and governmentally came due (continually rising taxes, growing government etc.) -- the popularity of moderate Republicans was fading with it. The popularity of conservatives was always there -- waiting for rediscovery.

Voters to whom liberalism appealed wanted the real deal, not the cheap imitation. Harding and Coolidge, who have received an enormous historical trashing at the hands of liberal historians, were in their day not just popular but popular for a reason: their conservative economic policies brought stunning success, aka: The Roaring Twenties. As moderate Republicans presented themselves as FDR-lite, as candidate Nixon stood on the stage of the TV debates with John Kennedy and said the two were in essential agreement on many issues, voters balked.

At its height of popularity, from roughly the advent of FDR's New Deal in 1932 -- to the beginning of the return of the GOP to its grass roots in the 1960s -- all manner of moderate Republicans flourished at the non-presidential federal level and in statehouses. The names were household in the day: George Norris, Margaret Chase Smith, Earl Warren, Thomas Kuchel, Hugh Scott, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Edward Brooke, George Romney (father of Mitt), Mark Hatfield, Arlen Specter and so on with a list that is decidedly incomplete.

Not only have these people inevitably vanished from the scene for reasons of age, they have gone mostly un-succeeded as moderate ranks have shrunk.

Again, there is a reason.

To take but one instance in my own Pennsylvania, there is a central reason why Pennsylvania's Republican Senator is now the conservative Pat Toomey and not the liberal Arlen Specter. Within the state rank and file, the base of the Pennsylvania GOP itself, the ideas that drove the success of moderates from Gifford Pinchot (yes, the man fired by Taft was twice elected as a Republican moderate governor of Pennsylvania), to William Scranton to Hugh Scott, John Heinz and Tom Ridge are now seen for what they, in fact, always have been. Attempts to make the liberal agenda palatable to Republicans by presenting them with a Republican face.

And as these ideas failed, Republicans in Pennsylvania -- now in the post-Reagan era much more conservative than they were when a Pinchot or Scranton or Specter were representing them -- simply grew weary of moderates. It should be remembered that the central reason Pennsylvania's Senator Arlen Specter switched parties in 2009 was that the GOP base, as reported in one poll after another, had simply had enough of the GOP moderate approach. Realizing defeat loomed within the GOP, Specter switched. Where he was beaten by a Democrat who was much more liberal -- and who lost to Toomey.

SO. WHAT DOES all this mean?

It means that the remaining moderates in the GOP who hope to have a presidential nomination will, if they survive competition for office in their own state, feel pressured to do exactly what Mitt Romney is accused of doing: flip-flopping. They were for abortion before they were against it. They were never Reagan Republicans until they realized the 40th president was in fact a political Sun King. And so on… and so on.

All of which is to say that if Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman ever do wind up as the GOP nominee and win the White House, there will be considerable battles ahead with their own party. When a President Romney says he wants to work with Harry Reid or a President Huntsman says he wants a deal with the Chinese -- the GOP base will be asking: why? Why not victory? Why not push ahead, take defeats if they come, and come back again and again?

And conservatives will say this for one reason, and one reason only.

After 100 years of battle inside the GOP between conservatives and moderates it is apparent to all that the conservatives have won. They won because of the intellectual fire power of their ideas. They won because of sheer persistence. They won because they had Ronald Reagan. And they won because that most basic commodity called political support has simply vanished for the ideas of moderates and "moderation" itself.

Will there be more skirmishes? Sure. Platform battles may break out at the Tampa Convention. The usual in-fighting in any administration will ruffle feathers if there is a moderate Republican in the Oval Office.

Page: < 1 23 4 >

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (150) | Leave a comment

Mr ED| 1.10.12 @ 6:36AM

A good history less perhaps, including everything but the fact that "Progressive" Republicanism is simply warmed-over Leftist ideology that posits the notion that it is up to "others" - usually self-appointed and self-styled "saviours" - to "fix" the poor and unsuccessful in society. More importantly, those fixes must focus exclusively on things external to the innocent helpless "victims", never on their own behaviours which lead inexorably to their situation. All solutions to the problems of the poor and unsuccessful lie outside the abilities of those poor and unsuccessful to implement themselves. Enter the notion of the "saviourist" government politician, heroically fighting the battles for that proverbial unsuccessful "little guy" and forcibly, at the point of a government gun, redistributing the wealth earned by the industrious and successful to the indolent, the addicted, and the aggrieved.

Hey, its a simple formula, but it works every time!

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:05AM

What a pile of hooey. Typical Jeff Lord nonsense. Ron Paul is tied with Obama in the latest CBS head to head poll. So is Willard Romney. Think how far ahead Ron would be if he had honest media coverage. He mentions 2 losers like Gingrich and Santorum but fails to mention the leader of the insurgents who is taking over the Republican party.

Ron Paul is the Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan of this generation. His ideas of peace and liberty are inspiring people all over the world. This election is coming down to the old guard and Mitt Romney vs the new young people of Ron Paul. No pro war, pro bankster Republican can win the general election. If Romney is the nominee. He will,have to make peace with us and take a lot of our program or he is toast. Either way the old order is finished.

L. Ross| 1.10.12 @ 7:59AM

Jack, just wondering. How early do you get up?

Moe Blotz| 1.10.12 @ 8:37AM

Later than Mr.ED and before you.

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:07AM

Paulifarians are more annoying than Jehovah's Witlesses.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 12:52PM

Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum are neocons who believe in the superiority of utopian socialism over capitalism. That simple.

Evangelical| 2.1.12 @ 5:49PM

Servants of Christ, lovers of God, abandon the wickedness of the RINO party! Scourge and purge the GOP of self-serving worldly Satan worshipping Moderate RINOs. Nothing in the Republican Party is beyond God, we shall vote for the Kingdom of God! Elect only fellow servants of Christ, goodly Evangelicals who love to PREACH THE WORD!

Jobe| 1.10.12 @ 2:09PM

Don't you think that Ron Paul's plans for foreign policy (a return to Washington and Adams) and the fear of what it would do to the energy problems that we have play into the shying away of many from Mr. Paul's campaign?

J.P. Travis| 1.12.12 @ 9:26PM

Jack, have you noticed at all that Ron Paul is older than dirt and sounds half-senile at times? The man will be 77 years old on Inauguration Day! He makes Ronal Reagan seem like a spring chicken. Get real.

CJM| 1.14.12 @ 5:22AM

JP Travis: Have you noticed that Ron Paul has greater knowledge about what ails America than you do? You may be younger than Ron Paul, but you are also showing everyone just how lethargic you are---perhaps you represent the couch potatoes and simply let your fingers do the walking when you wish to communicate!

Traditional Republican| 1.10.12 @ 9:05AM

I have watched all of the GOP debates and these candidates are even scaring the moderate Republicans. These guys are way to the right of the right wing. Here are some of the things they want to do if elected:

- Repeal the Healthcare Law enacted by Obama
- Send the troops back to Iraq
- Repeal Row vs. Wade
- Strike Iran and start another war
- Deny women the right to terminate a pregnancy
- and so on and on and on

None of the candidates, however, will ever set their foot in the White House. That's for sure.

With these pathetic GOP contenders, Obama could not possibly feel more smug about his serving another term.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 9:51AM

What's wrong with those issues? Notice that saying "terminate a pregnancy" sounds so much nicer than "killing a baby."
And why shouldn't we get rid of socialized medicine?
And why shouldn't we guarantee that Iraq doesn't go back to terrorists? After all, we've spent a lot of money and blood trying to set Iraq on the course of civilization rather than barbarism.

Obama has a lot of problems and as Dick Morris said, he is his own worst enemy.

Traditional Republican| 1.10.12 @ 10:03AM

"killing a baby"? A baby? Not!

When is a fetus (a blob of tissues) a "baby" pray tell?

Wildly emotional language undermines your comments.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 10:13AM

Truth-telling, what a concept....

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 10:25AM

What we might ask our Traditional republican (not) is how many must we sacrifice at the idol of the goddess "Choice" before our nation is jusdged? That's only one issue.

We must repeal Obie-care
We must end R v Wade
We must prevent a nuclear Iran (could have years ago)
He is wrong about going back to Iraq. Nation building is a failed policy; a wilsonian one. It is hard to see just what he thinks might distinguish republicand from democrats. Apparently he is no Conservative, but then many republicans are not. That is after all the jist of the article is it not?

This battle has been a long and hard one. The Conservative movement has been opposed by "traditional republicans" all along including Rockefeller, George Romney, Ford, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the list goes on. Yet only when Conservatrives preponderate does the GOP enjoy success. Still, they expect us to follow their moderate to defeat once again. Will we ever learn?

Traditional Republican| 1.10.12 @ 12:20PM

Traditional republicans are conservatives in the true sense of the word. Since the right wing (Reich Wing) has hi-jacked the party, we feel like outsiders.

No, I will not vote for Obama, and I will not vote for any of the Republican contenders. Obama is too liberal, and the Republican candidates are too right wing.

Call me a country club Republican if you like, but I think we traditional conservatives are more educated, more cultivated than the low-class, fundamentalist proles that now make up the party.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 12:38PM

You are not a conservative at all if you support abortionism. Educated? You can't even get the legal case right, calling it Row instead of Roe. And referring to Obamacare as Healthcare, or the Right as Reich, shows you're really a Democrat troll pretending to be a Republican or conservative. Go away....

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 12:57PM

Nice call.

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 12:56PM

If you will, traditional republicans are not Conservatives as they adhere to a tenent which believes in better management of government NOT in reducing its size. The GOP old guard has allowed incrementalism to change this nation into one with an activist government, one which regulates, one which disposes of others' wealth in ways IT deems appropriate. Maintaining ones' own elite status; padding ones' own nest is not the definition of Conservative.

MXLord327| 1.10.12 @ 2:17PM

Your views are neither "traditional" or "conservative."

Tooney| 1.10.12 @ 4:30PM

either or
neither nor

Grammatical errors galore! I can barely stomach the illitercy on this post.

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 7:01PM

Try the Daily Kos. Makes the head spin.

section9| 1.11.12 @ 8:00AM

The problem with your wing of the Party is that the only difference between you and Obama is the speed with which you drive towards the cliff of insolvency.

Wanting to be liked by liberals is not a way to go through life. Being feared by them is much healthier.

Jobe| 1.10.12 @ 2:16PM

Calling a fetus a "blob of tissues" is indicative of your room temperature IQ. Even the hard wired abortionists don't do that. It is despicable and I would be much happier if I knew that you would never be in a position to make a judgement on any medical situation involving pregnancy.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 1.10.12 @ 3:15PM

Your anti-choice argument, Jobe, boils down to this: a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is therefore murder and should be illegal.

This assumption is deeply flawed.

The status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, and so on. But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay, bordering on revulsion. She cannot bring herself to refer to it as anything other than "it," much less a human being. She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural. Both may even occur in the same woman, years apart.

However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.

Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion.

Since this claim is the cornerstone of their position, it should be critiqued in detail, from philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives, and as a professor, I am competent to critique the anti-choicers' stand, and I do whenever the subject comes up.

Louisa| 1.10.12 @ 3:18PM

Way to go, Anna K.

An articulate response to Jobe's emotional nonsense. Thanks for your incisive input.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 3:19PM

More soulless advocacy of abortion....

Tim the Enchanter| 1.10.12 @ 3:20PM

How a bout this argument, "perfesser"?
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."
-God
In His view, all of your pseudo-intellectual posturing is just so much Bravo Sierra.

Anna K. from Emory U.| 1.10.12 @ 3:54PM

You should know by now that Anna K. never responds to her critics.

Paul | 1.11.12 @ 2:49AM

lol... without even knowing it, you just completely evidenced you're "knows no boundaries" narcissism. Gonna let you in on a secret anna... it looks anything but intelligent. :)

Paul | 1.11.12 @ 2:58AM

oh, and by the way... You just did.

darn Louisa, I guess that must have slipped past her incisive "intellect".

lol.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 3:33PM

Oh look everyone. Our resident Feminist has stopped by.

Double Latte| 1.10.12 @ 3:34PM

Well stated, Anna K.

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 3:34PM

Anna: your argument is valid, but not sound.

The folks you call "anti Choicers" do not ONLY believe a fetus is a person on scientific grounds. For many of them, it's a matter of faith.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 3:39PM

Of course, all of us are blobs of tissue, just variously configured.

Cha Cha Chihuahua| 1.10.12 @ 3:52PM

And some of us--many of us on this post--are nothing more than greasy blobs of pork fat.

Take that, all you fat asses.

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 3:46PM

"There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights."

Why?

Traditional Republican| 1.10.12 @ 3:48PM

Thanks, Anna, for your articulate post.

You said it far better than I could.

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 3:51PM

Well, Trad Rep, for once we agree. As poorly thought out as Anna's post was, it was a better job than you could have done.

Cha Cha Chihuahua| 1.10.12 @ 3:53PM

SeymourHogFat

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 3:55PM

Cha Cha: wow, zinger. I bet you're still giggling.

Paul | 1.11.12 @ 2:40AM

So according to you Anna K, "the woman" is the all determining and deciding god. What a narcissist you must be! And how utterly presumptive you are to conclude that one of the individuals involved (the woman) is to be Entirely revolved around on the issue! Thank you Feminism. What a stellar character traight you've bestowed to us as a culture. Yuck!!

Tim the Enchanter| 1.10.12 @ 3:15PM

A fetus is not a "blob of tissue". Try looking at an endoscope or sonogram of said fetus. Looks like a baby to me. You, sir, are a moby.

Tooney| 1.10.12 @ 3:55PM

My, how we do rave on.

Mike| 1.11.12 @ 1:04AM

Traditional Republican

"When is a fetus a baby?" I will rephrase your question to "When is a fetus a human being?" For the more relegious among us how about "When does a fetus possess a soul?"

I know what my answer is. It is simply impossible for me to know. Therefore I will err on the side of caution and not abort a fetus for fear it may already be a human being.

So according to you, Traditional Republican, when does that "blob of tissue" become a human being? Are you willing to ban all abortions after said point in time?

Just asking...

Mike Johnston
SFC USA(RET)

Ol' Will| 1.13.12 @ 5:07PM

TR,
Obviously your brain is a blob of tissue.

crookedwren| 1.10.12 @ 10:22AM

"Traditional Republican"? You are in favor of ObamaCare? You think these folks WANT to strike Iran? What would you do? Let the twelver in Iran have a nuke?

And it's Roe v. Wade. Not "Row." Roe, by the way, wishes it would be repealed.

How many babies are we murdering? That's fine with you, I guess. That's right. You want ObamaCare.

Mimi| 1.10.12 @ 10:24AM

How are you a TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN ?
Sure you got the right PARTY??

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:08AM

Ignore the leftard troll. It just wants attention.

Traditional Republican| 1.10.12 @ 12:33PM

"Troll"?
Typical response to any conservative that does not toe the right-wing line.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.10.12 @ 3:22PM

You're not a conservative; doesn't matter what you call yourself. You're a moby.

Jobe| 1.10.12 @ 2:11PM

I shudder to think of what this country will be after a second obama term. There's very little of it left now. obama will make it a fiefdom and he will be lord of the manor.

Bob K.| 1.10.12 @ 10:31AM

Mr. Lord's history of Conservatism in America is not quite correct although his ultimate conclusion is.

There was always an inchoate conservative instinct in America but from as far back as the Civil War the Republican Party was a Progressive Party different only in degree from the Democratic Party. It was only after WWII that a Conservative Movement appeared in the United States. It established itself in the Republican Party. Prior to that all disputes in the Republican Party were between Progressives arguing over who was to be in charge.

Conservatism first appeared in the Republican Party with Taft and reached it's peak with Reagan. It has struggled to maintain itself it's influence in the Republican Party ever since.

Progressives within the Republican party have always fought hard to keep Conservatives and Conservatism under control. In their effort to do so it has often become difficult to distinguish them and the policies they pursue from Democrats. The appearance of so-called "neo-cons;" refugees from what had become an increasingly liberal and socialist Democratic party, increased the influence of the Progressives in the Republican Party.

Conservatism never made an appearance in the Democrat Party.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 12:45PM

Just Paulista fantasy history with the ever present "neocon" accusation. The Republican party -- the party of Lincoln -- was libertarian in the true sense of the word, wanting to uphold the principles of the Declaration for ALL people, not just for white southerners.

It was the "Democracy" -- the Democrat party of Bryan -- who popularized Progressivism, which was then co-opted by T. Roosevelt, then furthered by Wilson and greatly enlarged by FDR, LBJ, and now Obama.

Bob K.| 1.10.12 @ 1:48PM

Relax! They all believed in "Progress" in those days. That was America's mantra. Progressive meant something different in the 19th century than it means today. You can't separate the history of political thought from the history of words.

The words neo-con and libertarian existed before they were used to define Paul's supporters and opponents. Hell, "libertarian" was a favorite word of Communists and Anarchists in the 19th century.

Go back and read a good history of the United States.

I recommend "A New Republic: A History of the United States in the Twentieth Century" by John Lukacs. At least it will calm you down until the 2016 election is upon us.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 3:36PM

Well, you are the one who is misusing the word. Contrary to your rendion of history, Progressivism did not begin with Civil War Republicans any more than conservatism began with Taft. Modern conservatism holds to the principles of the founding fathers, of Lincoln, and of Reagan. Progressivism is a mixture of socialism and populism and evolved into modern liberalism.

Toss out the Ron Paul books and read good histories of America. I suggest Harry Jaffa's *A New Birth of Freedom* as a start. Also *Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism*, by Ronald Pestritto.

Bob K.| 1.10.12 @ 8:02PM

I'm not misusing the word. I know what it means as we use it now.

Why don't you reread my post? I said that the meaning of Progressive was different then than our current (and very recent) meaning of it is now. The word devolved from the word "progress" and the idea of inevitable "progress.
There is an entire chapter devoted to the history of the idea of progress entitled "Progressive Liberalism" in Lukacs's "Democracy and Populism." pp48-55.

In fact, go back and reread my original comment. I can't figure out how you concluded from it that I am an admirer and supporter of Ron Paul as I am not one by any means.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:37PM

I have to agree with jack here. Lord's normal baloney and ignorance on display.

Progressivism is far from dead in the GOP. It's not even in its death throes. Mittens Romney, Nut Gingrich, Huntsman, all represent the progressive mainstream of the GOP establishment. They are not alone either.

The GOP is still the party of of its first leftwing president, Lincoln. He was a protoprogressive and still the main influence behind idiots like McCain. Anyone that really thinks the GOP is the official conservative party of the US is smoking the "wacky baccy," because it is anything but conservative.

Every election, the establishment trots out a representative that will do all in his power to maintain the establishment's cushy situation. They make conservative noises, then go back to their old ways once the election is over.

Lord may be an ignoramus and gullible, but many of the rest of us saw the writing on the wall while Reagan was still around and realized the GOP would never be anything but what it ha been since 1854 - the vehicle of the northeastern establishment.

I refuse to play that game anymore. And I refuse to recognize Lord as any sort of intellectual when his spew is so often counter-factual.

Jacobite| 1.12.12 @ 4:42PM

The Republican Party was not born to protect individual rights; it was born of the desire of NE proto-Leftist a**-holes to impose their view of society on other people. If they'd been concerned with freeing slaves, why did they have to occupy and almost destroy the South after their defeat (i.e., Reconstruction)? The underlying impulse was to punish fellow whites for behaving badly by the lights of a bunch of Transcendentalists and Unitarians -- the direct ancestors of today's busy-body open-borders activists, egalitarians, environmentalists, hippies, and vegetarians. If only Lincoln had lived to establish his colony for freedmen....

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 6:45AM

The Republican Party is not even remotely close to being or becoming a Conservative Party except in media circles.

Conservative political parties do not endorse illegal immigration (Reagan), preside over a government bail out of the savings and loan industry (H.W. Bush) or double the national debt (W. Bush.)

Romeny's worse efforts will probably take us to a better place than the combines efforts of the last three Republican presidents put together.

richard ryan| 1.10.12 @ 8:30AM

Well, you certainly don't hear much anti-Reagan stuff out there. It's really difficult to say RR was not a great man or great president. So Mitt's worst efforts will take us to a better place than Reagan did? Maybe I misunderstand you.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 9:02AM

Reagan did some good things but his legend is suspect.

He cut taxes but he also passed some of the biggest tax increases in history. In fact, Obama has cut more taxes than any conservative Republican. If he was smart he would start to endorse and follow through on previous tax cuts but Obama is a politician.

He alone started the ball rolling towards where we are now in terms of illegal immigration and the negative economic effects, i.e. free health care for millions, free housing and subsidized food for millions and they aren't U.S. citizens.

No, you didn't misunderstand me.

Reagan talked a great game but in the final analysis he folded many times and we are stuck with a lot of his baggage.

Tax revenue under Reagan was 18.2% as a percentage of GDP versus the national average of 18.1%. Federal spending under Reagan was 22.4% of GDP versus the national average of 20.7%.

In effect Reagan was not a tax cutter and was a big spender. Does that sound conservative to you? If so, get a political hearing aide.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 9:52AM

Oh yeah, Paulistas are out again trashing Reagan (as they do with Washington, Lincoln, Buckley, Sarah, and all other real conservatives).

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:19AM

Yeah, there was also this little business of burying the USSR he had to look after. If it had been Ron Paul instead of Ron Reagan, the Berlin wall by now would have been extended all the way back to Normandy.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 11:45AM

Those are the facts about Reagan.

What are your facts?

Do you claim he was a big tax cutter? He wasn't.

He was also a big spender even accounting for defense.

He could have terminated the Department of Energy and Commerce cut chose not to. He was good for defense but he laid the seeds for shambles in many other ways.

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 12:39PM

Do you realize that Reagan was the President - not Dictator or King? He could neither spend nor cut without prior approval of Congress.

Unlike the current Republican pussies in the House of Reps, Tip O'Neil and the Democrats didn't cave without compensation.

TrueBlue| 1.10.12 @ 1:12PM

He also showed his trusting nature in falling for the age old Dem fake deal (one which Repubs STILL fall for) of, "Pass this now and we'll cut XYZ later, we promise..."

richard ryan| 1.10.12 @ 2:07PM

Reagan did cut taxes. Yes, spending was up, but so was the cold war. Job creation led to the tax base growing, and as a result the federal revenues. I'm not saying he was perfect, but he did what he could with the Democrat house. In addition, Reagan was a person who had courage. A real man, if you will. Romney is almost a polar opposite in the personality department.

Jobe| 1.10.12 @ 2:20PM

Excuse me, but if I recall correctly, Reagan had a congress to deal with during his presidency. You remember that, don't you?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 6:10PM

Reagan could have vetoed amnesty for illegals but chose not to do so. Did Congress twist his arm on that? Trillions have been spent since then giving illegals more rights then American citizens.

George W. Bush got behind a secret plan to give illegals social security payments for the time they were here. He almost pulled it off.

In short, there have been no conservatives and I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face.

Don't whine to me about Congress.

And the facts don't support Reagan being a big tax cutter. See above. He was 1/10 off the mark. Big whoop!

section9| 1.11.12 @ 8:05AM

Where the heck are these massive tax cuts that Obama keeps talking about? And why isn't the economy booming?

Jacobite| 1.12.12 @ 5:00PM

Reagan was Conservative ("standing athwart history and yelling 'stop!'), but what he wasn't was Right-wing. In 2012, the only hope of saving a free America is a Right-wing government. Conservatives oppose many Leftist programs, but the minute they are enacted, conservatives accept them (see New Deal, Great Society, etc.). Rightism is based on basic Human Nature. Sometimes this is condensed to blood-and-soil. Sorry, that's where normal humans live. No Rightist is going to tolerate immigration from non-American homelands (blood). A Rightist will close the borders so you know they're closed (plenty of potential guards in the former GDR), and hunt down and deport every w*t-b*ck who's here, and their kids. A conservative will argue for repeal-and-replace for O'bamaCare. A Rightist doesn't believe the Federal Government has any right to do anything about health insurance or medical practice. Might as well go after MediCare and MedicAide, too. If Reagan had been a Rightist instead of a conservative, after he fired the air-traffic controllers, he'd have hounded every one of them to make sure they got no other government jobs, as Coolidge went nation-wide to make sure none of the fired Boston cops were hired anyplace else. Conservatives sometimes try to stop bad programs; Rightists try to repeal them. I read an article once, long ago, about the blight of modern architecture and art on our lives. The author went through a lengthy discussion of measures suggested to ameliorate the strip malls and International-style office buildings, but then simply said: "Let's tear it down. All of it. Now" Now, that's a Right-wing approach.

Ef| 1.10.12 @ 6:45AM

And is not the man carrying taft and coolidge's conservative mantle today Ron Paul?

Dick Nome| 1.10.12 @ 6:59AM

No. Ron Paul is no conservative.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:08AM

Ron Paul like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan is a Libertarian Conservatve. That is also what William Buckley called himself.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:27AM

Ron Paul is no Neo-Conservative, you mean.

TrueBlue| 1.10.12 @ 1:21PM

If Paul acknowledged that other nations around the world DO mean us harm, acknowledged that Free Trade is a HORRIBLE idea (especially if we're the only side participating in it) for our manufacturing sector, THEN he would be a Conservative. For all their talk about supporting the Constitution Paul and his followers seem to forget that levying tariffs is actually one of the defined methods for the federal government to raise revenue.

Free Trade is a concept that allows other countries to use mercantalism to drive their competition out of business (sometimes entire countries). Just look at how the French and English forced Spain out of the Caribbean by outmanuevering them financially. China is trying to do the same thing to us now, and it's working pretty well thanks to Slick Willy's favored trading status.

Internally Paul has great ideas for how to fix things, even if they aren't ALL correct, at least he has ideas (sounds like Gingrich with all his sometimes crazy ideas...). But as President he would get many of us killed simply because he refuses to believe that our enemies ARE our enemies. Iran's recent arrest of the former Marine and their charge, "working for an enemy state" is proof of how they view us (even ignoring their 1979 declaration of war against us). Also, moving their uranium enrichment facilities into a mountain to protect it from attack? That's not suspicious at all... Nevermind the fact that they are enriching the material far beyond was is needed to run a nuclear facility.

James| 1.11.12 @ 3:10AM

Paul acknowledges that other nations mean us harm. He just believes they mean us harm for concrete, fixable reasons, not amorphous concepts like "they hate our freedoms." Do you actually Iran is pissed off at us because we have the Bill of Rights? No, they are pissed off because we support their enemies in the Middle East. They could give a hoot what rights and freedoms we have over here. Paul doesn't think we should be favoring any countries.

For a free market ideologue like Paul it really doesn't matter what other countries do. Mercantilism is inefficient and over time free market ideology will win out.

Jacobite| 1.12.12 @ 5:37PM

Iran is pissed off because the Prophet, in the Koran and other holy writings, commands every faithful Muslim to kill, enslave, or convert every infidel on earth. BTW, they've been faithfully carrying out this command at every opportunity for 1300 years, without end.

Nancy in NC| 1.10.12 @ 7:24AM

And interesting history lesson with which I mostly agree. As usual the Paulbots are screaming that Ron is electable. What a joke. While I agree with most of Ron's domestic policy, his view of the world is scary. No matter how much we try, it is impossible to be an isolationist at this point in history.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:59AM

The polls prove you wrong. Ron Paul and Willard Romney poll the best against Obama. Ron Paul has been attacked by the media for almost 5 years. It isn't working.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:25AM

If Ron Paul is an isolationist, Santorum, et al, are the opposite, global bungling meddlers, who want to spread democracy to every unwilling nation in the world. Then they whine that the USA is becoming a Socialist Republic after only three years of Obama. If democracy is so fragile, why bother to spread it around the globe, and waste trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in the process? Hmmmm?

Jeffrey Lord| 1.10.12 @ 11:38AM

Hobbes....

As you know, we believe here that Ron Paul is your basic leftist in foreign policy. Unless "Hobbes" is your real name, you have selected a handle famously identified with Thomas Hobbes, the author of Leviathan - the man who insisted men could not govern themselves. In other words, Hobbes - Hobbes was a leftist. And you have appropriated his name. Telling, no?

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 12:54PM

Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum are neocons who believe in the superiority of utopian socialism over capitalism.

TrueBlue| 1.10.12 @ 1:26PM

Given that Santorum preaches personal responsibility I'm not seeing the whole "utopian socialism" angle.

By the way, advocating pro-life policies IS calling for personal responsibility. It's called taking responsibility for your actions and not ending the life of an unborn INNOCENT child. Life begins at conception, regardless of the name of the phase in development.

Tim the Enchanter| 1.10.12 @ 4:19PM

Great non-answer to Mr. Lord's question.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 1:35PM

Lord, you're a blithering idiot. You're the leftist on foreign policy. Spending trillions overseas on wars against nations that aren't any threat to us. It is called big government Wilsonian NeoConism. You and hideous Mark Israel Firster Levin.

"Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They’re wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20th Century was, and they’ll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It’s said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”

Small government conservatism, the kind to which today’s Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement’s efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.

Even after World War II, Mr. Republican—Robert Taft—opposed the creation of NATO and called the Korean War unconstitutional. Dwight Eisenhower worked feverishly to scale back the Truman-era defense spending that he feared would bankrupt America and rob it of its civil liberties. Even conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater who embraced the global anti-communist struggle made it clear that they were doing so with a heavy heart. Global military commitments, they explained, represented a tragic departure from small government conservatism, a departure justified only by the uniquely satanic nature of the Soviet threat."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-2012.html

Jobe| 1.10.12 @ 2:48PM

William R: What do you suppose "Silent Cal" would have done if Nazi- ism and Pearl Harbor would have happened in 1925? The trouble with vowing to avoid war, eschewing taxes, and gutting the Military is that these actions announce to the world that America is ripe for the picking. In today's world, both the old Soviet Union and China are perched in the tree above us, waiting for us to recede from prominence so that economically or militarily, they can occupy the position from which we fall.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 3:07PM

He would have stayed out of Europe. After being attacked by Japan he would have responded. But there is some evidence that FDR baited the Japanese into attacking us.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 3:59PM

The only way "we will fall" is by bankrupting ourselves in foreign entanglements.

GW| 1.11.12 @ 12:50AM

"Baited"? Were the Japanese just mindless trout, ready to bite if tempted?

FDR, for his domestic faults, was a foreign policy realist. History has vendicated this. Just because WWII led to the increase in government doesn't make it unnecessary. Liberty is worthless unless it is protected, thus radical anti-war libertarianism is perhaps the most tyrannical form of governance there is.

James| 1.11.12 @ 3:14AM

I don't think he could have stayed out since Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Regardless, the idea that isolationism means you don't respond if attacked is idiocy.

Rabban| 1.11.12 @ 6:50AM

FDR certainly was using the increasingly obsolescent battleships at Pearl Harbor as bait. Though I doubt he thought his Casus Belli would be so intense. We were effectively at war with the Axis powers the moment we sent out the first lend lease equipment. The Germans merely formalized it for us (much to their regret).

section9| 1.11.12 @ 8:08AM

Jesus, as much as I respect the Paultards on domestic stuff, they always trot out the International Jewish Neocon Conspiracy to be the Tail to the Israeli Dog.

It gets old after awhile, Paultards. Please stop.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 2:25PM

And here I thought he was the Hobbes from "Calvin & Hobbes".

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 2:48PM

D/S:
LOL. Wonderful to have you aboard.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 3:35PM

Thanks AL. Now tell me everytime you read Hobbes post you don't get mental image of that cartoon.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 3:54PM

"Hobbes thought that rational self-interestedness was as moral an obligation as could realistically be found. Rational self-interestedness (selfishness that was thought out) was thus legitimated philosophically as the morality of the new capitalist system." Doesn't sound like a lefty to me.

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 4:10PM

Hobbes: be honest... before you cut and pasted that (Wikipedia?) did you know who Thomas Hobbes was?

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 4:44PM

"War–perpetual war–is the ultimate means by which the neocons can fight creeping nihilism and promote sacrifice and nationalistic patriotism."

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 5:44PM

So is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Jacobite| 1.12.12 @ 5:50PM

The problem with Libertarianism, and why it often allies with Leftism, is that it is based on a theory of human society that is wrong. Homo Sapiens is a social animal. Men live in societies, get it? Cats are solitary animals; humans are social, like wolves and dogs. Societies, every society, are dominance hierarchies. They are defined and maintained by rules and stereotyped behaviors, and mutual rights and obligations among members. Libertarians can go ahead and do whatever they want, regardless of what their neighbors might think, but they are gonna find out sooner or later that serious non-conformity results in expulsion from society. Where Leftism and Libertarianism intersect is in their goal of destroying normal human society and replacing it with their respective fantasies.

W| 1.10.12 @ 7:42AM

Mr. Lord,
I agree with most of your opinions except I don't believe we have a true conservative running who wants to reduce spending, reduce the deficit, and cut and eliminate government agencies. Both parties believe the government should run our lives.

Santorum is like GWB, a compassionate conservative who wants to use government for his social agenda. This means he wants the government more involved, not less involved, in our lives.

Newt has some good ideas but all his ideas, like Santorum, require more government, not less.
I am tired of both liberal and conservative social engineers.

I prefer the government cut taxes, cut spending, reduce and eliminate government agencies and regulation, allow the private economy to drill for oil/gas, reduce the deficit, and kill the terrorrists. And leave us alone. The fist step would be to have either a flat income tax or a sales tax and thus reduce or eliminate IRS.

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 10:31AM

W:
Missed you yesterday. Compassionate Conservative was a term Marvin Olasky invented that Bush 43 jumped on. Actually has some validity except when used to justify government programs. True compassion is an individual action as charity under compulsion is not charity at all. Allowing freedom and opportunity (not gurantees) for all should be the goal and is true "caring". Is not liberty more valuable than the security of the slave?

Great second half and a lighting bolt overtime.

W| 1.10.12 @ 12:45PM

Al Adab
It was a great second half and finish. Rather than give a litany of the reasons for the loss I have to say the Tebow played well and threw a perfect pass to win. So we root for Tebow to win the super bowl.

I am all in favor of compassion but I agree with you that it is better for the individual to be compassionate and give money rather than the government. You or I can better decide who to give money . As you say conservatism allows the person the opportunities to us and to put the word compassionate to modify conservatism implies we are not compassionate.
I know your opinion of Romney but with the economic mess we are in I prefer someone smart to deal with the economy. We have to play the cards we are dealt here.

W| 1.10.12 @ 12:46PM

P.S Busy at work yesterday, sorry I missed you.

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 1:07PM

So often work gets in the way of real life. I do agree that Romney is likely to be able to manage the economy, but better management is not my criteria. I seek the one who will actively work to reduce the size, intrusivness and scale of Federal over-reach. A technocratic approach I fear accepts the legitimacy of too many federal powergrabs.

Limited government, national security and self-interest and free markets are the foundation of Conservatism given the end of the cold war. Governments are to protect the rights of the individual not to determine those rights. You and I agree on those points I do believe.

Interesting aside, Tebow often touts John 3:16 and his passing average ended up 31.6. Now there is a "coincidence?" Almost enough to make a believer of one.

W| 1.10.12 @ 1:59PM

Al Adab
There is no question we have to reduce the power and scope of government. We need more conservative in Congress to cut spending and taxes.

We need to reduce the scope and power of the agencies such as EPA and IRS. The only way to rein in IRS is to go with a flat tax or national sales tax. IRS is the most intrusive agency, and has every bit of financial info on you, from what church you donate to how much you pay for anything.

You are correct that we agree on protecting the rights of individuals. I don't believe that we have a strong conservative interested in limited government running, so I am leaning to Romney because of his business expertise with a more conservative Congress. We need someone like Coolidge whose only social engineering idea was to leave us alone.

Newt has a lot of good ideas, but all these great ideas ususally result in bigger government, like when as Speaker he proposed federal orphanages.
Santorum seems a clone of GWB.

I will vote for the Rep nominee. Anyone is better than Obama.
Maybe Tebow will run someday.(run for office)

Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 2:54PM

W:
You are correct in that Newt posits an activist government. The Left fears Conservatives because they see only activists of another stripe when in fact Conservatives reject activism for your Coolidge "leave it alone" approach which is the correct road after all.

I remember Jack Kemp and both Tom Landry and Roger Staubach considered seeking elective office. Can't recall anyone else offhand from that indistry. BTW additional Tebow stat: total passing yards 316. Hmmmm.

W| 1.10.12 @ 3:45PM

Al Adab
John Elway was considering running for the senate as a Republican. Kemp was in the House during Reagan an instrumental in the tax cuts known as Roth-Kemp-Bradley. (Bill Bradley, the basketeball star,a Dem).
Trivia: Kemp was cut by the Steelers. Before 1970 the Steelers were one of the worst run teams. We cut or traded John Unitas, Jack Kemp, Lenny Dawson.
Usually the Steelers make the big plays and get the lucky plays, but Tebow beat them,so Tebow may go all the way.

Mimi| 1.10.12 @ 7:51AM

Good article , Jeff...and thanks for the History lesson!
The world has been changing since 2009, with the election of ultra - Liberal Obama and the .best seller bible of the Tea-Party Liberty vs. Tyranny, giving Conservatism a new and powerful influx of former Democrats and Independents into the cause.
We are looking at a 70% to 30% Primary right now. If and when the Conservative participants willow the field the Conservative candidate will take it to Obama....Then the hard WORK will begin.
We cannot at this time risk getting a moderate who professes to be a Con. by lying about it. Obama did that and WON and has stuck a knife in the back to most who voted for him, by claiming to be main stream and governing likea radical Socialist for Gods sake!
Pray for the COUNTRY!

Redatheart| 1.10.12 @ 8:13AM

Let's hope this article gets wide exposure at places like Real Clear Politics. It should be an op-ed piece in newspapers around the country. Time is short; the time is now for true conservatism to make a last stand before the inevitable candidate seals re-election for the inevitable downfall of this great country.

A take-away from this piece for some may be that conservatives and moderate, lily-livered Republicans have duked it out for 100 years and we've always lived to tell and write about it. No great damage was done and things worked out in the end. This time is different. This time the stars are aligned for a great and overwhelming defeat of conservatism. This time, the threat of becoming a European style socialist society is not a threat, but a reality.

Time is short. We stand at the fork in the road.

VonMisesJr| 1.10.12 @ 8:54AM

Great article. Romney may well be the Republican nominee, and if so he will win. And we must keep positive in contrasting Mitt as infinitely better than the socialist Obama.
But I think Mr. Lord may have helped crystalize what our conservative mission must be. It is to put more conservatives in the Senate and House where legislation originates, and continue the great gains of 2010 where we won some 700+ seats nationwide.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan figures are rare in history. So stop looking for a savior.
Another strong victory in 2012 replacing many of the (23) Democrat Senators and more conservative state Legislators will make any of our Republican presidential candidates successful.
And after Obama has delivered an economy like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, we are ripe for a "Roaring 20's" or the memorable 1950's.
The contrast and choice is clear: "American exceptionalism" or European socialism/fascism.

Anthony| 1.10.12 @ 10:20AM

I agree completely. First we must deal with the existential threat Obozo, the Muslim Marxist, poses to this nation. He is "all in" for the destruction of our great nation.
If we are able to defeat this threat to our Constitutional Republic, we can, at the same time, finish the fight within the R Party, by electing more conservatives in 2012.
I think Mittens McWillard is getting the message that even if he is the nominee and defeats Obozo, it will be because of us. McWillard will not ignore us, we won't allow him to!!!
We've had it with Establishment Washington, business as usual will not be tolerated any longer.

Doug| 1.10.12 @ 3:34PM

Imagine Mitt with a Democratic Congress after the 2014 midterms. Now why would ANY conservative vote for him?

RCV| 1.10.12 @ 9:58PM

It won't be because of you, it will be despite the likes of you. And Romney won't forget that, nor should he.

Peppermint Tea| 1.10.12 @ 8:59AM

So we are down to this: hoping Romney flips to conservatism?

Melvin| 1.10.12 @ 9:17AM

What is appealing about Ron Paul is that his political plank is exactly what Conservatives,Independents, Libertarians, and many Republicans are looking for.
He is what the Republican and Democrat Parties isn't.
The crux of this problem is that Progressive Republicans are running against Progressive Democrats.
In my opinion this is why Progressive Republicans won't call out Obama on his Progressive policies, because they share the same Progressive ideology.
Look at Conservatives, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. They were basically politically assassinated by the Progressive Republicans.
In less than a week each they went from leading in the Polls to being forced to commit political Sepuku. The attacks were fast, efficient, and effective.
Mitt Romney himself stated, "I will work with a mutual respect with the Democrats and reach across the isle."
I have this nagging feeling that Mitt Romney can't beat Obama. Philosophically Romney can't beat him. Their philosophy's are joined at the hip.

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 12:42PM

If Taft or Coolidge was around today, they would be considered Libertarians.

I suspect they would both turn a federalist / constitutionalists blind eye to issues like drugs and abortion.

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.10.12 @ 9:44AM

This article demonized a lot of people I have always looked up to as fine patriots, some of the best people our nation has produced. Yes, I probably didn't agree with all of them on every single issue. I believe we are better off for their having attempted to serve our country than to sit on the sidelines and let the Democrats have their way entirely.

This country has had plenty of ideologically pure parties. Most of them you've probably never even heard of, because they are small and totally uninfluential and never win elections. We are a diverse country with a diversity of viewpoints, and a free country where people are free to think as they wish, even if they think wrong. If you want to actually win elections and govern, then you need to be able to win the votes of more than just the few ideological compatriots who agree 100% with you. Sorry, but that is the way it is. If you don't like that, go ahead and elect someone who will make you feel good all the way up until election night.

Anthony| 1.10.12 @ 9:48AM

Thank you Jeff, an excellent historical article on the R Party.
Yes, no wonder John McCain loves TR so much, they have so much in common; the destruction of their own party for their massive egos and penchants for moderation that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
And now Mittens McWillard wants to be the standard bearer for the empty suit R establishment.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 1:36PM

It's a crappy article and Lord is a clueless NeoCon hack.

WalkingHorse| 1.10.12 @ 10:56AM

Good summary - people need to understand both major parties were infected with the progressive virus before 1910.. I think it a bit too optimistic to say the conservatives have won the republican party from the progressives. Those of us who believe in limited government still have no organized political advocacy group, save the various Tea Party factions that occasionally cooperate.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 11:02AM

The Tea Party will not rest untill we free Americans from the toxic message of socialism and bureaucracy. Nothing will stop us, and we will defeat those statists in the ballot over and over. As long as those Marxists seek to destroy our nation, we will repudiate their efforts and spread our message of freedom and free-enterprise. We're the majority, they're minority. We're right, and they're wrong.

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:15AM

I'm no expert, but I think I would challenge the characterization here of Ike as a "moderate" aka Progressive. He was that apolitical that when his name was first suggested as presidential material, there was doubt even as to which party he would run under - if I recall my history aright. Further, he was notoriously non-activist, even inactive: the very opposite of what one would expect of a "progressive." Again, if my understanding is correct, he did so little that he tossed off the bon mot "Sometimes the president is just there."

Of course he did give us the interstate highway system, but I hardly think that grounds for criticism. Roads have always been part of the business of government and there was unquestionably significant national interest served in building them.

Mike Rogers| 1.10.12 @ 11:41AM

Great article, but the conclusion is a bit of wishful thinking.
I can say for sure that when presented with a choice between a real Democrat and a RINO, voters will choose genuine over fake.
In many places, and better for us, it is true that voters will choose a true conservative over any alternative of either party (steady there Clint-Jack, I don't include Ron Paul in real conservatives).
Where I think the wishful thinking exists is that even with the more conservative Eince Priebus in charge, the RNC is still establishment heaven.
By the way, please take a tour of the grass roots and see our ongoing death struggle with the RINO establishment- the fight isn't ove, but there is blood everywhere.

russel| 1.10.12 @ 12:03PM

Snipits of Wilson show up on the web , each helping to paint a more disturbing picture of the Father of American socialism . That era spawned the likes of New Republic for instance . At any rate , what a vastly differnt nation we'd have if Wilson had stayed at Harvard .

SeymourGlass| 1.10.12 @ 6:41PM

Princeton, you mean.

Stephen Smoot| 1.10.12 @ 12:17PM

TR's third party run in 1912 was the opening of a breach that started in the Republican Party in some ways in the 1870s. It was there that you first saw the split between the party operatives and businessmen on one hand and the idealists on the other who allied in 1854. They split over Grant, civil service, territorial expansion, and other issues. In 1872, they even ran Horace Greeley against Grant for president on the third party "Liberal Republican" ticket. The return of Democratic Party power in the 1880s quelled the rebelliousness somewhat, but it never really died out. Theodore Roosevelt harnessed the energy of the idealists while president and used them in his ill-fated 1912 run that broke the old Republican Party. While convenient in the short term, TR's state based solutions and occasional unethical practices as president have not been overly beneficial to subsequent development.

David T| 1.10.12 @ 12:31PM

Great read. Thanks Mr. Lord.

Who Knows?| 1.10.12 @ 2:51PM

“The Lord moves in mysterious ways.”

Maybe it would be wise to always let this biblical string of words be the rock of ages on which to understand the political universe---which is merely a manifestation of the Lord “moving”.

Nobody KNOWS!

Another core wonder that meets any “news”, such as the present iteration of Gingrich attacking Romney’s Bain history, is whether the one making the “news” is self consciously aware of their actions, or not. At present, most conservatives are taking Newt at his word—that is, they assume he REALLY believes what he’s saying.

But, what if he’s cleverer than that, and he’s totally sure that he is toast, which frees him up to play the primary “foil”? Could it be that he’s “prepping” Romney for what he’s about to get from the Obama crowd? Certainly, the Newtster can’t REALLY be too stupid to know that a Bain type company is bad for capitalism. Can he?

Whether Newt, Perry, or Huntsman know what they are doing, or not, in their dissing of Mitt’s “firing” statement, with almost a year to go until the general election, I say it’s a good thing for this clarity to happen. What’s the essential cause of our present political-economical problem, which has been worsening for many years?

Economic illiteracy!

What is direly needed is for the vast majority of Americans to WAKE UP about how capitalism works. Presently, most people are fellow travelers of Obama, in their utter ignorance about it.

It’s always a question of growing the economic pie, or not. THAT should be the first consideration---not divvying up the pie!

Change is natural. How amazing that people aren’t able to extend their own life’s experiences to the whole economy—practically everybody SOMETIME loses a job, and must find another one. It’s called creative destruction, and that’s the ONLY WAY to grow the economic pie.

So, I say---fight on, Newt! Continue to, either consciously or not, challenge Romney. Both push all your good ideas, AND play the fool by dancing on the edge of the liberal-conservative divide, in criticizing Mitt from the left.

One last insight---if Gingrich is anything, he is a KNOWER. The dominant characteristic of a college prof is being a specialist. And, thus is a know it all born. So, the smartest guy in the room, Gingrich, IN HIS OWN MIND, meets Parkinson’s Law.

You all remember that, right? That’s where someone rises to the level of their highest INCOMPETENCE. Yes, the successful rabble rousing backbencher, Representative Gingrich, DID rise to become House Speaker, and proved how true Parkinson’s Law is. And, NOW, running for president, he’s even trumping THAT!

What a mysterious GIFT from the Lord!

bill| 1.10.12 @ 3:54PM

My Manifesto:

1. Ban abortion
2.Ban gay marriage
3.Legalize guns
4. Abolish dept. of education, commerce, energy, EPA, HUD
5.Abolish public sector unions
6.Pass the BBA
7. Pass the "Right to work" states law
8. No cut to defence budget
9. Help build the military complex
10. No aid to Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine
11. Use all means to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
12. Cut federal spending $5 trillion over 10years
13. No tax hikes
14. No more regulations
15. Deport all illegals
16. Secure the border

JmsA| 1.10.12 @ 7:16PM

Wow! I cannot disagree with a single one of your points of action. Well done, bill.

POST American| 1.10.12 @ 9:25PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

Putting aside the zealous sock puppets
above---

One and all, DO the background on the
Milner Group, CFR-Trilateral ---and their
ongoing, stealth program of world takeover
in the name of EEL-eat, USURY feuled,
self-aggrandizing, Social Darwinist EUGENICS.

'The Money Masters' from William Still
on Youtube remains the place to start
the unraveling process.

---Globalism, UNACCOUNTABLE
international USURY, TREASON and
EUGENICS remains the KEY.

The ultra-rich TAX FREE 'benny violent'
foundations and NGOs remain their
'fave' lurking places and instruments.

HUAC? ---Nuremberg? --you ain't seen
nothin' yet!

-------------YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED-------------

GW| 1.11.12 @ 1:05AM

Interestingly, the most conservative issue of all is ignored yet again in AmSpec--the conservation of the American people culturally, demographically, socially, and (especially) ethnically.

Eisenhower, despite being labeled as "moderate," was perhaps the last conservative president we have had. In 1954, his administration removed illegals under the non-PC name "Operation Wetback." There was no concern for the "family" or the duration of the illegal, as the INS didn't care about the criminal's concerns.

Nowadays, what conservative voices do we have pushing for the elimination of non-Americans from our borders? Or how many conservative leaders rail against affirmative action? How many conservatives are unafraid to bring up the overwhelming demographic overrepresentation blacks have when it comes to crime rates?

As Ann Coulter recently wrote, if you want to look at the future of America if immigration isn't curtailed, look to California. Recently an illegal in Fresno spent a year and millions of dollars at the taxpayers' expense in the hospital yet the fight over conservatism is about whether "9-9-9" is conservative or not?

Conservatives need to return to the root of the word, conserve, to realize what the movement is about. Economic issues are undoubtedly important, but from the left's sabotage of our cultural values (anti-religious bigotry), ethnic cohesion (diversity breeds contempt), and social freedoms (TSA) are much more so.

POST American| 1.11.12 @ 1:25AM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

Speaking of immigration, and the
massive promotion of the Mexico
hemmorage by the Bushes among others---

AGAIN

The Globalists RED China economic
(---and, as we're seeing, political) TREASON OP
doubly betrayed American interests by
not simply transferring our industry to
RED China ---BUT--- they bypassed sending
them to Mexico --where they'd be at least
helping to better that scene and secure
our own borders.

-----Take back the language men-----

--------------We're really dealing with TREASON

BackToBasics| 1.11.12 @ 1:27AM

from Lord's article " it is apparent to all that the conservatives have won".....Will there be more skirmishes? Sure. Platform battles may break out at the Tampa Convention"

It's too early to declare victory for conservatives. Recent and ongoing examples; in 2010 we win many Tea Party seats in the House only to have the Republican Establishment give us Boehner as Speaker. In 2012, all the Establishment money is vested in Romney, the most liberal of all Republican candidates except Huntsman.

The Republican rank and file may be more conservative but the Republican elites are more liberal than ever. Essentially Republican elites are Democrats. They are pulling the strings.

Also, outside of the Republican camp, the consortium of leftist groups and a probable amnesty for illegals will swamp any grassroots conservative movement. This will happen largely because the "progressive" Republican Establishment, and that will include any of the current Republican candidates if he should win, allowed it to happen over the last 50 years and in the foreseable future.

I like Lord's articles but this one focuses too much inside the Republican Party. And the movement towards conservatism stops at the second tier of the power structures within the Republican Party.

A.Hick| 1.11.12 @ 5:18AM

The GOP is rapidly becoming a national joke. Romney will force the reactionary dullards to define predatory leveraged buyouts and corporate raiding as "free enterprise" and "healthy capitalism." Rumor has it, the Bushes and other Republican bigwigs are telling Naughty Newtie he better not proceed with his Bain barrage in SC if he wants any future in the Party. If Newt had any sense, he would tell them to go straight to their future gated retirement community, run as an independent and produce a result for the GOP like 1912.

The general election message is now set. Alexrod will tailor each Bain ad for whatever swing state it will run, and it will feature pathetic trailer park, outsourced workers from that state telling about their own personal hell wrought unto them when "Mitt came to town. " Just pick a company from that state that was chopped up and run into the ground by Bain, and run with it. There won't be any shortage of them. Romney will defend it all by saying he "created more jobs than he destroyed," which is probably technically true, and then he will have to explain in his own stiff, sh*t eating way why the ones he "created" were low paying ones at retailers like Staples selling Chinese made cheap office equipment, and the ones he destroyed were at factories paying probably double and more in wages. Which explains why he is just a place warmer for Jeb 2016 and the next war, and BHO is going back in for four more.

Mitt's fundamental problem is that his private sector experience is emblematic of the business model that has ruined the United States, enriching a speculator class now so conceited they fail to see the eventual gallows fate that will befall them. The election of 1912 is significant because it provided an insight into the way unbridled capitalism would find ways over the next hundred years to save itself from its itself essentially, and this election, one hundred years to the year later, may be significant for its insight into a terminal denouement should there fail to be an ultimate adjustment to its current crisis.

And if that isn't enough to do Mitt in, there is Seamus and the vacation from hell. He will get laughed out of town.

MUTTS FOR MITT!!!!!!

Help hose down PETA!! Jump on the station wagon, and join Mitt's "Poop on America 2012" campaign today!!!!

Danram| 1.11.12 @ 6:32AM

The best single thing that could happen to Republican Party would be for it to purge its intolerant, absolutist right-wing fringe once and for all. That way the party can move back towards the center and become the clear majority party in this country once again. Let the wingnuts form their own little fringe party. They can trot out Bob Barr for president every four years like the Libertarians did for 30 years with Lyndon LaRouche.

TEA PARTY| 1.11.12 @ 6:48AM

The GOP is a sham party whose reason for existence is to provide the illusion of choice. By leaving Ron Paul out, this whole article is invalid. Ron Paul's Constitution-based ideas are what threaten the GOP establishment most - both the Big Government liberals and the Big Military conservatives. As long as the GOP is the home of bible-thumping warmongers, it is doomed to extinction. Cut taxes, cut spending, shrink government.

Steve851| 1.11.12 @ 7:12AM

I have serious problems with this article. Based on history, there are two candidates who might qaulify as real conservatives in this race. One is Dr. Paul, who is too much of a Goldwater Republican to be elected. The other is Jon Huntsman who has run a horrible campaign. Save perhaps Perry, who has demonstrated he is not ready for the big time, the rest are all big government statists.

section9| 1.11.12 @ 8:09AM

Okay, I'll say it so the Paultards don't have to:

JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSS!!!!

JPM77| 1.11.12 @ 10:18PM

You realize that by engaging in this type of behavior you are essentially doing exactly what progressives and liberals do. They don't like what others have to say so they try to shut them down through demonization... you don't toe the progressive / liberal line? Oh, you must be a racist bigot who wants to murder poor people and the elderly. Neo-conservative is a concept and philosophy which has a meaning and definition and it doesn't actually include being Jewish or being a Zionist though there are elements who are that fit the philosophy. It's not a term that indicates someone is Jewish any more than Libertarian indicates someone is a racist or anti-semite. The terms simply do not apply.

The long and short is that as conservatives and libertarians we recognize that the people respond to incentives, and that actions have consequences. Our involvement with Israel has consequences for us in this world. That doesn't mean we should ditch them as allies, we both have positive benefits from that relationship, but it does mean we should be cognizant of the effects it has for our own security.

You want to have a reasoned and rational debate on the issues, you should probably start without calling names. There's good reason to have that debate, because the Republican party is flirting with disaster right now in candidates that fail to understand the true meaning of liberty. Individual liberty is the core of the parties philosophy, and that doesn't include the social meddling that non-libertarian "conservatives" often like to get into. It's the same instinct to grow government in order to try and force people to do stuff that turns off the majority of the people in this nation, that's what the Tea Party was a response to, and it will restore the country if we are smart enough to embrace it, Ronald Reagan did once state that libertarianism was the heart of conservatism afterall.

Curious Observer| 1.11.12 @ 8:15AM

It's a good story, Mr. Lord, but there is one major premise that still bewilders me: why on earth do you consider Mr. Romney so much less conservative than Mr. Santorum or Mr. Gingrich, other than Mr. Santorum's extreme views on contraception and abortion? On the issues that matter most, I frankly do not see how you can consider Romney as left of these two jokers. The self-annointed "true conservatives" will bring up the flavor of the cycle, "Romneycare," but we all know that the individual mandate, or ensuring that you're paying your own share, was a conservative principle and that we were all supporting it ten years ago. What's important on this issue is that Mr. Romney sees the folly of Obamacare and actually knows how to pragmatically dismantle it (let's face it, Messieurs Santorum and Gingrich only know how to talk). Even more importantly, though, in Mr. Romney we have an executive who has proven he knows how to turn a deficit into a surplus. I would recommend to quit shooting at him and aim for the real antagonists to conservative principles.

Rich Rostrom| 1.11.12 @ 3:04PM

Interesting attempt at historical analysis, but I think it fails.

The Republican Party included a strong "progressive" and "classical liberal" elements from its start. Robert Ingersoll, possibly the most famous atheist intellectual in 19th century America, was a prominent Republican. Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT, 1917-1919, 1941-1943) was the first woman to serve in Congress; also a pacifist who voted against the declarations of war in 1917 and 1941.

They shouldn't be mistaken for socialists, but they had little in common with the liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" of the 1940s-1980s, and even less with the "moderates" of the present era.

Among other things, the Progressives became fanatical isolationists in the 1930s. So did the conservative Taft Republicans.

No, it really doesn't fit together.

LibertyAtStake| 1.12.12 @ 1:06PM

The only thing missing from this otherwise excellent review is a nod to the TEA Party movement as both affirmation of the hypothesis and as its' contemporaneous animating force.

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

Brian Richard Allen| 1.13.12 @ 12:09PM

The party under whose umbrella Dewey and Rockefeller once sought to shade their real stripes and once the party of such other pretenders as Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 through John McCain in 2008, is in reality -- and we thank You, Dear Lord, the moral, philosophical and intellectual home to the ideas of Lincoln -- and to those of Ronald Wilson Reagan ....

And thank you, too, Mr Lord.

(Any relation?)

Seer Clearly| 1.15.12 @ 7:31PM

Your entire article is based on the unfounded assumption that somehow progressive ideas are bad, and conservative ideas - marked not by original thought but rather simply anti-progressivism - are good. Perhaps your article was written preaching to the choir, but unfortunately for your prognostications, America has proven itself repeately to be a nation of moderates. So even if the conservative "ideas" actually worked, the truly conservative candidates you think have won the GOP won't get elected. That's been shown over and over. You'd need a nation of anti-intellectual, Fox News-brainwashed voters to support such frippery for a political platform, and while we are flirting with such a vacuous representation of our nation, we're still a long ways away from it.

All this presumes, again, that you're right about conservative ideas. But just a little research shows that you are very, tragically wrong. All the countries in the world in which the bulk of the citizens - and I say bulk, as opposed to your 0.1% darlings of the super rich - are doing well, are happy, and enjoy an economy of stable growth... all those countries have higher taxes, and those taxes are spent on public works, public education, and social safety nets. Until you have the courage to leave our borders and actually look at those countries in person, you might be able to convice yourself that you are right. But just a short trip to western Europe will rapidly show you that something is terribly, horribly wrong with the state of conservative thought in the USA. It doesn't lead to a successful, happy country. It leads to 50% poverty, mindless international aggression, and instability that threatens our very founding constructs. But until you actually look at those other countries, you can continue to delude yourself. It's a dangerous delusion, since you're playing with fire.

Gary| 1.17.12 @ 7:12PM

As a life long Republican, for the first time I am considering staying home at election time. Unless Ron Paul on the ticket, I am not voting. For me, this is not an anti Obama election, it is an anti-progressive election. Both political parties are identical in their big government, progressive agendas.