There's A Difference

I am not a Republican, Democrat or Independent.  I'm a conservative; there's a difference.

Essentially, America has traditionally been a two party system.  For well over a century, those two parties have been the Democrats and Republicans.  That's not to say that there aren't more political parties out there, but rarely does any of them play much of a role in the national scheme.  Sometimes, a third party will win a local contest, but they are generally not real players. 

For the sake of argument then, the two main players on the American political stage are the Democrats and the Republicans.  None of the other minor parties can match them in money or manpower, or the ability to get out the vote.  Given that, when most people talk about politics,they tend to divide up between the two major parties.

I was a Republican several years back.  I joined the Party and contributed money toward their efforts.  That lasted two years.  I never renewed my membership.  The reason I'm not a Republican is all too often, the party wants to be a light version of the Democratic Party.  This recent election was a good example.  The party supported Dede Scozzafava in the NY 23rd race.  Scozzafava is a left-wing radical.  As a Republican, she endorsed the entire Democrat platform.  In that particular election, she was further left than her Democratic opponent. 

The Republican leadership seems to have this idea that as long as we elect someone with an R after their name, it will be OK.  It doesn't work that way.  That is why I am a conservative.  I am not a Republican and never will be until the party comes back to its conservative roots.

The liberal lie is that the Republican Party must become more moderate.  What they really mean is that we need to be more like them.  They want to blur the line.  No, we don't need to become Democrat light.  Why bother if you are going to do that?

A recent poll suggests that Americans are more conservative than liberal.  It's time the Republicans learned that lesson and until they do, they get none of my money.  I will support individual candidates as I see fit, but I will not support a political party hellbent on becoming more like their opponents.

VW

Comments

[Scott]

I'm with ya on this one, VW…although, coming at it from the opposing end of the spectrum. While I would gladly describe myself as a "liberal," past discussions we've had here point out the obvious fact that I don't hew to the extreme hard-line approach advocated by many Democrats. Consequently, it drives me crazy to be lumped in with a great big group just because we share some of the same core beliefs; there's too much room for differing ones to make such lumping worthwhile.

In fact, my most basic tenet of life - "Leave me alone, and don't tell me what to do!" - is pretty conservative in its approach. Or, downright libertarian! But that's what I want: don't tell me where I can or can't live, don't tell me who I can or can't love, and most of all don't tell me what I must or must not believe in. And so, as that is MY desire, then I'll gladly give the same options back. I won't tell you where you can live, who you can love, or what you must believe.

I'd be curious to see a poll that reflects THAT outlook, rather than one which even tries to use the terms "Conservative" or "Liberal."

Good post.

[John Hampton]

A thought provoking post, VW. Scott, your comments are intriguing as well. I'm not so certain that you're not a closet conservative. :D

[Scott]

I wonder if there isn't such a thing as a true middle ground between Conservative and Liberal? Like…"Pragmatic."

[John Hampton]

A Pragmatism Political Party (PPP), hmmm...here's one: http://www.pragmatism.us/# Just something I googled real quick in response to your comment, Scott. I here what you're saying.

[Scott]

Well, well! This looks mighty appealing! While there are some definitely scary lines ("Sensible governments filter out people who are diseased or without skills." comes to mind!), the upshot may be that those lines were simply poorly written, and with time and sculpting could become reflective of true intent. I like it. Thanks, John!

[John Hampton]

You're welcome, Scott. But it was your idea that compelled me to look it up.

Standing alone, yes, that line does sound scary. But upon taking a second look and judging from that particular section which addresses citizenship, it seems that its context is aimed at immigration reform.

I've pondered the possibilities of a viable third political party but it's difficult to envision it under our current and traditional electoral process.

Here in the United States, I can't see how a third party could possibly win a major election unless it has a platform appealing enough to sway voters who are so accustomed to, and content with, choosing between two players or teams, as if it was a football game or a boxing match. There is something wrong with this.

It reminds me of a classic and effective sales technique I learned about many years ago. It involves psychologically "tricking" the prospective customer into believing he has a choice. It's almost an illusion. Rather than asking the prospect if he wants to buy one of his widgets, a closed-end question requiring only a yes or no answer which is a response the salesman wants to avoid because if he says "no" the sales presentation is over, he instead asks an open-ended question instead such as, "Which one of my widgets do like best, the blue one or the red one?" The prospective customer can not answer with a simple yes or no. He's been forced to pick the one he likes best and then the salesman actually has an easier task of selling one to him because he's created an illusion in the customers mind that he had a choice.

This is, in many ways, actually what is going on in American politics. I think perhaps that is what VW was talking about.