Posted by
Gamecock on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:53:33 PM
Ten weekends after I promised to defend Neo-con #1 against Erick's 4:00 am comment-length blog entry (or frontpage story?) that blamed the 2006 GOP election losses on Kristol's and TWS's supposed "Big Government Conservatism," the busy lawyer delivers.
Preliminarily, I am an Erick fan, it was 4:00am, and the primary reason for my belated rebuttal is to highlight Kristol's rock solid position on the war. While I put quotes around the Big Government Conservatism (BGC) characterization, I do concede that their is a difference between Kristol, TWS, Gamecock, and many other conservatives concerning what the size of government should be and, more accurately, how we get from big to smaller.
However, I could not disagree more that Bill Kristol, TWS and any supposed choice between BGC and an alternative had anything to do with the outcome of the 2006 election.
The main reason this is true beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the voters put Democrats in charge. Do I really have to explain that? To say democrat is to say big government (and appeasement). Its like saying one chose lettuce to reject salads.
The 2006 election was, first and foremost a Year Six election. Had we not power, given our relatively small margins compared to other Year Six elections, it would have been historic.
Kristol and his magazine have been and are major players in how we gained control of congress, elected and re-elected Bush, and the conservative movement as a whole.
They are heroic in there advocacy of a vigorous foreign policy in a post-9/11, if not even a post-Pearl harbour world. Americans overall tend toward isolationism. It cost us dearly in WWII, and it could be our downfall in a much smaller world and wmd.
On the issue of big government, the fiscal cons truly do need to get specific and courageous on exactly how they would reduce government. I wrote on this over Christmas when their were not many to debate.
Would it be Too Much Trouble for Fiscal Cons to Get Really Serious
My points are this with respect to Kristol and my previous blog:
1 - Kristol, like Reagan, recognizes the need for a safety net and soc sec.
2 - Vague rhetoric about cutting government risks scaring off big govt addicted voters that need to be weaned off the stuff and shown how we get from a to b.
3-Cutting government has to be sold as solving problems, not simply as an ideological pursuit.
Fiscal cons have work to do. I want to see plans on paper. Heck, one of the main, if not THE main reason for being a conservative is this principle of smaller government due top how it reduces freedom. But this is not 1789. We have been addicted to BG for half a century. We have to not only sell smaller government, but also show how we get there.
And Erick, while I love both the TWS and National Review brands of conservative, my favorite brand is
the Redstate brand!
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
The HinzSight Report