A simple, sincere appeal for your opinion... Why should Conservatives stay in the Republican Party?

Jefferson was an egalitarian. The problem you are having has to do with you having an unrealistic idea of what progressives are really about.

 

Every April

 

Real well read I'm sure. The problem is that apparently you have been reading right-wing propaganda.

 

Considering that one can't get any more right wing than a dictator and one can't get any more left wing than a pure democracy....

 

You don't agree with him.

 

There is no such thing as a "classic liberal".

It is just a way for libertarians to deny what they are because libertarianism has always been and will always be a complete and utter failure whenever it is tried.

It failed under the original Articles of Confederations and it failed again in Kansas.

 

I understand and share the frustration. Half or more of the Republicans in Congress share most of the progressive view pushed by Democrats. The questions is whether conservatives in fact can take over the party or be more successful in forming their own party. Either is a long slog. Taking over the party is possible because the country's voting blocs still favor conservatism, to wit 2010, 2014, and 2016. But it still would have to rid both houses of the RINO leadership.
I'm beginning to think a successful Article V convention is the last hope for getting our republic back. Even there some states are not too bothered by the success of the big central government progressive movement.

 

There's a difference in medical and auto insurance.

With Auto Insurance you are mandate to buy at least liability, because an accident you cause is effecting other people. Full coverage of your vehicle is not mandated (by the government) because it is your responsibility to fix your car, whether that's out of pocket or through insurance.

With Medical insurance it is only effecting you and only you so if you want to roll the dice and not have medical insurance and you end up rolling "snake eyes" it's your choice and you have to live with the consequences.

Completely flawed analogy between the two.

 

This has noting at all to do with anything I said.

 

As I pointed out in my post, progressivism is inevitable. All societies progress forward, always. The only function of conservatism is to prevent too much change from happening too quickly. Conservatism by definition, loses to progressivism.

 

True conservatives do fully understand conservatism and the basis of our constitutional republic. Progressivism is not inevitable, but, as recognized by Locke, our founders, et al, is the more natural progression of things. Its end, tyranny -- soft or hard -- is highly likely without eternal vigilance (which is fast eroding) and it has been close to the sole system of governance in the world until America came along.
I don't think people that believe in personal liberty and inalienable rights fostered and protected by a small centralized government that is fiscally responsible is "hard line" or "extreme" or "whacko birds." Preventing too much change by maintaining our society's highly successful institutions and precepts is good stuff for the continuation of liberty. It is liberty, freedom, private property and enterprise, and a constrained central government that got us to by far and away the most successful -- for all people, tolerant, and helpful country the world has ever seen. This will deteriorate more and more as the progressive agenda of a country that is run by "smart" elites and that stifles individuals for the sake of a more consistent and uniform populace, succeeds.

 

This isn't quite correct either. If you choose not to have health insurance, and suffer a major illness or accident, you will still be treated. Your inability to pay will be passed on and spread out to those who are insured, so the hospital can make up the loss. So, by not having insurance, you are affecting everyone who does.

 

..........

 

As I said in another post, it is not inevitable but pretty close to it. History points to liberty sliding into tyranny as the most natural of progression.

 

Neither of those things are part of "the left"

 

the middle class hasn't rejected progressive policies

 

Progressivism is inevitable. This is evidenced by every single human society for the entirety of human history.

 

If "conservative" means cutting taxes for the rich and creating more income inequality, the Republican party is by all means your party.

 

We are talking about two different things. You are referring to progress in the common vernacular and understanding of moving along. I am referring to Progressive as defined by the political movement, once its own party and now the foundation of the Democrat party and many Republicans.

 

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would remain a member of any one party, these days.

The problems you, and other conservatives, are struggling with, are associated with the unlikely election of a political outsider into the hallowed halls of the status-quo. Half, or more, of the republicans are actively working, either overtly or covertly, to the failure of this administration. This results in the frustration that you, and many like you, are feeling.

What these establishment republicans want is a return to the good-ole-boy club days of reciprocal backrubbing and kabuki theatre where everything released for public consumption is carefully scrubbed and washed to be sure that no one looks bad to their constituents, and it appears important things are getting done. They like it best when they can focus on their re-election 100% of the time.

 

The "Progressive" movement in the 21st-century seems much less 'progressive' than it is regressive, rahl. The only countries that have innovated successful socialist, "progressive" methods are those of Northern Europe... in particular, Germany. The German model is a unique construction -- based on decades of successful collaborations of government, corporations, and labor unions, in a country which had a relatively small population and a mostly-homogeneous makeup. The United States is not Germany, and it never will be....

Beyond a single-minded drive toward wealth-redistribution and other trappings of Socialism, today's American "progressives" seem bent on practicing "creative-destruction" instead of producing economic systems that increase wealth and heighten living standards. In fairness, this may simply be a part of some evolutionary process that dictates a certain rhythm to human development -- first creation, and then destruction, and then creation again.... You could certainly be right, rahl, my "era" is passing, for better or worse.

Back now to my topic -- whether today's political dynamic is "progressive" or "regressive", I don't see that today's Republican Party offers Conservatives anything but ongoing despair, frustration, and failure -- and I, for one, am fatigued beyond description with the whole damned thing.

Sadly, a "Third Party" is useless. I learned that very painfully from Ross Perot, whom I voted for not once, but twice! Maybe all that's left now is to go on and enjoy the retirement that myself and many other 'Boomers' have begun. I've got enough money and no debts. Why should I be unhappy? Why should I make myself unhappy by continuing even to care what happens many years down the road...? Surely even a slow, steady dive into a Second Dark Ages has at least some interesting features.... In any event, I'll change my "political party affiliation" now to Unaffiliated. No matter how much I try to 'double-think' this Republican catastrophe, I cannot make myself become a RINO-Republican....

Thank you, rahl, my old antagonist, for your courtesy and your viewpoint, even though we disagree, as you said, on everything. I respect you and other "progressives" as being the new torch-bearers. Please try to keep the damned things lit for a while longer until the rest of us are safely dead!

 

Perhaps, you should be asking why CINOs and RINOs like Collins and Murkowski are allowed to remain in the GOP.

Those two should be drummed out of the party, and if the GOP won't strip them of their membership then Republicans around the country should support their opponents in the primaries if they run for re-election.

 

Go read your own post because that is not how you said it even if that is a not how you meant it.

 

this is a socialist rant, and has nothing to do with anything I said, or is even an accurate description of progressivism.

And this was the point of my post. Your generation of conservatives have become obsolete. Society has progressed to the point where your once valid and useful policy ideas are now obsolete, unworkable and no offence, laughable. This is what I mean by new conservatives. Todays conservatives are considerably less so than your generation, and next generations will be considerably less so than todays. It's inevitable.

I would love to see both the democrat and republican party fraction so we could have at least one viable third party. Being in your retirement years, the best thing to do would be to just live out your remaining years with some semblance of peace. I understand that doing so or "bowing out" of the fight may go against your principles, but the views held by conservatives of your generation simply don't apply in the 21st century, and will never again be a part of any serious policy debate.