GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Here’s a little zinger from last week’s Wall Street Journal guest editorial page. Of course, I’m a little late on this, but it’s still good reading.
The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated
By FRED D. THOMPSON
Page A13Recent congressional losses, President George W. Bush’s unpopularity, and bleak generic ballot poll numbers have conservatives fearing the “liberalization” of America – a move toward secularization, the growth of government, stagnation, mediocrity and loss of freedom.
Yet there is still a way to revive the conservative cause. Doing so will require avoiding the traps of pessimism or election-year quick fixes. Conservatives need to stand back for a moment and think about our philosophical first principles.
Conservatives value the lessons of history and respect faith and tradition. They are skeptical of mass movements, perfect solutions and what often passes for “progress.” At the same time, they recognize that change is inevitable. They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.
These were the principles relied upon by our Founding Fathers, and which paved the way for a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among its branches, and further diffused its power through a system of federalism. These principles led to a market economy, the primacy of the rule of law and the abolition of slavery. They also helped to establish liberal trade policies and to meld idealism and realism in our foreign and military policies.
The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. In the U.S., basic constitutional government has been preserved, foreign tyrannies have been defeated, our failed welfare system was reformed, and the confiscatory income tax rates of a few decades ago have been substantially reduced. This may be why the party where most conservatives reside, the Republican Party, has won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.
Still, a lot of the issues that litter the political battlefield today put conservatives on the defensive. What are we going to do to fix the economy, the housing market, health-care costs and education? Some conservatives try to avoid philosophical confrontation with liberals, often urging solutions that would expand the government while rationalizing that the expansion would be at a slightly slower rate.
This strategy simply has not worked. Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember:
- Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. There are no short-term fixes without longer term consequences.
- In a free and dynamic country with social mobility, there will be great opportunity but also economic disparity, especially if the country has liberal immigration policies and a high divorce rate.
- An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily.
- Free markets, not an expanding and more powerful government, are the solution to today’s problems. Many of these problems, such as health-care costs, energy dependency and the subprime mortgage crisis, were caused in large part by government policies.
It’s not that conservatives today no longer believe in the validity of these principles. They just find it difficult to stand strong when the political winds are blowing so hard against them. To be sure, standing by conservative principles does not always guarantee success at the ballot box – it did for Ronald Reagan, but not for Barry Goldwater. But abandoning these principles doesn’t ensure victory either. Circumstances often play the deciding role. Is there any doubt that the Carter administration’s misery index and the Iranian hostage crises allowed Reagan to prevail in 1980?
In this unpredictable world, conservatives should adhere to their fundamental ideals. These ideals have brought our country much success, and may well win the day again. Conservatives must have faith that, more often than not, Americans will make the sacrifices necessary to preserve national security and prosperity.
A political party that adheres to conservative principles should have continuing success – especially if its leadership believes in those principles and is able to articulate them.
Mr. Thompson, a former U.S. senator from Tennessee, was a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I believe that with this Op ed, Senator Thompson ostensibly establishes himself as the lone voice of conservatism for our time and this election cycle. I also think that this sets him up nicely for 2012. If Fred had gotten into the race earlier it would have been his for the taking and he would have inherited the Presidency and all of its inherent spoils and power. As it is now I believe that Fred should establish a “shadow” candidacy and bide his time until 2012 or 2016 depending on what happens in this election. It is my belief that on Jan. 17 2013 or 2017 Fred will assume the Presidency that is rightfully his due to his experience and wisdom.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Fred Thompson is probably the closest thing we have to a true Conservative. It is ashame that he did so poorly on Meet the Depressed last October.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
If Fred would have “gotten into the race earlier”, he simply would have fizzled earlier. And, perhaps Fred would not have played spoiler in South Carolina… more for the Huckabee/Romney rivalry to debate.
But who knows, maybe his original team, who helped create the cigar YouTube and early commentaries, might have pulled him along. (There is an interesting story about his early kitchen cabinet that created the Fred phenomenon, maybe someone is interested enough to find the link.) Unfortunately, that reveals too much about Fred, or more precisely, reveals that there is too little about Fred.
2012 or 2016 is a joke, Thompson has non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If you look at the physical differences and speech patterns of Fred 2002 versus now, there does not seem to be much hope for his political future. Cough and fatigue are among the symptoms of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
I’m sure he will continue to “write” some nice conservative sounding commentaries, but I hardly think he is the great hope of conservatism. (That’s not a role he ever played before, and he does not have the intellectual ability to play such a role without a script). He is, after all, the man who said that lobbying for abortionists was “private life”.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I agree almost totally with Fred Thompson on this. Unlike OHIO, I believe Mitt Romney was a little more conservative than Fred, and he certainly had more skills to actually tackle many of our toughest issues. To say that Fred was ‘more conservative’ is basically disbelieving that Mitt truly changed the one and only position that he modified his position on. It was Mitt who wanted a Constitutional amendment to ban ‘gay’ marriage. It was Mitt who would welcome a Constitutional Amendment to make abortion (in most cases) illegal. It was NOT Mitt who sold his services to fight for pro-abortion positions. You normally are pretty darn fair OHIO, but I find it ironic that you allow Reagan, and GHW Bush to modifiy their positions on abortion, but you won’t allow Mitt to do so.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Illguy: “It was NOT Mitt who sold his services to fight for pro-abortion positions.”
No, Mitt didn’t “sell” his services to the pro-aborts, he volunteered.
Like attending Planned Parenthood fundraisers and giving them money… not to mention the whole $50 abortions cave without even a fight, Planned Parenthood making health policy in Massachusetts, aid and comfort to the enemy before running for president, etc., etc.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
CBL - don’t be an idiot! This has been successfully refuted many time over on here! Where were you?
June 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Illguy: “Refuted” only in the minds of Romney supporters.
Are you saying that Romney didn’t attend a Planned Parenthood fundraiser?
Are you saying that he and his wife didn’t give money to Planned Parenthood?
Are you saying that Romney actually fought the good fight to keep $50 abortions out of his self-lauded healthcare plan?
Are you saying that Planned Parenthood does not help make health policy under Romney’s plan?
Face the facts, Romney is an opportunist who really has no core beliefs when it comes to the unborn. The data said he needed to be pro-life to win the Republican nomination, so he became pro-life.
I will refrain from returning your insult, as I am attempting to stay above the fray.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:52 am
[...] The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated By FRED D. THOMPSON Page A13 Recent congreshttp://race42008.com/2008/06/09/more-solid-advice-from-fred/Chiropractic&39s Next Great Opportunity - RedOrbitHe presents continuing education seminars in co- [...]