|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Republican identity crisis
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Party
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP May 03, 2007 04:22pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Commentary |
| News Date | Thursday, May 3, 2007 02:35:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The very basic definition of "conservative" and "Republican" is at stake in this first debate and this election in general. This debate isn't just a competition to see WHO is conservative but simply a competition to define what "conservative" means in 2007.
"Conservative" as it has applied to the Republican Party has evolved over the last 40+ years. From Barry Goldwater's definition in the 1960s that emphasized a limited federal government to Ronald Reagan's that picked up on Goldwater and added national security and faith elements to the definition. Newt Gingrich, in 1994, gave the word "conservative" an aggressive, sharper elbow, while George W. Bush added a pro-government appeal.
Just what is "conservative" right now? Is Pres. Bush's push for spreading democracy around the world conservative? Probably not to Goldwater conservatives or even some early Reagan conservatives (who don't like nation-building), but that is conservative to folks like Gingrich and Bush.
Is using government to legislate faith conservative? Again, to a Goldwater and a Reagan, probably not. Even to a Gingrich that might not be what he believes is conservative. But to a Bush it is. A few years ago the Pew foundation found in its typology survey of voters that there was now something called "pro-government conservatives." Sounds like an oxymoron to some old-school conservatives, but these are folks who believe the government should be active in pushing various social conservative agenda items, for instance. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
