Yesterday Jeb Bush strongly suggested that the GOP was too rigid ideologically and that the party needed to be more flexible to attract a larger block of voters, and while I disagree with Bush, I want to thank him for bringing this subject up because I believe it is a win for conversatives to have this conversation.
First of all, I agree with Amazona when she says that ideology is the foundation of any individual and/or party platform. Ideology drives policy, so if you understand their ideology, you will know and understand the policies they will promote. The ideology that is at the core of the tea party and most conservatives is that of a more constitutionally based government at both the federal and state level, and that is an ideological belief that should always be rIgid.
The decentralized outline for government that is found in the Constitution is, to parapharase Churchhill; “….is not the best form of government but it is the best so far”, and the same can be said about free enterprise. It may not be the best economic platform, but it is the best so far. Capitalism, for all it’s faults, is the most effective economical system ever, in terms of creating more wealth for more people and for creating a higher standard of living for everyone. And contrary to liberal thought, conservatives do want to provide safety nets for those in need, but we want it administered at a local level where it can be more effective, efficient, and help more people.
The good news is that I think the voters are starting to figure that out with the 2010 elections, and then again in Wisconsin. So let’s continue this conversation, and if you are a liberal, please tell me where I am wrong.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: I would like to take this opportunity to go on the record saying that I think Jeb Bush was right.. to a degree.
Sorry Cluster, but I have to weigh in.
Yes, I agree with Jeb. But, I see this as a problem with both the major parties, and a problem that starts not with elected officials, but with the voters… Let’s be honest about what’s been happening in recent years. The internet has empowered the extremes on the left and the right by giving them a venue to build an audience and influence. This naturally will result in the ability for these groups to influence people in power.
In recent years we’ve seen elected Democrats and Republicans lose primary battles because they weren’t liberal or conservative enough. Joe Lieberman went from being his party’s Vice Presidential nominee to be booted out. In 2010, Christine O’Donnell beat the more moderate, but more electable Republican Mike Castle, only to lose a winnable U.S. Senate seat in the general election.
This past year, we saw every single candidate in the Republican presidential primary labeled a RINO by supporters of a different candidate. So, yes, I believe that Ronald Reagan would never have made it through this year’s primary, because he was a former Democrat.
Barack Obama, the most extreme left-winger to occupy the White House, isn’t considered liberal enough by left-wing bloggers, and hasn’t exactly won praises from them.
So, let’s be honest about what’s going on, and who’s to blame. We, as bloggers and activists, are criticizing our leaders for compromising or for merely for working with the other side just to get things done. We’ll dissect a voting record to find a few black marks just to feel justified in opposing a decent public servant of our party. Let’s wake up.
Blogs For Victory 
Matt,
I am not suggesting that we eliminate compromising altogether, I am suggesting that we consider the foundation from which we compromise from. If we err on the side of the constitution, ie; local solutions from localized government, we will get better results. The debate about feeding the poor was brought up the other day and that is a valid debate to have, but the compromised solution needs to be constitutionally based to be more efficient and effective. The directive from Washington to increase the amount of federal food stamps to resolve the problem will accomplish absolutely nothing but to enrich another politician who increased the benefit, and that would be the example of compromising from a liberal ideology. So in my opinion, conservatives need to stay true to their ideology while forging a compromise, and let the chips fall where they may. I also disagree about Reagan, he would have been re-elected and still by a landslide. Reagan compromised with O’Neil, but from a conservative position, he lowered taxes, increased federal revenue, kept spending in line with GDP, reduced economic barriers, left office with a thriving economy, and commanded respect around the world – the tea party would elect Reagan in a heart beat.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
Some dead white dude said that. I think in the early 1960’s about a year before I was born. I agree with them.
Real debt in the United States of America depending on who you want to believe is anywhere between 115 and 200 trillion dollars. Just how much more do want this debt to grow? Just how many generations do want to add to the payback list.
The United States government is now spending money that won’t be collected until our great grand children fill out their first 1040.
If the cost of the big tent ideology is a continued ride on the opm train. I’ll just hop off now. I’m sure I won’t be the only one.
jeb bush
a great governor of Fla
BUT sounds more like a RINO every day, maybe jeb can join the ambulance chaser team Morgan and Morgan with ole charlie crisp.
We are done with RINOS and socialists light just to suck up a few votes of some special interest group.
“ASK NOT what your country can do for you, ASK what YOU can do for your country”
and that is NOT add debt, NOT add ILLEGAL THIEVES, NOT add radical racist blacks or whites, NOT add GLT groups ahead of hard working majorities of Americans.
Matt
the LEFT wing marxist “MSN” decimated three GOP candidates, NOT right wing ideologues in the GOP. THEY selected OUR candidate not us.
If we need christine odonnell in the GOP to be considered a win forgetaboutit, why elect someone that is going to vote donk anyway?
I say let her retire after her loss and elect a real GOP the next election cycle.
GMB
if the “big tent” includes wolves that will devour our family, church, finances, and morals, count me out. You can burn that pit of vipers “tent” to the ground with the commies.
Reagan won because he had principles and stood by them. He was re-elected in a landslide because he never wavered from his position which everyone did not necessarily agree with but believed in the man and his vision. He would pull another landslide today.
Matt, if you review the elections won by Republicans you will find that all of them were won by not going to the middle but by standing on principles and vision. Going to the middle has caused nothing but loss after loss.
As a note, Reagan agreed to “amnesty” only after the “fence” to stop further illegal immigration was agreed to and “paid for in full.” That 5% of a fence we have now was paid for in full but reneged on by Tip & Co. and spent elsewhere. That is your standard Democratic Congress in action–say or do anything to get what you want then disregard anything you actually “promised.”
Same reason can be applied to Obama–“promised everything to everyone” and has delivered nothing but misery. Obama is losing voters in every category and this will be proven out after the next election is analyzed. Personally, I do have to “Thank” Obama for turning North Carolina hard right since his election–the first time in 110 plus years and we are finally starting to head in a fiscal direction. State House and Senate are now Republican, the Perdue is going, along with Obama, this November.
NOTE to jeb
STFU you Moron!
try talking about the donks and how THEY are destroying this nation.