There is a lot of talk about how the Republican Party can salvage itself in time for the next election. Some lament the lack of “true conservatism.” Some say that the GOP just needs to distance itself from the increasingly unpopular policies of the Bush administration. Many Republicans are searching hither and yon for a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Personally, I think that a Reagan 2.0 is the wrong approach. What the GOP needs is a modern Eisenhower.
Ike Eisenhower, in my humble opinion, is very underestimated as a conservative president. He was a man who cared more about balancing the budget than pandering to corporate interests. He was a paradox, a General running as a dove, promising to end Truman’s Korean War. He used his last State of the Union to warn against what he called a “military-industrial complex.” He did not fear this complex, nor did he fear angering the voting public, sending the National Guard in to defend Black school children from racist mobs. There was a reason why my grandfather -a man who voted Democratic straight down the line- proudly wore his “I Like Ike” pins. In short, Eisenhower is a symbol for leadership which his party ignores at their own peril.
Members of Eisenhower’s family were highly vocal supporters of the Obama-Biden ticket. I do know if the General would have been so welcoming of the Senator from Illinois if he were still around. I do know, however, that there is little of his spirit left alive in the modern GOP.
I Still Like Ike
By john w connelly jr - Posted on November 15th, 2008
But there are lots of different types of conservatism. There are 2nd Amendment Conservatives, Pro-life Conservatives, small government conservatives, pro-marriage conservatives, national security conservatives, cultural conservatives, fiscal conservatives, low tax conservatives, etc. Generally the three legs of the Republican stool have been strong national defense coupled with an isolationist tendency, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism.
My big issues are fiscal conservatism and illegal immigration. I'm pro-choice but the issue does not really matter to me so I tolerate the pro-life conservatives if they are the ones I need to ally myself with to fight back the socialists. I would probably vote for legalizing most drugs which is more of a libertarian philosophy. I'm pro traditional marriage and a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment. In general you could describe me as mixed on the social issues.
Republicans have lost their way. We abandoned fiscal conservatism which was our strongest suit when it became to appealing to the American Center. And strong national defense somehow got morphed into an exercise in nation building and spreading democracy which was an ideology we HATED when Clinton was doing it. All that was left by 2006 was the social conservatism.
I gnerally agree with your analysis. I still prefer Reagan to Eisenhower. Reagan was nearly the perfect mix of all three legs of the Republican stool. But I would take Eisenhower over either Bush or McCain. Bush, along with a corrupt Republican Congress, completely destroyed the fiscal leg of the Republican stool and his foreign policy was decidedly Wilsonian. All that was left was the social conservatism. McCain, being a Maverick didn't stand for anything. On foreign policy he offered the worst of Bush. On fiscal conservatism he was great until it came to one of his pet projects like cap'n'trade, healthcare, amnesty, etc and then his spending proposals made Bush look like a piker. And his social conservatism proposals were just pure pandering although he probably had better instincts then Bush.
I wish Eisenhower had been running in the recent election.vvMaybe I would have voted for him rather than Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party who was the only one in the race who looked like a conservative.
on the idea that the Republicans gave up fiscal responisbility when it became popular to the American Center. They gave it up when it became profitable. When they realized how much money could be made with pork barrel projects, they threw their values out the window.
By the way, the other reason Eisenhower was a great president: he was the last man elected to the office who was not a career politician.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
on the idea that the Republicans gave up fiscal responisbility when it became popular to the American Center. They gave it up when it became profitable.
I don't think I said that. I said that fiscal conservatism is what made the Republican Party attractive to the American Center.
I tend to agree with you that it was corruption and greed that caused the Republican Party to give up fiscal conservatism. They tried to use the power of the purse to buy themselves permanent power. They essentially adopted the lite version of the Democrat strategy. It didn't work.
Republicans don't have a monopoly on runaway spending. It was the Republican Congress in the 1990s that first brought spending discipline to an institution that had been out of control on spending since the 1960's. And the Democrats major criticism of almost every big spending bill (Highways, Agriculture, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, Energy) between 2000 and 2005 was that they did not spend enough.
Of course Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2006 and the spending has gotten even worse. Even President Bush who until then had never seen a spending bill he didn't like found some of their spending excessive and actually cast a few vetos. I fully expect to see the Democrats achieve new heights of fiscal irresponsibility in the next two years. And I expect they will get punished for it too. The Democrats got lucky in that the American people tend to focus their anger on the President. But Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reed's Congress was even MORE UNPOPULAR than President Bush. In the next election, it will be absolutely clear which party get the blame.
I shouldn't try reading three different things at once while I'm supposed to be doing a math project
concerning congressional aproval ratings, however, keep in mind that while people tend to have an unfavorable opinion of congress overall, they tend to love their representatives. Also keep in mind that alot of those bills which Bush vetoed were vetoed not so much for their spending as for some of the other content.
I do however, agree: outrageous spending can be found on both sides of the isle.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
as universally hated as the polls indicate, we would not have seen more democratic seats picked up earlier this month.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
The exit polls showed that most Obama voters did not know who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reed are and most thought that Congress was controlled by Republicans. But they did know that Republicans had spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
This either says something very negative about the intelligence of Obama voters or it says something very negative about the job of informing people done by the media or probably both.
Given the state of extreme ignorance, it does not surprise me that Democrats gained seats. Republicans did not live up to their rhetoric about fiscal responsibility and a lot of what is happening now is their fault. Now it is the Democrats turn and I fully expect they too will succomb to the siren call of excessive spending and that they will make a hash of things too.