RSS Feed MenuWhile everyone knows there’s a left and further-left split in the U.S. Democratic party, less known is the present split in the Republican party.
Right now it’s the Tea Party movement that gives heartburn to the party establishment – conservative evangelicals and right-to-lifers versus moderate conservatives who want to tap into mainstream independents.
The split can roughly be personified in ultra-conservative Congressman J.D. Hayworth challenging the more moderate John McCain to be Senator from Arizona.
Republicans need both Tea Party and establishment Republicans if they hope to defeat the Democrats in 2012, because Democrats are more pragmatic and join forces to vote for their candidate – unless, of course, Barack Obama continues his Presidency in his second and third years as he has in his first year in office: Practically ever policy verging on disaster, thanks to a wounded economy.
To me, McCain is close to being an ideal conservative. He is bipartisan on issues he believes in, he can resist party doctrine, he has the courage to stand alone on unpopular issues he thinks are right – witness his support of the “surge” in the Iraq war that most Republicans thought was hopeless.
The core issue that unites all conservatives, be they Democrats, Republicans or non-party voters, is national security and defense. It’s the same in Canada. Conservative Liberal party members and conservative-Conservative party members may differ on a variety of domestic and policy issues, but they are in harmony when it comes to security and the military. And that’s how it should be. (Canadian socialists like neither security nor defence, which is one of several reasons why their politicians will never be in tune with the people).
I suspect those who know me (or think they know me) would label me conservative. That label is probably because in the days when the Soviet Union was the world’s greatest menace, I was adamantly anti-communist. I felt then, as I feel now, that security and defense are more vital to the country than, say, abortion issues, same-sex marriages, big or small governments, politicians giving themselves obscene perks that are denied the rest of us, and so on. I have no strong feelings about abortion or gay marriage.
All domestic issues fade to irrelevancy if national security and defense are not maintained. Like it or not, terrorism is the greatest threat facing the civilized world since Hitler and Sovietism – enhanced by Western lethargy, complacency and wishful thinking.
It’s mostly in the last decade that Canada has spruced up its military and became, once again, a small but effective fighting force. As a result we are taken more seriously on the international stage than we were when we concentrated only on peacekeeping.
The U.S. and Canada lag in security – reluctant to recognize militant Islam as the threat that many moderate Muslims see. It’s not Islam per se that’s a threat, but Jihadists.
Both the U.S. and Canada pretend they don’t profile passengers at airports and treat everyone with the same indignity – when they know exactly which passengers are most likely to be suicide bombers. It’ll take another 9/11 to waken our countries, and then we may adopt the Israeli approach to security.
Meanwhile, one hopes the Republicans will agree on a leader who represents core values of security and defense, and compromises on less important issues.
kensilber // Mar 2, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The core issue that unites all conservatives, be they Democrats, Republicans or non-party voters, is national security and defense.
This reads like something unearthed from a Cold War time capsule. Some of the most vitriolic disputes among conservatives have been about Iraq, terrorism and national security in general. I am not a fan of the Ron Paul/paleocon/new Old Right types, but there’s no pretending they don’t exist.
Carney // Mar 2, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Worthington is largely right in that national security must be of prime importance, and if another issue threatens it, it must yield.
However, that doesn’t mean other issues don’t matter. On abortion for instance, it strikes to the heart of the reason for the existence of the state. The government should protect the innocent from those who wish to kill them. Abortion being legal is a monstrous abandonment of a core state function.
Also, McCain is fatally flawed on national security in one major issue: immigration. By supporting amnesty, he supports allowing foreigners to cross our borders en masse without our permission and impose their will on us. When you consider that enabling and encouraging this is an open policy of the Mexican government, with the not so subtle expectation that it will then have millions of people loyal to it on our soil and perhaps have a chance at regaining our Southwest, this is a direct threat to our sovereignty, territorial integrity, national security, and core interests.
McCain thus richly deserves a vigorous challenge at the very least, if not defeat.
Moderate // Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Strong defense is something all conservative are interested in. The same is true of most moderates and liberals even, depending on how strictly you define “defense.”
The dividing line appears when we no longer deal with issues of defense but with offensive operations. Iraq posed no threat to the United States. Many rank-and-file Republicans disapproved then, and disapprove now, of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Would you further pare down the party by declaring these Republicans disloyal?
What exactly are you trying to coalesce conservatives around? Airport racial profiling? We already do that. Something more invasive?
Count me as one conservative who isn’t interested in a police state.
SFTor1 // Mar 2, 2010 at 9:28 pm
This is pretty scary, really.
Military power is the most important thing for the United States in 2010? How about the economy? Education? Health care?
Military spending is a drag on the economy overall. Dwight Eisenhower had a few things to say about it, but I know he’s out of style.
We already spend more on the U.S. armed forces than the rest of the world combined spend on theirs. Exactly what are we supposed to do?
And Carney wants to make abortions illegal. That’s a winner alright. Maybe he should consider why Republican majorities in Congress have never done anything about it, even when they had sitting right-to-life Presidents. Somebody clue him in on the concept of a “wedge issue.”
Missourimule // Mar 2, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Mr. Worthington: You say that those who know you would label you a conservative. I’m sure it’s a result of my own failings, but I can’t say that I’m familiar with you. However, to me, your essay reads like what a Democrat’s ideal of an acceptable Republican should be . . . very limited in scope and fairly unthreatening (unless defense spending gets in the way of social and entitlement matters).
Yes, given your personal priorities, I can understand why John McCain would be your ideal conservative — he’s strong on security (if you don’t count illegal immigration), and national defense – and he’ll generally “go along to get along” on almost any other issue. He’s so well-known for ‘crossing the aisle’, that many of us believe that he’s crossing over to OUR side once in a while.
I’m going to cut/paste a short passage from your piece: Your words . . . . .
“I felt then, as I feel now, that security and defense are more vital to the country than, say, abortion issues, same-sex marriages, big or small governments, politicians giving themselves obscene perks that are denied the rest of us, and so on. I have no strong feelings about abortion or gay marriage.”
That’s just awfully limited, isn’t it? And easy? I, for one, am virtually offended (not to be offensive) by the fact that you — and admittedly, a lot of people – care about so little. I can almost understand ambivalence on the social issues – the abortion, the gay marriage . . . . but you don’t care about corrupt politicians? You don’t believe there’s a difference between the goals of big government vs. small government? We’re talking matters of individual liberty here vs. increasing reliance on the state.
We HAVE to care, Mr. Worthington . . . . the government and our country are getting away from us.
ferruccio // Mar 3, 2010 at 12:56 am
“”"The core issue that unites all conservatives, be they Democrats, Republicans or non-party voters, is national security and defense. “”"
Actually, to me, the core issue is freedom to trade (including freedom from oppressive regulation and confiscatory taxation). I’m pretty tepid on what’s generally peddled as “national security and defense” (mostly bondoggles for weapon suppliers, “security theater” that makes flying an incessant hassle, panic about a guy so stupid as to set fire to his own underwear, etc).
But, hey, I’m a nobody — do you remember who just won the CPAC straw poll hands down? That’s right, just THE guy whose first priority is, and has long been, closing the US military bases abroad, bringing the troops home, and savagely slashing defense and “national security” budgets — a pretty extreme position, but quite consistent with small-government conservatism (is there any other kind that deserves the name?). I wasn’t around before WW2, but I’ve read extensively about those times, and conservatives were, consistently, those who *opposed* military adventures and entanglement abroad.
(I personally just can’t support Ron Paul because his second priority, going back to the Gold Standard, is simply crazy — pity, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a conservative… remember what the first C in CPAC stands for?-).
DFL // Mar 3, 2010 at 8:29 am
With all due respect to the gentleman, the foreign escapades in the Middle East are not core issues for conservatives to unite around. Our military is by far the most powerful in the world and our country can not be successfully invaded. More to unite conservatives is an opposition to big government, support for low taxes, and an enforcement of immigration laws with the desired effect of preventing the USA from becoming a Third World country. America’s biggest enemies are a skyrocketing debt, a moral decline and demographic revolution.
As John McCain backstabbed conservatives on immigration, I sincerely hope that he is defeated in his primary race. On the biggest issue facing the future of the country, McCain was on the side of Ted Kennedy and Kennedy’s wish to destroy the historic American nation.
David Granton // Mar 3, 2010 at 8:58 am
Mr. Worthington writes as a Canadian viewing the stereotypical American conservative, and proves himself to be out of touch with what is really happening.
The whole tea-party idea has been hijacked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck etc… and is obviously making FrumForum uncomfortable and squeamish because it addressed things neo-conservatism doesn’t.
It really is about limited government, effective monetary policy and defending the constitution. Sorry there aren’t guns and butter in there for you Mr. Worthington. Please try and get your news from places beyond FoxNews and CNN.
Carney // Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 am
If straw polls and online polls mattered, Ron Paul would be president. Instead, he was crushingly, humiliatingly wiped out in the Republican primaries in 2008. He has no real grassroots support, just a handful of currency cranks, pro-defeat anti-Americans, and adolescent males interested in drugs, porn, and guns. In no way is libertinism and making yourself useful to the nation’s enemies “conservative”.
DFL // Mar 3, 2010 at 11:59 am
More accurately, Ron Paul has grassroots but a very low ceiling. If the US was a parliamentary democracy, he’d head some sort of Libertarian Party and be confined to about three percent of the vote.