David Brooks, in an advice column to the forlorn says,... the Reformers [what I call centrist-Republicans], argue that the old GOP priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions.The "new conditions" he alludes to are homosexuality (promoted by heterophobes), abortion on demand, Global warming (a scientific cult), Europeanization, Constitutional reconstructionism (anti-Americanism), globalism, big and leftist government, etc. Theories cloned by leftists in the American academic laboratory.
He goes on to say,The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.Brooks obviously doesn't read the conservative British press or the Brussels Journal. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., responds to Brooks in The American Spectator,As for the Reformers' wariness about the popularity of limited government, according to a Rasmussen survey conducted on October 2, 59% of the respondents agreed with President Reagan's declaration in his first inaugural address that "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."For those of you who were raised on "new math," that's six in every ten voters - regardless of party. Brooks' "Reform" minded conservative is what the Republicans just ran for president ... a reach across the aisle guy, who was soundly defeated. Sarah Palin is what Brooks argues against. [See Quin Hillyer's fine argument concerning conservativism in American Spectator]
Our party ran just what the Dems wanted it to run, a beatable middle-of-the-roader. Pshaw! The laugh is on the "Reformers."
People are wondering what is going to happen to the party and its conservatives. I would put the question differently: what will conservatives do with the Republican and Democratic parties?
I believe conservativism and traditionalism transcend parties (as the Rasmussen poll indicates); I believe both movements, because they are issue oriented, must shun party labels; I believe labels hinder and divide. I believe conservatives must vote the candidates who are on the issues we value ... even if they are Blue Dogs.
And, yes, I believe we must separate our religion from our politics in order to avoid divisions and labels on the issues conservatives agree on.
No one wants to believe their worldview is wrong, but someone's must be ... we can't all be right! That's why it is important to side with the issues, everything else is popularity driven.