Newt, Sarah and a New GOP
"Sometimes party loyalty asks too much," said JFK.
For Sarah Palin, party loyalty in New York's 23rd congressional district asks too much. Going rogue, Palin endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava.
On Oct. 1, Scozzafava was leading. Today, she trails Democrat Bill Owens and is only a few points ahead of Hoffman, as Empire State conservatives defect to vote their principles, not their party.
Newt Gingrich stayed on the reservation, endorsing Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and hauls water for the unions.
Scourged by the right, Newt accused conservatives of going over the hill in the battle to save the republic, just to get a buzz on. "If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision." How Scozzafava would prevent America's being "crushed" was unexplained.
The 23rd recalls a famous Senate race 40 years ago. Rep. Charles Goodell was picked by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill the seat of Robert Kennedy in 1968. To hold onto it, Goodell swerved sharp left, emerging as an upstate Xerox copy of Jacob Javits, the most liberal Republican in the Senate.
In 1970, Goodell got both the GOP and Liberal Party nominations, and faced liberal Democrat Richard Ottinger. This left a huge vacuum into which Conservative Party candidate James Buckley, brother of William F., smartly moved.
Assessing the field, the Nixon White House concluded that, with liberals split, Goodell could not win. But Buckley might. Signals were flashed north that loyalty to the president was not inconsistent with voting for Buckley. To send the signal in the clear, Vice President Agnew described Charlie Goodell to a New Orleans newspaper as "the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party."
The former George Jorgensen, Christine had undergone the most radical sex-change operation in recorded history.
Liberals went berserk, calling on New Yorkers to rally to Goodell, who began surging, at Ottinger's expense. Buckley scooted between them both to win. Hoffman may also. But even if he does not, Palin, a conservative of the heart, did the right thing.
And the GOP has been sent a necessary message.
For, according to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans now identify as conservatives—only 20 percent as Republicans. If the GOP is not the conservative party, it will never be America's Party.
But what does "conservative" mean in 2009? And where do conservatives come down on the great issues? For what the right is against—any repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the $787 billion stimulus, Obamacare—is much clearer than what the right stands for.
In 2010, this may not matter, as the Obamakins rule the roost and will be held accountable, and Republicans can unite around what they oppose. Year 2012, however, is problematic.
Then the party must declare itself. And the reality is that the GOP remains a house divided.
What, for example, is the conservative view of the war in Iraq and the Bush economic policies that cost the party both Houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008?
Why did President Bush leave with 27 percent approval? Did Bush policies the GOP once applauded have anything to do with it?
Was Bush free trade responsible for the decline of the dollar and the loss of one in four manufacturing jobs? Is globalization still good for America and NAFTA the deal of the century?
What is the conservative position on reaching out to Russia, as Barack Obama has done, on bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and on canceling that anti-missile system Bush planned in Poland?
"We're all Georgians now!" John McCain declared. Are we?
What is the party position on a "long war" in Afghanistan?
For if America has soured on the war and opposes more troops today, will America be enthusiastic about soldiering on in 2012, after 1,000 or 2,000 more American dead have been shipped home?
Do Republicans support negotiating with Tehran, or cutting off gasoline and starting up the escalator to air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities that are today under U.N. inspection?
Will the GOP propose to stimulate the economy with tax cuts after four straight trillion-dollar deficits? Will the Bush line, "They'll pay for themselves," still be credible after Bush's deficits?
If the largest federal outlays are for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense and interest on the debt, followed by education, housing, homeland security and transportation, where would the GOP use the knife to balance the budget?
According to Gallup, America is moving closer to the Republican position on regulations, abortion, guns and union power. But half of all Americans now favor cuts in legal immigration. Are Republicans willing to call for a moratorium on immigration to tighten the labor market and force wages up? Or does the Chamber of Commerce still call the tune?
Ronald Reagan arrived with new ideas that fit the needs of his time. Where are the Republican ideas that fit the needs of this time?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
To all defeatists, my riposte comes from the impeccable Russell Kirk (actually insufficiently rightist by my lights, but a hero to most paleoconservatives):
"Nothing is, but thinking makes it so."
The carping, whining, 'throw in the towel' attitude of so many here is self-fulfilling. Thank God the 300 were not "realistic" paleoconservatives!!
I think that if you really look at the 300, they would have been realistic paleoconservatives had there been a left at the time. There was no left so there was no need for paleoconservatism, since society itself was 'paleoconservative'. Nor are we facing an invading shah, but a very different and far more insidious threat.
Three hundred men making a valian stand today would wind up like Waco, and everyone would just turn the channel after it was over.
"For me, the buzzwords are wealth redistribution and government takeover of the economy.
But aren't those the buzzwords for you because they are the particular ones that will implicate the party you wish to be the relative scoundrels? I suspect that it's not that you care so greatly about "wealth redistribution and government takeover of the economy" that you believe the Democrats are "worse" in the end than the Republicans, it's that you believe the Democrats to be "worse" in the end than the Republicans and so you care greatly about "wealth redistribution and government takeover of the economy. That's not to say that they're not issues you sincerely care about, but rather that in galaxy of things to care about, in the whole cosmos of offenses either party has or will commit against you, you choose to train your telescope on those two above all others because they allow you to give your default loyalty to the party you'd still like to support.
Really, sir - think about what you're choosing between. Both of these parties are working in concert to destroy your world. It really is that profound, what they've done and are doing. Isn't it debasing to choose between two criminals who are stealing all you'll ever have, pick one and give him your default loyalty? It's like a woman choosing one of her rapists for a husband. The only course a man can take (in my opinion) is to give no party your vote unless they are likely to advance (rather than be destructive to) your interests. The establishment GOP won't.
The quality of thinking here is declining post by post.
The issue, yet again, is not whether the GOP is wonderful by traditionalist standards, but whether there is any realistic alternative. There is not, at least on the current horizon. Politics is the art of the possible. It is eminently possible, contra Prof. Wilson, for real rightists to capture the GOP. It just takes work and character (paleos have lots of the latter, maybe less inclination towards the former). Most grass-roots Republicans are mostly with us (well, assuming we're talking about a genuine, if moderate, rightism: Aaron Wolff's jeremiad some years back against marital contraceptive use really is not going to advance us in the public realm ...).
I barely know even any Democrats who want continuing immigration (I know precisely one), and the near-totality of Republicans are against expanding redistributionist government (though there are deep, and perfectly understandable and even appropriate, divisions over homeland security, the national security state, the necessity of foreign military exercises, etc - all of which I mostly support, provided they serve American nationalist, as opposed to New World Order, objectives).
There has long been a kind of 'retreat to the catacombs' mentality at Chronicles, starting with the editor himself. I can't say that events have proven him wrong; quite the contrary, unfortunately. But the difficulty of the task at hand in no way absolves patriots of their obligation to try to save something of the traditional country - and that does not mean such laughable, nay risible (given the seriousness of the situation), 'solutions' as homeschooling, church-going, reading your hometown paper, learning Latin, leading the Boy Scouts, tending a vegetable patch, or making music or moonshine. All worthy activities, but utterly irrelevant to the great, totalitarian struggle of which we are all, unfortunately, inescapably a part.
As I wrote in another recent post, the West generally, and the real America in particular, are being put through the meat grinder of history. Every exogenous trend is militating against our national and civilizational survival, and our own fellow citizens, considered collectively, are 1/3 suicidal, 'one-worldist' traitors (including many sincere Christians), and 2/3 morally confused. If our people - nation, civilization, and biological race - are to endure, all rightists are going to have to become far more politically engaged, and ultimately militant. The notion that one can escape into one one's cultural shell, and live a good life while society is crumbling, is ludicrous. THERE IS NO ESCAPING THE HARD BURDENS OF POLITICAL CHOICE.
Paleos need to adopt a totalitarian, thoroughly politicized outlook. Certainly we need to be realistic. It is not within the realm of present possibility that we will have again a laissez-faire economy, a Bible-based public culture or morality, or a white supremacist or segregated country. We had those things, but we idiotically eliminated them. Moreover, positing them as goals has whiff of utopianism, not to mention infantilism, as though paleos of one school or another either want social perfection, or they're going to have a snit or tantrum and refuse to play ball, so to speak.
But politics is about power, and power is real. There is no safe, neutral observer position. You either fight, or die (or at least face subjugation, oppression, and ruin). A lot of paleos have clearly chosen to 'die with dignity', and they make excuses for their passivity by claiming an empirically unfounded political futility. "Nothing is, but thinking makes it so." Such were not the men who built the West, nor will such types have much role in rebuilding it.
"The issue, yet again, is not whether the GOP is wonderful by traditionalist standards, but whether there is any realistic alternative."
If one is at all concerned with the preservation of what is left of American culture, the GOP as it is is *not* a realistic alternative either. No one here is saying that, should the GOP somehow transform into a truly conservative force (meaning a force dedicated to the preservation and cultivation of the American people, their peculiar and commonly shared Anglo-derived cultures, traditions and liberties), we should deprive it of their votes. We are speaking of GOP as it is, and is likely to remain. The reason people still cling to the idea that the GOP is *currently* a better alternative is because they've been conditioned to do so, and because it is profoundly frightening to accept that there is no politically viable option open to you, and that one's government is that far out of control. In the end, the current establishment GOP is no better than the Democrats.
"It is eminently possible, contra Prof. Wilson, for real rightists to capture the GOP"
Possible but extremely improbable. I doubt anyone here would suggest it is a literal "impossibility" that conservatives might capture the GOP. That is why I suggest anyone who is conservatively inclined give their votes only to candidates who they believe are sincerely conservative and earnestly dedicated to conservative ends as one understands them. That is what I do. Deprive the GOP of your vote unless they run Conservatives. If the GOP learns it cannot capture power without running Conservatives, then they will eventually run Conservatives. Only then, though. Otherwise, why would they bother? They are there to accumulate and influence power and wealth - that is all most of them care about, so deny them this until they run Conservatives. Otherwise to give the GOP one's support is a vote in favor of the destruction of everything one values.
I can only guess that those who still support the GOP otherwise, still consider it a viable, "realistic alternative" as it is, do not or cannot appreciate the damage the Republicans have done and will do.
Thank You, Lone Racer. You may step down now. This conversation with you is over. Keep posting this drivel and your posts will soon be blocked as they should be.
Lone Racer seems to think that getting guys in suits into legislative positions who tout certain campaign platforms (A Child is not a Choice, No Amnesty for Illegals, If you Outlaw Guns Only Outlaws will Own Guns) is what we need to be doing, and lo and behold, that sacred cow known as the Republican Party is the vehicle to use to do it. Is he not aware that generations of conservatives have blazed the campaign trails since the time of Nixon, to the point where the GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress including the White House from 2003-2007, yet the government has continued unabated to become more corrupt, power-hungry, despotic, and imperialistic?
Mr. Racer, it is called DEFENDING your civilization, community, religious faith, etc. - "retreating to the catacombs," as you say. Is this not what the American warriors for independence from Britain wished to do? What would they say to your assertion that power and influence using social institutions should be used to effect change in a society? Those are the political tactics of the LEFT, my friend. We show that we are God-fearing conservatives, loyal to our ancestors and to the Constitution they ratified, by looking at what we have right in front of our very eyes. Our families, communities, churches, schools. You say we fail to answer your question of what alternatives to the Dems and GOP there are. In what endeavour or purpose? Electing people into power at the highest level of government who truly represent us? By definition, that cannot be done in an imperial state. And by the way, I strongly urge you to reconsider the first sentence of your last paragraph on comment #54, if that truly is your mode of thinking as we type, for it could have been taken verbatim out of Hitler's or Stalin's writings.
We must learn to die well. We die well when we have lived well. Living well means to have left a worthy legacy to our children, our kith and kin, our Church and our local community, a legacy which they can in turn claim as their heritage and nurture through their lives to be handed off as a legacy to the next generation; and living well means that just as we have left a worthy temporal legacy, we can claim an eternal inheritance as joint heirs with Christ. This is to die well.
To begin to live well, we must shed our barbarism and begin the journey to becoming civilized men. This means that we must acquire, internalize and confess with our daily lives the great virtues - cardinal, capital and theological.
We must honor and uphold in our personal lives four sacred places: the marriage bed in which we as man and as wife become one flesh and through which in our intimacy and our communion we produce fruit - children. Out of the honored marriage bed emerges the family. The second sacred place is the familial supper table. There, at the supper table, body, soul and spirit are nurtured with food, with familial fellowship and with spiritual communion. Christ asks us to invite Him in to supper. The third sacred place is the communion table at the Church, that place where in humility we partake of the Body and the Blood of the Lamb in intimacy and love. Finally, there is the garden - the flower garden which bestows, with care from the knowing and gentle hand, beauty; the vegetable garden which provides communion with God through His earth and which provides nourishment for the supper table; and finally the cemetery - the counterpart to Eden. In Eden, the intimate communion of man with God was broken by and through the fall and death - physical, spiritual and eternal - became man's lot. From the cemetery, those who are dead in Christ will experience the undoing of the fall and the restoration of intimacy and communion with God. That is why I always sense a tension in a churchyard - not the foreboding of a silly Halloween but the tingle as if Christmas might come at any moment.
I am determined, with God's mercy and grace, to quest for these things. None of these things are or could they be in the platform of a political party. To place these sacred things with a political party would be for the chicken to place her last eggs in the den of the chicken snake!
We cannot save civilisation by working in the current system. That's been tried. It cannot be saved by attempting to retake or preserve the imperial government. It is so rotten that it must now fall, and a new system will then arise whether we like it or not. What shape it will take remains to be seen, but regardless of what form it takes, the stupid evil party as it now exists will not exist in the new system. Best to tighten our belts and make it through so we can deal with what comes and perhaps play a part in shaping the new order, or educate our children and descendants so that they can do so. That, and not the Trostkyite-Plutocrat party, is the only realistic alternative.
@ #53 Comment by S.L. Toddard on 31 October 2009:
"Really, sir – think about what you’re choosing between. Both of these parties are working in concert to destroy your world. It really is that profound,"
Oh, I agree. I've been there for about 20 years now. As I said, I'm an independent conservative. I've been telling people the two parties are two faces of the same coin for years now - since long before the days we're living in now arrived.
@ #58 Robert Peters
I appreciate your thoughts here. I believe you are succeeding in your quest. Wonderful post.
Grow up, gentlemen.
As Mises expressed it (about a different set of circumstances) (I'm paraphrasing): "When society is sweeping towards destruction, no man may find a safe harbor for himself. All must thrust themselves vigorously into the struggle to save civilization." I am no apologist for the GOP, as my several posts above clearly indicate to anyone with very basic literacy skills. But I am the true realist in this thread. The American political structure today is highly duopolistic. The Democrats are increasingly dominated by racial minorities, most whom who are poorer than whites (considering all groups collectively), and many of whose members are animated by racial resentment towards (as though we haven't done enough for minorities in this country!!), as well as dislike and even contempt for, whites. Thus, in so far as the Left is at bottom a racially treasonous ideology, which will trim any of its professed goals in order to enhance the numbers, advantages, and political power of non-whites (think of how immigration harms both the economic interests of the working, and increasingly, middle, classes, as well as the natural environment through overpopulation) especially when they can do so at the expense of whites, the Democratic Party will never be a vehicle for conservative interests. It may have been in decades and centuries past, but those days are long over.
This has been the story of American politics for quite a while, and will be even more so in the future, as the US continues and intensifies its 'diversification'.
That leaves only the GOP as a possible vehicle for political struggles. And, to reiterate, those who do not fight, die (or at least are disempowered, dispossessed, oppressed, and impoverished, as the verminous Obama/Pelosi junta is doing to us right now). The political passivity and quietism of many posters here is neither realistic, nor admirable. It smells of cowardice, concern with personal and psychological comforts (in that resembling liberalism), excuse-making, and smugness. At its absolute best, I call this constellation of attitudes "stiff-upper-lipism", as in, "let's just accept the annihilation of America and the West knowing the we ourselves are pure of thought and blessed of heart, while pretending that all is in accordance with the Creator's impenetrable design." Horse manure! Such attitudes disgust me, as they would any health man of the West. Certainly, any of the ancients, about which Dr. Fleming likes to declaim - Leonidas, Pericles, Cato, Horatio, Cicero, Caesar etc, would have been appalled at the lack of civic-mindedness and sheer honor that this defeatist attitude reveals.
America and the West are most certainly not lost (as I argued at length under my real name last year on this site). That would imply physical defeat. We are declining, but that is a function not just of liberal traitors (some of whom can and will change their minds, as life for whites gets progressively worse, and join with nationalists), but of deeply confused conservatives, vast numbers of whom still don't understand the real struggle being waged against them, despite the educational efforts of Sam Francis and his acolytes. Our unavoidable task is to continue educating real Americans about the sources of their dispossession, while working to unify them into a correct political nationalist movement. In unity there is strength.
The GOP is eminently conquerable. It just takes time and continuing effort.
Lone Racer truly represents the epitome of shallowness in American political thinking. Only under a government truly ruled by corporate institutions and interests would he and his good little obedient fellow servants of the empire actually believe that a party founded for the SOLE PURPOSE of consolidating its country's resources, taxes, and political influence into the hands of big business is the proper electoral vehicle to use for CONSERVATIVES. Give Newt Gingrich a call, Racer, he and the abortionist-feminist-homosexualist Republican Dede Scozzofava need your help in that New York congressional race!
Lone Racer is living in an old and out of date paradigm. The country is not duopolistic politically any more. Lone Racer should stop believing everything he hears in the main stream media. Independents outnumber everyone. As the GOP reveals itself more and more to be leftist, globalist and nihilist, its traditional base will unravel and break away. John McCain was the lighting of the fuse on the time bomb of conservative awareness. Many people woke up and said, "My gosh, it's come to this?" Like the outer layers of the onion, they will peel away. Soon, there will be nothing left but the Rockefellers in their cloistered dungeons.
The problem is there is no conservative leader, no bold vision and no fearless exposition of a radically new platform that hearkens to our origins, that can unite these simmering silent masses. The same thing is going on all over Europe. I watch the events unfolding on the other side of the Atlantic with great interest.
When will the international Western patriot movement meld into an effective front for change, with a common vision and a common message?
And one more thing.
White conservatives better come up with some replacements for Hollywood and the education system, similar to the revolution in talk radio. We lost the culture war years ago. And we also need to start producing children. Outbreed the minorities. Problem is, we're too sensible to do that without an adequate economy and jobs. See what I mean? We need a ground level plan with a leader.
Brock:
My understanding of these and allied issues so far exceeds your obviously limited mental capacity that it hardly seems worth the bother of responding. I have argued that rightists have no choice but to struggle to take over the GOP, and turn it for our purposes. Why don't you (or others) present your more realistic alternative(s)?
The silence is deafening.
Racer,
Read the last paragraph of my comment #57. Striving to infiltrate an institution (in this case, a political party) for the purpose of achieving certain social changes and policies is straight out of the Left's playbook. It is the defining feature of leftism. We are subjects of an imperial government, yet we wish to conserve (that's the root word of CONSERVATIVE) long-cherished traditions which were sacrosanct when we lived under a republican government. Therefore, we show the rest of the world who we are and what we stand for by leaving all the government's wholly owned institutions (parties, big businesses and corporations, banks, law firms) alone to move forward with their goals of consolidating more money and power into their hands, and we look to our own immediate spheres of influence such as our families, churches, and communities to worry about public or social policy. THAT is the alternative. As the good Dr. Wilson says, some things cannot be repeated enough until they sink in.
Your gospel of the GOP revival will find no converts here, Lone Racer, whoever you are. Your ideals are sincere but you will not win over allies with insults or by flogging the dead dog of the GOP.
#38. Mr. Toddard. Sorry to be late in replying. The Republican Party began as a revolutionary party, intent on destroying the constitutional Union and replacing it with a central government to be used in the interests of state capitalism. That is the basic fact apart from all the election rhetoric. It has never really changed. In addition, it was a vehicle for the New England refomist mentality (Progressivism) For a century the Democrats were the more conservative party of the two, until the Northeast, the bankers, and the progressives changed to the Democrats. All the parts of the country, classes, and interests that were long the most solidly Republican are today the most solidly leftist. The most salient thing about the Republican opposition to the New Deal was its irrelevance and ineffectiveness. To the extent that the New Deal was restrained, it was mostly by Southern Democrats. Remember how Taft was defeated by Eisenhower, Goldwater was destroyed by the leaders of his own party, and Reagan was put under the control of the bankers even before he was nominated. And the "conservative" Republicans have totally lacked staying power. I need only mention that Robert Taft Jr. is captive to every leftist fantasy that comes along.
#25 "Silly me. I thought it was the same reasons as why Mel Bradford was denied the Chair for the National Endowment for the Humanities by the Reagan Neocon adminstration."
The Bradford Incindent was unfortunate. But it only proves the point I was trying to make. If Paleos are going to be critical of everything and everybody and continue to keep everyone guessing what they really stand for, they will fail. So once again, to put down Reagan or Goldwater is absurd because then noone cuts it in our life time. There is no place to go.
#26. Mr. Robert, patronizing is making you sound like a jackass not me. I was a student involved with the Conservative Party in New York when Reagan was trying to win the nomination in 1979, I know all about the frustrations of trying to work within the GOP and why after a few years I quit being involved. However, unlike you and the orgiinal poster of the comment I don't blame Ronald Reagan for failing me. Politics is what it is. From 1988 to 2008, we've had people that were lot worse than Ronald Reagan and what we have now is a complete disaster of enormous proportions. This is the reality you should deal with instead of attacking me and other Paleos that share my concerns.
#69. "All the parts of the country, classes, and interests that were long the most solidly Republican are today the most solidly leftist." Mr. Wilson, why do you think this is? Why would these Republicans become Deomcrats? And who are the Republicans now and where are the Conservatives?
Mr. GOP, jack bailey, thinks Goldwater and Reagan, members of the ORIGINAL left-wing political party in America, were conservatives. Why? I suppose because they wanted to bring down the Soviet Union, lower our taxes, and subsidize big corporations. How intellectually vacuous, and ignorant of U.S. history to boot. My, how the mainstream media-political establishment has so easily captured the minds of its subjects such as bailey.
#72. Ok Mr. Brock give me the names of some real Conservatives from the last fifty years that you admire. Perhaps I can learn from you.
#67. "and we look to our own immediate spheres of influence such as our families, churches, and communities" oh, yes and wait till they march you to the rice fields! Like they are gonna leave you alone. YOU are exactly who Obama is targeting first and foremost. The delusions and naivete are astounding.
#72. How absurd, a canservative who accepts the existence and notion of class warfare : "... and subsidize big corporations." Please apply your own statement to yourself: "How intellectually vacuous etc. ..."
Mr. Bailey, I believe we have reason for some optimism. After the Bush bail-outs, two unwinnable wars, the financial meltdown, and now the Obama takeover of near everything with record debts, there is growing anger in this country. The march on Washington and the tea parties seem to be only the beginning. There is real hope that a real conservative party will arise from this. That is, if the Republican’s don’t take control, defuse it, and use it to launch themselves back into power. Then again, another betrayal by the Republicans may be what’s needed to finally and fully awaken the party’s conservative base of the futility of supporting the leftist Neocons and the Republican Party in general. At this point the only happiness is among the bankers and the military/industrial complex. They have every reason to love the Republicans.
On the contrary, bailey, Jefferson recognized that there were two readily distinguishable classes of citizens in America, so conservatives should as well. The Yankee corporate big-business class represented by Hamilton and Adams on one side, and the agrarian class, concentrated mostly in the South, on the other. The desire to DESTROY another class and to take their resources and possessions for one's own is pure leftism, yes.
As for the feds coming after me, I'll take up my guns and stand up for myself and my family as Randy Weaver did at Ruby Ridge if it ever comes to that, thanks for the warning.
On today's conservatives, my favorites are Professor Clyde Wilson of this magazine and Professor Thomas Woods.
#77. Whatever you are refering to in Jefferson, I believe you are misinterpreting it. Likewise Hamilton and Adams were not representing any particular group of people most of the time but all Americans equally. However, what you are refering to are proto-Marxists ploys to explain history as a function of the means of production and therefore class warfare. ON the other hand, the intentions to have a classless society are clearly spelled out in the preamble and have always been understood as such. And even if we put the Constitution aside it is clearly the desire of Conservatives whether it is Hayek, Kirk, Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn etc, to defuse the delusion of class warfare by linking freedom to capitalism as freedom's most efficient provider.
And Feds won't be coming after in that way. They are just going to take what is left of your freedom and property step by step and the only way to stop that is to organize. A heroic last stand just won't do.
The Conservatives you mention are fine men and thinkers. I was hoping for an example of someone who can lead or could have led the Conservatives to victory