When I was coming of age in politics back in the early 70s while working with William F. Buckley Jr.'s 'Young Americans for Freedom,' Jessie Helms of North Carolina was quickly becoming an icon in Southern conservative politics.
For years Helms had provided conservative commentary on television through Raleigh's WRAL-TV and on the statewide farmer's network.
And thus, by the time he ran for the Senate in 1972 he was a household name throughout North Carolina. His victory that year would be the first is a series of consecutive Senate races that Helms won. He retired from the Senate in 2002 having never lost an election.
As with William F. Buckley and Young Americans for Freedom, Helms was instrumental in getting Ronald Reagan elected to the White House in 1980 and again in 1984. And like Reagan, Helms was famous for tagging his opponents with the dreaded 'L' world, and once you were tagged as a 'Liberal' you were sunk.
Of course, the Democrats at the time gave Reagan and Helms plenty of good reason to regard their opponents with such contempt. This was the era of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and local Democrats such as Jim Hunt.
Once Helms labeled his 1984 Senatorial opponent Jim Hunt as a 'Mondale liberal,' the race was all over.
Helms achieved the status of being known as 'Senator No' in the Senate due to his fierce opposition to government spending and new federal programs. He often single-handedly blocked legislation in the face of a Democrat steam-roller and at times even flew in the face of some of his Republican colleagues...even President Reagan himself.
This kind of steadfast, principled leadership on governmental restraint is sorely lacking in both Parties on Capitol Hill today.
It should also not be forgotten that Helms was a fierce advocate for building up the nation's defense after four years under Jimmy Carter during which our military suffered from a shocking lack of attention and funding.
Though many would dispute or ignore Helm's impact on politics, there is no doubt that he was the most powerful Southern Senator and at one time one of the most powerful men in government, under Ronald Reagan. His leadership helped usher in a 25 year era of conservative politics which stemmed the tide of the creeping crawl of statism.
Senator Jessie Helms of Monroe, North Carolina, died this week at the age of 86. A lifelong Baptist, Helms was a member of the prestigious Hayes-Barton Baptist Church in Raleigh. It is there that his funeral will be held today.
I fear that we shall not see his kind ever again. So long, Senator Helms...
For more information on Senator Jessie Helms, click on the links below:
Senator Dole Remembers Helms as Genteel, Generous
Defiant Helms Drove the South's GOP
Showing posts with label conservative success with Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative success with Reagan. Show all posts
Monday, July 07, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
How Bush Destroyed the Winning Coalition
Ever since Ronald Reagan put together a winning coalition in 1980 of social/religious conservatives, economic conservatives, limited government libertarians, those who believe U.S. defense should be the strongest in the world, and conservative Democrats who are disgruntled with their Party, Republicans have enjoyed the longest era of success they've had in modern times.
It would be redundant for me to enumerate those successes here as I have written often of the resounding success of the Reagan Revolution. Suffice it to say that the Reagan ideology probably saved the Republic from continued decline and eventual destruction.
Yet, all it took to rip this coalition apart was two terms of George W. Bush.
Bush has perhaps pulled off the single biggest hoax in politics since Richard Nixon. He ran twice as a Reagan conservative but has governed as a moderate, elitist Republican in the tradition of his father, George H.W. Bush, and other GOP moderates such as Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford.
During the first Bush term, this fact was hidden by the nation's focus on terrorism and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But during the second term those issues had faded from public consciousness a bit, allowing the light to peer through so as to illuminate the true Bush ideology.
Bush has adhered to the principles of the Reagan Coalition on only two fronts--the tax cuts and abortion. Even when it comes to the War in Iraq, the President has failed to consider the enormous strain his policies have placed on the American military, which was not prepared in terms of overall manpower to conduct two separate fronts in the War on Terror.
Reagan believed that one must first build up the country's military strength in terms of new and effective weapons--and modern gear for the soldiers--and in terms of increasing the number of men and women who serve in the armed forces.
Certainly a President is not always afforded the luxury of having the time to do these things before engaging our military in battle. 9/11 was an event that could not be foreseen in any specific, definite sense. But Bush's failure was not responding to the attack. His mistake is that even after engaging our military we still did not succeed in the necessary strengthening of arms and personnel.
The result is a military that has been drained, used-up, overworked, and under-compensated.
Nonetheless, Bush still presided over a massive increase in the size and scope of government, even as our military suffered. And this is precisely where the President committed what is tantamount to heresy within the Reagan Coalition--a libertarian, small government conservative would not support such a massive buildup of government power and authority.
Add to this the Bush penchant for kicking in the teeth those who put him in office, such as supporting D.C.'s gun ban, allowing the ATF to continue to intimidate, harass, and crush the firearms industry, and failing to stop the flow of illegal aliens into the country and put the clamps on 'sanctuary cities.'
Because of Mr. Bush's willingness to ignore the policies that gave the GOP such enormous success, he has become perhaps the most unpopular President in U.S. history, and he has been dragging down the GOP with him.
For this reason we are stuck with John McCain, who in some ironic twist of fate is probably the one Republican who has the best chance of winning the White House precisely because he has been willing to oppose Bush and his Party on various issues.
Granted, some of McCain's views are certainly anathema to Reagan conservatives, but the public perception is that he is a good guy who thinks for himself. The masses generally do not understand the nuances of policy. All they know is McCain has stood against Bush and other Republicans who are not so popular at present.
The bottom line is that we are stuck with McCain because Bush has nearly destroyed the Reagan Coalition. And if McCain is able to pull in some Democrats with him it won't be because they are 'Reagan Democrats' but because they support some of McCain's more liberal ideas and refuse to support Hillary or Obama because of the ill feelings the Democrats' primary season has evoked.
To be sure, the remnants of the Coalition are still there, although scattered apart in political never-never land. The 'blue dog' Democrats are ample proof of that. All it would take for the Coalition to receive a breath of new life is a candidate who can inspire and rekindle the patriotic spirit that brought us all together in the first place.
It would be redundant for me to enumerate those successes here as I have written often of the resounding success of the Reagan Revolution. Suffice it to say that the Reagan ideology probably saved the Republic from continued decline and eventual destruction.
Yet, all it took to rip this coalition apart was two terms of George W. Bush.
Bush has perhaps pulled off the single biggest hoax in politics since Richard Nixon. He ran twice as a Reagan conservative but has governed as a moderate, elitist Republican in the tradition of his father, George H.W. Bush, and other GOP moderates such as Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford.
During the first Bush term, this fact was hidden by the nation's focus on terrorism and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But during the second term those issues had faded from public consciousness a bit, allowing the light to peer through so as to illuminate the true Bush ideology.
Bush has adhered to the principles of the Reagan Coalition on only two fronts--the tax cuts and abortion. Even when it comes to the War in Iraq, the President has failed to consider the enormous strain his policies have placed on the American military, which was not prepared in terms of overall manpower to conduct two separate fronts in the War on Terror.
Reagan believed that one must first build up the country's military strength in terms of new and effective weapons--and modern gear for the soldiers--and in terms of increasing the number of men and women who serve in the armed forces.
Certainly a President is not always afforded the luxury of having the time to do these things before engaging our military in battle. 9/11 was an event that could not be foreseen in any specific, definite sense. But Bush's failure was not responding to the attack. His mistake is that even after engaging our military we still did not succeed in the necessary strengthening of arms and personnel.
The result is a military that has been drained, used-up, overworked, and under-compensated.
Nonetheless, Bush still presided over a massive increase in the size and scope of government, even as our military suffered. And this is precisely where the President committed what is tantamount to heresy within the Reagan Coalition--a libertarian, small government conservative would not support such a massive buildup of government power and authority.
Add to this the Bush penchant for kicking in the teeth those who put him in office, such as supporting D.C.'s gun ban, allowing the ATF to continue to intimidate, harass, and crush the firearms industry, and failing to stop the flow of illegal aliens into the country and put the clamps on 'sanctuary cities.'
Because of Mr. Bush's willingness to ignore the policies that gave the GOP such enormous success, he has become perhaps the most unpopular President in U.S. history, and he has been dragging down the GOP with him.
For this reason we are stuck with John McCain, who in some ironic twist of fate is probably the one Republican who has the best chance of winning the White House precisely because he has been willing to oppose Bush and his Party on various issues.
Granted, some of McCain's views are certainly anathema to Reagan conservatives, but the public perception is that he is a good guy who thinks for himself. The masses generally do not understand the nuances of policy. All they know is McCain has stood against Bush and other Republicans who are not so popular at present.
The bottom line is that we are stuck with McCain because Bush has nearly destroyed the Reagan Coalition. And if McCain is able to pull in some Democrats with him it won't be because they are 'Reagan Democrats' but because they support some of McCain's more liberal ideas and refuse to support Hillary or Obama because of the ill feelings the Democrats' primary season has evoked.
To be sure, the remnants of the Coalition are still there, although scattered apart in political never-never land. The 'blue dog' Democrats are ample proof of that. All it would take for the Coalition to receive a breath of new life is a candidate who can inspire and rekindle the patriotic spirit that brought us all together in the first place.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
A Numbskull By Any Other Name...
...is still a numbskull.
A famous Indiana Republican, whom I shall not name due to the fact that I can't think of a better name for him than 'numbskull,' has stated that the GOP needs to 'get over' Reagan.
What a complete imbecile.
Reagan is responsible for launching the conservative revolution in this country which probably saved the Republic from tyranny from within and Communism from without. And by the sheer force of his personality and the success of his policies we enjoyed conservative majorities in the U.S. Congress for over 20 years.
But numbskulls within the GOP hate the Reagan legacy, and the sooner they can get people to 'get over it' the quicker they can continue to push the country toward the failed policies of 'moderate' Rockefeller and Jerry Ford-style Republicans who colluded with Democrats in bringing the nation to the brink of ruin.
I remember well the days before Reagan in the GOP. Failure was their legacy. They could never manage to get enough Republicans elected to stop the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, which means the Democrats were veto-proof. And they had trouble electing (and keeping) Presidents, i.e. Nixon and Ford.
Reagan proved that the conservative message, when delivered by effective communicators, is a winning message. When Reagan won in 1980 he swept TEN conservative GOP Senators into office with him.
Why do some within the GOP hate such success?
The answer is not far to find. They HATE the message behind the success.
And if the imbecilic 'gentleman' from Indiana is so loathe to remember and revere the Reagan message, then perhaps he should join the other Party where he'll find plenty of friendly company.
A famous Indiana Republican, whom I shall not name due to the fact that I can't think of a better name for him than 'numbskull,' has stated that the GOP needs to 'get over' Reagan.
What a complete imbecile.
Reagan is responsible for launching the conservative revolution in this country which probably saved the Republic from tyranny from within and Communism from without. And by the sheer force of his personality and the success of his policies we enjoyed conservative majorities in the U.S. Congress for over 20 years.
But numbskulls within the GOP hate the Reagan legacy, and the sooner they can get people to 'get over it' the quicker they can continue to push the country toward the failed policies of 'moderate' Rockefeller and Jerry Ford-style Republicans who colluded with Democrats in bringing the nation to the brink of ruin.
I remember well the days before Reagan in the GOP. Failure was their legacy. They could never manage to get enough Republicans elected to stop the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress, which means the Democrats were veto-proof. And they had trouble electing (and keeping) Presidents, i.e. Nixon and Ford.
Reagan proved that the conservative message, when delivered by effective communicators, is a winning message. When Reagan won in 1980 he swept TEN conservative GOP Senators into office with him.
Why do some within the GOP hate such success?
The answer is not far to find. They HATE the message behind the success.
And if the imbecilic 'gentleman' from Indiana is so loathe to remember and revere the Reagan message, then perhaps he should join the other Party where he'll find plenty of friendly company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)