"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Procrustes Stretched]

The left of center middle can't win for the GOP - which is why the assclown brigade fights so hard for Jeb or Christie. Only Jeb is a sure thing to lose to Hillary - so it's vital to the assclowns that Jeb be the GOP pick.

left of center middle?
wtf?

 

[Uncensored2008]

left of center middle?
wtf?

Jeb is left of center, no denying that.

But he still part of the muddled middle - not radical fringe left like Obama, or even old-school hard left like HillLIEry.He is part of the left of center, middle.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

left of center middle?
wtf?

Jeb is left of center, no denying that.

But he still part of the muddled middle - not radical fringe left like Obama, or even old-school hard left like HillLIEry.He is part of the left of center, middle.

depending on where one puts end points the middle can be wide or narrow, so left of center middle is a useless term unless one has put forth a description of how far out the middle extends on either side.

by any stretch of the imagination, Jeb is NOT left of any center. Unless of course your center is to the right of what most rational people would consider a venter

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

left of center middle?
wtf?

Jeb is left of center, no denying that.

But he still part of the muddled middle - not radical fringe left like Obama, or even old-school hard left like HillLIEry.He is part of the left of center, middle.

If your imaginings were true and Obama and Hillary are so far left, where would Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich be, off the chart?

 

[Liminal]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

So where's the big difference between your philosophy and your ideology? How are you making that distinction? Simplistic interpretations of philosophy, packaged with political pop culture, hackneyed phrases, tends to look a lot like ideology.

 

[kiwiman127]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

There is no far right!
Are you going to tell us that there is no far left too?
Ever heard of the term, "reality"? I guess not.

 

[Liminal]

There is no such thing as 'left' or 'right'

I did an entire thread on this just the other day. There's no such thing.

Try to be a little more specific when you refer to political ideologies. Please.

We're speaking different languages in here. It's like a tower of babel.

dimocraps are scumbags. They are radicals. They are the lowest form of life on earth. 'nuff said on that topic.

Republicans have a WIDE range of beliefs. Some are more liberturdian, some are strong on Foreign Policy (liberturdians have about the same FP platform as Code Pink) some put economics first and foremost, some are more law and order types, some are more liberal than others, some are in the middle, some are hard to explain.

Cruz has no chance but I applaud him for trying to get his beliefs out and into the Republican blood stream the right way instead of trying to fracture the Party like too many do..

I don't know what Far Right means. Neither does anybody else.

There is no such thing. It just doesn't exist except in the minds of rank amateurs and children....

For instance...... Is Castro 'right' or is he 'left'?

He's a collectivist and a redistributionist so that should make him 'left' right?

But he is authoritarian and dictatorial. So what is he?

What is the scum of the earth dimocrap filth?

They claim they want freedom for everybody but step outside their little boundaries and watch what happens to you.

Refuse to cater a gay buttranger wedding and watch out.

Don't toe the PC Line on a College Campus and say Goodbye Columbus, Portnoy.

''Oh'', they say, "We don't use the power and the force of the Police State to make you bend to our will!"

Only because they don't have that power -- Yet

dimocraps are the scum of the earth, people. That's all you need to know in this life

I think it's really cute how you've made up your own little secret language. Is there a secret handshake that goes with that? Or do you communicate with the others by way of decoder ring?

 

[zeke]

I'm going to bet 1) you can't come up with 10 things, and 2) the things you come up with are not indicative of what I support as a Conservative.

Here is a better idea. Seeing as how this is your thread and you are a stated conservative, to facilitate conversation, wouldn't it be better if you listed the 10 conservative things you believe in?

It's not a better idea. It is my thread and I am a conservative but we don't seem to have any problem facilitating conversation, the thread is very hot with commentary.

Myself, along with other Conservatives have been accused of being "far right" among other things, and so far, there has been absolutely nothing presented to demonstrate this rhetoric. I challenged this accusation, I don't need to present anything.

What would be a better idea would be you addressing my challenge and offering some evidence to back your claims, but that's not happening because you can't come up with anything. So instead, in true liberal fashion, you want to defer, distract, change subjects and run away like the POS coward you are.

Bossdude, I was asking what you believe. If you've got nothing to say, you got nothing. I didn't claim you had made any far right statements. All I have seen you be is an asshole. If you have some far out, far right position, spit it out. I'll comment after I read it.

 

[Liminal]

Not sure what the "CRICKETS" thing is, I'm always more than happy to provide an opinion when asked. And when I say that someone is a "hardcore partisan ideologue", I'm not trying to engage in name-calling. I'm quite serious about each word in that phrase, and you'll never see me calling someone here a nasty name.

So, to answer your question: I am confident that you understand that political opinion lies along a spectrum, from Left to Right. So an example of this would be the use of the term RINO, which generally means a Republican who does not agree with all of the GOP platform. I'm sure you have heard that term, so no doubt I don't need to go into more detail there.

So what do I mean by "hardcore right wing partisan ideologue"? Well, there are two parts to that: Ideological and behavioral.

Ideological: Easy call here. Off the top of my head: No abortions, no gay marriage, neocon war & foreign policy, total free market healthcare, decrease federal government spending at all costs, constant push for fewer gun laws, constant push for lower personal and corporate income taxes and other taxation, constant push to abolish any number of federal government departments (from education to IRS). Surely you recognize that there are some conservatives who may not push quite as hard or might even disagree with one or two of those positions, thereby moving them toward the Left on the aforementioned "spectrum".

Behavioral: Partisan ideologues on both ends regularly engage in the same dishonest behaviors: Spin, deflection, distortion, denial, hyperbole, straw man arguments and outright lies in a transparent effort to maximize all arguments, data and information on their "side" and to minimize, avoid, ignore all contrary arguments, data and information. Ideology over everything else, from honesty to country. Further, I have become convinced that adherence to a hardcore partisan ideology literally distorts perception, making people truly believe and say things that they would not if they were in a more rational state of mind.

There. I hope that clarifies.

.

It only clarifies that you can't tell the difference between an ideology and a philosophy. Now you listed some issues which conservative philosophy deals with, but where is the "extremism" in anything you mentioned? For example, which Conservative is advocating that we ban all abortions? What the hell is "neocon war?" ...You mean like bombing Syria?

I know plenty of Conservatives who support a state's right to legislate gay marriage... are they not conservative because of that?

Philosophy vs. ideology is irrelevant in this case. If you want to parse words, that's fine.

And surely you know what I mean by "neocons".

And perhaps you can show me where I used the word "extremism". You put it in quotes; I didn't say that.

You're illustrating what Mudwhistle infers above: Even hardcore partisan ideologues think they're moderates.

.

All I did was ask you for some examples to back up the rhetoric and you've failed to produce them. And no... Ideology and philosophy are two completely different things and the difference is not irrelevant. That is a fact and it's not "parsing" anything to point it out.

Any time you place the word "FAR" in front of something, it explicitly implies "extreme!" What the fuck else can "extreme" mean?

I am not a partisan ideologue and so far, there has been NO EXAMPLES GIVEN of what this even means in terms of my positions and views. It's all a part of the Rhetoric Campaign... the systematic dismantling of Conservative philosophy in an attempt to morph it into some backward-thinking ideology that can be ridiculed and opposed.

You're failing because you can't cite examples to support your rhetoric! I've asked patiently, over and over... doesn't seem to matter... you guys just keep heaping the rhetoric on hot and heavy without backing it up.

What does "FAR RIGHT" mean? Am I "far right" because I believe our Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms? That makes me an "extremist radical far right wacko?" Is it my view on Constitutionally limited federal government? Less taxes and more freedom? Please, do tell... what makes me a "far right" conservative?

I answered your question as clearly and completely as I could.

I gave several specific examples.

Clearly you're not going to be satisfied.

.

You didn't give ANY valid examples. You threw out left wing rhetorical talking points like you're fucking Joe Biden, but you didn't back anything up with facts. Your'e absolutely right, I am not going to be satisfied with empty rhetoric... not today, not tomorrow, not next week!

If you think Ted Cruz is good candidate, then empty rhetoric is all you need.

 

[zeke]

Dude again you are talking out of your ass..... Way to go for the personal insult though like a good little zombie.

Nah man, just pointing out the hypocrite you are. For some reason, hypocrisy pisses me off. You claim to be a convenience store manager. Nothing wrong with that. I liked retail when I worked it. But it don't pay big bucks. Right?

You mentioned having a family. Very nice.

If you didn't take advantage of the EIC and other benefits available to low earners with kids, shame on you for shortchanging your family.

If you did take advantage of the benefits available to low wage workers, shame on you for bitching about other low wage workers doing same?

That's what a hypocrite does.

 

[kiwiman127]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

I have to disagree with this OP.
The GOP recruited moderates to help the win in 2014. It worked.
A large segment of the general population considered the Tea Party to far right, thus their falling popularity and rising unfavorability in all polls.
Most independent voters are moderate independents, sure there are some that lean left or right, the key word is lean.
Some links for you:
Tea Party support falls among Republicans Pew Research Center
Tea Party Support Holds at 24

 

[Boss]

So where's the big difference between your philosophy and your ideology? How are you making that distinction? Simplistic interpretations of philosophy, packaged with political pop culture, hackneyed phrases, tends to look a lot like ideology.

Yes, things can "look like" a lot of different things when we are simple minded and can't distinguish subtle nuance.

An ideology is a set of ideas and ideals. A philosophy is a study of various ideas out of the appreciation of knowledge and wisdom. Philosophy comes from Greek philo (love) and sophy (wisdom).

Conservatives (for the most part) are not ideologues driven by rigid ideology. They simply hold a conservative philosophy and their individual viewpoints on issues can vary greatly within those parameters.

The left (and the establishment GOP) have been very successful at turning Conservatism into an ideology by applying ridiculous stereotypes and unfounded rhetoric. This means we have Liberalism, which IS an ideology, opposing the incarnation of a false ideology that doesn't really exist. A boogie man to defeat... "Far Right!"

Conservative philosophy, when articulated as such, cannot be defeated by an ideology of any kind. That is why it was so crucially important to pervert Conservatism and promote the empty-headed rhetoric we see so prevalent in this thread. It's Liberalism's ONLY shot!

 

[Boss]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

There is no far right!
Are you going to tell us that there is no far left too?
Ever heard of the term, "reality"? I guess not.

Where are some examples of "far right" as opposed to regular right? Can you articulate this or is it simply overblown rhetoric you cannot support?

The reality so far in this thread is, no one has defined what "far right" means other than it being a blanket phrase to define all conservatives with unsupported rhetoric.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If your imaginings were true and Obama and Hillary are so far left, where would Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich be, off the chart?

Kucinich isn't any further left than Obama. Get real.

 

[Liminal]

So where's the big difference between your philosophy and your ideology? How are you making that distinction? Simplistic interpretations of philosophy, packaged with political pop culture, hackneyed phrases, tends to look a lot like ideology.

Yes, things can "look like" a lot of different things when we are simple minded and can't distinguish subtle nuance.

An ideology is a set of ideas and ideals. A philosophy is a study of various ideas out of the appreciation of knowledge and wisdom. Philosophy comes from Greek philo (love) and sophy (wisdom).

Conservatives (for the most part) are not ideologues driven by rigid ideology. They simply hold a conservative philosophy and their individual viewpoints on issues can vary greatly within those parameters.

The left (and the establishment GOP) have been very successful at turning Conservatism into an ideology by applying ridiculous stereotypes and unfounded rhetoric. This means we have Liberalism, which IS an ideology, opposing the incarnation of a false ideology that doesn't really exist. A boogie man to defeat... "Far Right!"

Conservative philosophy, when articulated as such, cannot be defeated by an ideology of any kind. That is why it was so crucially important to pervert Conservatism and promote the empty-headed rhetoric we see so prevalent in this thread. It's Liberalism's ONLY shot!

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

 

[Boss]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

I have to disagree with this OP.
The GOP recruited moderates to help the win in 2014. It worked.
A large segment of the general population considered the Tea Party to far right, thus their falling popularity and rising unfavorability in all polls.
Most independent voters are moderate independents, sure there are some that lean left or right, the key word is lean.
Some links for you:
Tea Party support falls among Republicans Pew Research Center
Tea Party Support Holds at 24

The Tea Party is a political movement, they are not a party. In 2014, the candidates backed by the Tea Party did very well across the nation. Popularity in polls are the direct result of the liberal smear campaign on conservatism. If you constantly flood the media with the idea that "Tea Party is BAD!" then eventually, you'll see a decline in popularity because people are largely stupid and don't follow politics.

That said... Floor is still open for you to define what is "far right" about the Tea Party movement? So far, all we have is baseless rhetoric.

As for the independent voters... They are simply NOT mostly moderates! This has been the biggest flaw in GOP thinking the past two elections and it looks like they still haven't learned a thing. There are VERY FEW actual political moderates. Your collective viewpoints are generally going to fall left or right of center, it's just how things are. A moderate is basically someone without a brain who is unable to be decisive on what they believe. They don't win elections!

In 1980, Reagan successfully won over the independent voters, most of which were conservative and many had previously been Democrats. In 1992, many of those same independents abandoned Bush to vote for Clinton because they knew Bush was not a conservative. You see, "independent" means you support individuals on the basis of their message and not their party. A moderate has no real message, it's all about getting along, going along, not rocking the boat, not taking a stand, not having a firm view... all those nasty "partisan" things have no place in a moderate message. Whereas, a passionate Conservative who can articulate a conservative philosophy and oppose liberal ideology, stands for something!

Now... Polls, Schmoles! I can take any poll you give me and twist it around to make it "prove" anything you want it to prove! It all comes down to spin, manipulation, false interpretations, things taken way out of context, tricky little ways to distort semantics. And hey, in all fairness, this kind of thing sways public opinion and makes a difference on election day!

 

[Boss]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

 

[edthecynic]

Myself, along with other Conservatives have been accused of being "far right" among other things, and so far, there has been absolutely nothing presented to demonstrate this rhetoric. I challenged this accusation, I don't need to present anything.

I challenge your assertion that you are not far Right extreme. I don't need to present anything either.

 

[edthecynic]

The Tea Party is a political movement, they are not a party.

The Tea Bag Brotherhood IS the Republican Party pretending not to be the Republican Party after the GOP were rightfully embarrassed by Bush. They are not a movement, they are the Republican Party. They revealed that fact when they said that any Democrat running as a TPer was NOT part of the Tea Bag Brotherhood.

 

[Liminal]

I wouldn't argue with those definitions. The problem is that so many so called conservatives think they can define everyone else's politics; and somehow, everyone who doesn't agree with them ends up being defined as liberal. That sounds a lot like an ideologically driven response to me.

Can a Conservative also be an ideologue? Yes, of course! But that isn't what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about. Perhaps this is a problem with the Republicans and the right, not being able to distinguish what Conservatism really means. Again-- lack of a voice.

Think of it like this, a social conservative ideologue and a libertarian ideologue do not see eye-to-eye on a whole host of social issues... we can run the gamut... pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc. But they can both be very much Conservatives and believe in a conservative philosophy. So we see there is a big difference between an ideology and a philosophy here, they are not one in the same. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. When successfully articulated as such, it is wildly popular and wins elections in landslides.

It must be very liberating for you to have a philosophy that allows you the latitude to define everyone else as being ideologically motivated. But I'm still not seeing how your philosophy is any different from ideology, it behaves the same way, displays many of the same attributes.