Little-Acorn
Gold Member
All the candidates at the recent debate, presented conservative ideas in one form or another, some more than others. And their past records indicate varying degrees of conservatism.
Keep in mind that conservatism is the philosophy that ordinary citizens will do better if left to make their own decisions, make their own mistakes, take responsibility for the consequences, help their fellow men, learn how to do better, and generally be responsible for themselves. It is a philosophy that holds government to relatively minor roles: Mostly keeping others from interfering with citizens' rights, setting standards to help them interact, and otherwise leaving them alone.
Though all the recent debaters espoused conservatism, and some have actual records of supporting it, that is not the only important requirement, and might not even be the most important.
The most important thing we should look for in our next President is: Will he be able to get his conservative ideas enacted into LAW?
No conservative President has ever been perfect, an none ever will be. Some have been better at this than others. Reagan got three of this four major objectives enacted: Cutting taxes (and indexing them to inflation to prevent automatic increases), rebuilding the military, and defeating the Soviet Union. He failed at his fourth major objective, balancing the budget, basically compromising it away to get his other three passed when a Democrat Congress passed massive spending and told him to sign it or lose everything.
Fast forward to 2015 and 1026. All the candidates talk the talk. But of the present candidates, which will be most able to get conservative ideas enacted into law?
It doesn't make much sense to go around agreeing that Candidate A is more conservative than Candidate B, or even that Candidate C has better ideas than Candidate D. If candidates A and C are unable to work with (or against) a Congress and get his ideas enacted, who cares how good his ideas were?
(Liberals, of course, will try to derail this thread by screaming that conservatism is awful, terrible, heartless, and the rest of their usual lies and talking points.)
We need to evaluate, not just which candidate is more conservative, but which one will get conservatism enacted into law, possibly in the fact of a future hostile Congress as Reagan did.
For this reason, I hesitate over candidates such as Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Lindsay Graham, and Carly Fiorina. They have little or no experience working with a Congress they have no hold over, and/or have shown far too much tendency to go-along-to-get-along (Graham). No matter how conservative they may be, they may prove unable to get their conservatism into law... meaning, a not-so-conservative Congress may run roughshod over them.
This standard catapults candidates such as Scott Walker to the fore. He has worked with (or found ways to force) a hostile legislature to pass what he wanted, and has found ways to be re-elected time and again, and gain the voters' favors, in the face of massive disinformation campaigns from liberals.
No candidate here is perfect, clearly.
But which will be able, if elected, to enact the most conservative ideas into law?
Keep in mind that conservatism is the philosophy that ordinary citizens will do better if left to make their own decisions, make their own mistakes, take responsibility for the consequences, help their fellow men, learn how to do better, and generally be responsible for themselves. It is a philosophy that holds government to relatively minor roles: Mostly keeping others from interfering with citizens' rights, setting standards to help them interact, and otherwise leaving them alone.
Though all the recent debaters espoused conservatism, and some have actual records of supporting it, that is not the only important requirement, and might not even be the most important.
The most important thing we should look for in our next President is: Will he be able to get his conservative ideas enacted into LAW?
No conservative President has ever been perfect, an none ever will be. Some have been better at this than others. Reagan got three of this four major objectives enacted: Cutting taxes (and indexing them to inflation to prevent automatic increases), rebuilding the military, and defeating the Soviet Union. He failed at his fourth major objective, balancing the budget, basically compromising it away to get his other three passed when a Democrat Congress passed massive spending and told him to sign it or lose everything.
Fast forward to 2015 and 1026. All the candidates talk the talk. But of the present candidates, which will be most able to get conservative ideas enacted into law?
It doesn't make much sense to go around agreeing that Candidate A is more conservative than Candidate B, or even that Candidate C has better ideas than Candidate D. If candidates A and C are unable to work with (or against) a Congress and get his ideas enacted, who cares how good his ideas were?
(Liberals, of course, will try to derail this thread by screaming that conservatism is awful, terrible, heartless, and the rest of their usual lies and talking points.)
We need to evaluate, not just which candidate is more conservative, but which one will get conservatism enacted into law, possibly in the fact of a future hostile Congress as Reagan did.
For this reason, I hesitate over candidates such as Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Lindsay Graham, and Carly Fiorina. They have little or no experience working with a Congress they have no hold over, and/or have shown far too much tendency to go-along-to-get-along (Graham). No matter how conservative they may be, they may prove unable to get their conservatism into law... meaning, a not-so-conservative Congress may run roughshod over them.
This standard catapults candidates such as Scott Walker to the fore. He has worked with (or found ways to force) a hostile legislature to pass what he wanted, and has found ways to be re-elected time and again, and gain the voters' favors, in the face of massive disinformation campaigns from liberals.
No candidate here is perfect, clearly.
But which will be able, if elected, to enact the most conservative ideas into law?
