Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Conservatives: United We Stand, Divided We Fall

I had to take the time to write this blog, because every day I log onto my Facebook account and see the same things over and over again. No, not just the Farmville and Cityville requests...political statements that make absolutely no sense. I see a group of people who are so alike, yet are so far apart. It's like watching brothers and sisters playing "Marco Polo" but no one ever comes close to winning.

As many of you know, I am a conservative, but by no means am I textbook. I don't think there is anyone that fully fits an actual definition of a label to a "t". If they do, they're probably trying too hard to be the label and in the process they lose their true self. Most of the friends that I've made politically on Facebook have been conservatives (like-minded individuals tend to gravitate towards one another), but I do have some very liberal friends, as well as some who are very non-political. It's one reason why I refer to my timeline as a melting pot, because I have so many diverse viewpoints mixed together This blog, however, is mainly to my fellow conservatives. Right now, if the rest of the conservatives in this country act like the ones in my timeline, the liberals win again in 2012 and we will see a second term for President Obama.

It boils down to one simple fact: we conservatives can't agree on anything except the fact that we want conservatism to win. The problem is that no one really knows how to accomplish it. Take a look at the GOP candidates for President in 2012. Yes, I know not all Republicans are conservatives, but the two go hand-in-hand more often than not. Right now the front-runners are Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. Rumored to also enter are Mitt Romney, Allen West, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and a host of others. But ask a handful of Republicans who they'd vote for and chances are you'll get different responses every time. Not one of the candidates in the field seems to be enough for everyone to agree on...and that's part of where the problem exists.

As everyone is fond of pointing out in this day and age, everyone is different and diversity is a good thing. I fully agree, but conservatives haven't quite figured this out. As soon as someone gets an idea that partially strays from the conservative playbook, they're dismissed. Everyone who runs for president as a conservative is automatically compared to Ronald Reagan. Not a bad person to compare to, especially since I consider him to be a great president, but you can't compare people like that. That would be like comparing me to one of you. We're all different and no two of us are exactly alike...just like snowflakes. So why do we put such emphasis on finding that ONE person who has EVERY view point the same as ours, when we know it will most likely only be possible in a Utopian world?

You see, this is where I feel liberals have an edge on us. Look at the last election and how quickly the Democrat field was narrowed down. In the end they were down to two candidates: Obama and Clinton, to which Clinton finally caved. I know it had to be killing her, knowing that she had HUGE support on the left and middle, but she bowed out for the good of her cause. Republicans and conservatives can't do this. If we don't like Romney because he had his own version of socialized medicine in Massachusetts, we can't back him, even though a lot of his other ideas are good for the country. We can't put support behind Palin because of her lack of political experience on a national level, as well as her "folksy" personality. Herman Cain is no good because he was once involved in the Federal Reserve. You see what I mean? We're quick to throw the baby out with the bath water just because of a couple of flaws. Instead, we should all be looking at who has the best shot of winning the election and promoting the great ideas that conservatism has to offer.

I hesitate to make this comparison for the possibility that it might be misunderstood, but I think everyone that reads this will understand its intent and realize the meaning is exactly as I have written here. When ratifying the Declaration of Independence, many Northerners (especially John Adams) were absolutely opposed at the idea of striking references to abolishing slavery, knowing how important the issue was. But slowly they realized that the first steps to be taken could not be huge leaps and that if they were to ever get slavery abolished, they must first get the Declaration in place, then work towards abolition and other goals. While some would argue that issues we face today are nowhere near the importance of the slavery issue, I feel we must do the same for the election. We must find a candidate with whom we agree on MOST issues, then once that candidate becomes president, we will work on the other issues which require fixing.

As I've said before and I will continue to say, all Americans should unite on those ideas where we agree, then work together to get closer on the ones where we don't. Specifically, thought, I think the Republican party and conservatives in particular would benefit from this if there is any hope of victory in 2012. Conservative Facebook and Twitter friends (and any others who may be reading this), I challenge you to take in all opinions and weigh all possibilities before you dismiss someone that may just be our best hope at getting a fellow conservative in the White House. If not, we're opening the door for another four years that may continue this country in a direction we can't afford in so many ways.

I always look forward to your opinions, as long as they're presented in a respectful manner and with real thought behind them...or dripping with heavy sarcasm.

No comments: