Houston Democrats

First, read the definitions below, and then follow my reasoning:

CONSERVATISM: (MERRIAM-WEBSTER)

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism Pronunciation: "k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun 1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

CONSERVATIVE: (MERRIAM-WEBSTER) :

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

Up until now, we have allowed the Repugnicans ... er .. Republicans ... to define the terms of the debates of the day. It's gotten so bad that even NPR calls us the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party!

Now, Democrats have batted around for some time, in conversation among themselves, that Conservatism by definition is against change and for the status quo, and that modern Republicans seem antithetical to that definition. The dictionary definitions I quote above from Merriam-Webster back this up.

So here is the metaphorical $64,000 Question:

Why do we allow these people to call themselves Conservatives?!?!

If Democrats do nothing else over these next four years, we should start making it clear at every opportunity that the Right Wing of the Republican Party is NOT Conservative; It is, in fact, the Transformational Wing of the Republican Party. Worse, it's the Radical Transformational Wing of the Republican Party.

This should be the introductory message for all the other messages: Conservatives want to conserve: They want to conserve what's proven; conserve what works; conserve fiscal prudence; conserve national economic health; conserve historically proven tax and economic policy.

It's Radical Transformationists who want to experiment on a national level with new forms of Social Security, new types of so-called Free Trade Agreements that shift jobs and industry overseas, and raise the National Debt to new and soul-chilling levels.

No right-thinking Conservative would ever do these things. Only far-out, on-the-edge, Radical Transformationists would ever dream of attempting such new, dramatic, untried policies, let alone seriously contemplate enacting them as policy.

"But the American people, who can be quite bold when it comes to transforming their personal lives, tend to be temperamentally conservative and cautious when it comes to government. They have a taste for order and a distrust of those who want too much change on too many fronts too quickly." – David Brooks

I agree with Brooks. Americans do, by nature, tend to be a bit conservative; dictionary-definition conservative. Small “c” conservative. These days, that kind of conservatism is more Democratic than Republican.

"Being conservative, many Americans are suspicious of bold government initiatives, especially ones that seem complicated and involve borrowing. Being conservative, they prefer the old and familiar over the new and untried." – David Brooks

Once again, Mr. Brooks has put his finger on the point. It is the Republicans’ Radical Transformationists who want to radically transform Social Security – a program that has worked for over 70 years – into something new, untested and untried. It’s the Democrats who want to take the conservative (small “c”) approach, and adjust a tested and proven program to fit current demographic trends.

It is the Democrats who are most concerned and suspicious of grand new so-called Free Trade treaties that allow American companies to export jobs and industrial capacity (and, incidentally, pollution, very low wages and an absence of fringe benefits). Republicans seem okay with this, based on their theoretical notions of ‘global economic efficiencies’.

"Being conservative, the American people don't want leaders who perpetually play it close to the ethical edge." – David Brooks

Yes, let’s not forget how little time, within the context of U.S. history, it’s taken for the GOP, Tom DeLay, and his adherents and defenders to look more and more like Mexico’s PRI.

"Then there's the lavish public spending, which offends the conservative sensibility." – David Brooks

Yes, let’s also not forget that Conservatives (Uppercase AND lowercase “C”) are supposed to be fiscally responsible types. Remember that one of Herbert Hoover’s biggest political and economic blunders after the Crash of 1929 was his ideologically-based persistence in trying to maintain a balanced budget, even in the teeth of the oncoming Great Depression! Today’s so-called Conservatives have never met a loan they wouldn’t take, or a National Debt they wouldn’t increase, even if it takes a tax cut to do it.

Then there is the talk of going to the nuclear option on judges' confirmations, which smacks of .. radical confrontationalism..." – David Brooks

I hate to be redundant, so I’ll just refer back to my previous comments comparing the GOP to the PRI.

"Nor does it mean that Republicans should abandon their ideas, but it may be time to think about methods. Public opinion is not always right, but it is always worth respecting. And the message the public seems to be sending these days is that there is a need for prudence. The world is risky enough. Leaders who want to change things had better not give off the impression that they love change for its own sake." – David Brooks

In other words, the GOP’s Radical Transformationists should be a bit more patient, a bit more manipulative, and go a bit slower in trying to enact their radical, experimental agendas. Public opinion can be massaged over time, given the right 'spin'.

And we should call these folks Conservative?! It should take an act of Congress! (Of course, they could probably ram that through by suspending the right to debate.)

I think the Democratic path is clear. Yes, we’re liberal, or progressive, or whatever we may wish to call ourselves, but we also need to emphasize the conservative (small “c”) aspects of our ideals:

• conserving American economic leadership
• conserving national fiscal health
• conserving American jobs
• conserving American industrial might, capacity, and capabilities
• conserving American military power, in order to protect not only our nation, but our soldiers in battle
• conserving American retirement safety nets -- Especially Social Security, a proven system that has worked for nearly ¾ of a century
• conserving the American Middle Class
• conserving policies that have worked, and adjusting them as times demand

I think the Democratic Party can and should make the case that we ARE the dictionary-definition conservatives of America. We want to protect, conserve, and build upon the things that are good and have worked in this country.

It’s the Radical Transformational wing of the Republican Party that wants to walks us off a cliff in its efforts to try new, untested, ideologically appealing, experimental policies on a national – even global – scale.

We should stand up and applaud David Brooks. He has drawn back the curtain, named the tactic, and shown us the way.

We now need only take the path.