[Cynus]

Over the past decade, conservatism has mutated into a form that is barely recognizable from its historical roots. Traditional conservatism has imploded, it has evolved into a nightmare version of itself that is barely recognizable: the conservative loyalty to independent capitalism epitomized by small business owners morphed into uncritical subservience to soulless international corporatism, the conservative emphasis on faith and religion morphed into "faith based" government programs, the traditional rod and gun conservationists were jettisoned to big oil, coal, and gas interests, the traditional belief in low taxes morphed into record deficits and debt. Debt, waste, pollution, deficits, and big government have become the legacy of a conservatism that treats its principles piecemeal and drifts away without any foundation. I would like to suggest that the the GOP can tie all of its chaotic competing principles back together, and re-emerge with a message for the 21st century, by focusing on the common concept of sustainability--the GOP should become the party of sustainability and all political issues framed and evaluated on this basis. It is sustainability, I believe, that is the bedrock conservative principle that provides the foundation for all others. Massive trade and budget deficits are unsustainable, unchecked population growth from immigration is unsustainable, unbalanced budgets are unsustainable, far-flung military empires are unsustainable, reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable, community destroying sprawl is unsustainable. In becoming the "sustainability" party the GOP can put the "conserve" back in "conservative", give the party a much needed environmental platform, attract middle class voters who are worried about unchecked development destroying their communities, and bring back the rod and gun and other old-time Republicans who remember when the GOP was the party of environmental conservation. In focusing on sustainability, the GOP can speak about immigration in a way that answers the inevitable charges of racism. In focusing on sustainability, the party can create a popular energy policy that does not look like Republicans are the party of coal, oil, and gas. And by emphasizing sustainability Republicans can get back their reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility. I believe, sustainability will be the issue of the 21st century and the party that captures the issue and can speak of it with the most conviction will be the one that dominates. I am no fan of the GOP, but Democrats are no better when it comes to sutainability and I feel that conservatism offers more of a foundation for sustainability than liberalism despite the traditional alliance between environmentalists and the Democratic party.

[NeoPeasant]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cynus', ' ')In becoming the "sustainability" party the GOP can put the "conserve" back in "conservative", give the party a much needed environmental platform, attract middle class voters who are worried about unchecked development destroying their communities, and bring back the rod and gun and other old-time Republicans who remember when the GOP was the party of environmental conservation.

[lateStarter]

Might have a chance after the 'big plunge' occurs. By 'big plunge' I refer to PO, economic collapse, etc... Go for it. You may prove to be the leading candidate if you survive. Until that happens, we are out of luck. Not gonna happen. Society as we know it is doomed. Good riddance!
BTW, nice thought out post (really). Just too little too late...

[Carlhole]

That party has always rejuvenated itself by co-opting some originally Liberal or Progressive notion. Suddenly becoming true "CONSERVE-atives" regarding energy and environment would just be the latest in a long line of liberal co-optations.
Liberals are Outside of the Mainstream
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Moderate Liberal Blogspot', 'C')onservatives often claim liberals are out-of-touch with mainstream American values. Nonsense, right? Well, this may seem strange coming from a liberal, but I think this assessment is at least partially correct; Liberals are outside of the mainstream, pretty much by definition. Liberalism is all about expanding who belongs in the mainstream and listening to new ideas outside of the mainstream. But here's the irony, once liberals win on any given front, it's no longer liberal. Consider:
Over two hundred years ago liberals thought the common man could rule himself, that we don't need kings or an aristocratic class. Today conservatives celebrate the 4th of July with the rest of us, usually waving the flag with a bit more ferocity.

Liberals once thought that no man should own another while conservatives fought hard to preserve slavery, claiming their belief was based in scripture. The resultant war a hundred and fifty years ago is still the bloodiest event in U.S. history. Today, freedom for all is a conservative value in which no one disagrees.
One hundred years ago liberals thought women should have the right to vote; conservatives angrily waved their Bibles and condemned such notions. Today we have conservative women in congress, running states and serving on the Supreme Court.

Fifty years ago liberals thought one could not be equal and separate at the same time and fought for the civil rights of blacks in this country. Today, conservative blacks lead our State Department and are in the Supreme Court. No conservative admits to being a racist any more and most, quite honestly, no longer are.
Twenty-five years ago liberals thought our school girls deserved just as much opportunity to participate in sports as boys did, to great protest by conservatives. Today conservatives cheer on the women's soccer team without a second thought.

Today liberals believe all couples living in a loving, commit relationship deserve the same respect and rights as every other couple. Conservatives disagree, claiming their belief is based in scripture.
In every example above liberals were outside of the mainstream and had to fight very hard, often in bloody confrontation, to win over those less willing to open their minds to welcome someone new into the mainstream. But every time liberals were right and today even the most conservative will admit it. Today, in each case (other than the last) the idea is no longer liberal.

[Ludi]

Hey, the evangelicals are doing it!

http://www.creationcare.org/

[max_power29]

Vote libertarian.

[holmes]

I am on board Cynus. There are several viable candidates. Tom Tancredo is one. Ron Paul is not bad. Tancredo is my favorite right now. There is absolutely NOTHING on the democrap side. Zero. nada. Barak Obama? Please do not question my intelligence. The Libertarians? Please they are a whore to the cash cow and believe in wide open borders to supply slave labor for their profit motivations. sure there are few who believe in shutting down the borders and ending low IQ immigration. But cmon what agenda will prevail? I can not and will not side with any liberatarian that is clueless on ecology and population issues.
Immigration is the biggest issue facing human beings today. I am not talking about sub-humans. I am talking about humans with a soul and common sense. There has to be a sense of nationalism and pride in ones country. WE do not need globalist sluts. We have more than enough of those right and left.

[Cynus]

I'm not sure about Tancredo. I went to his website and didn't see anything about the environment/energy except some swipes at environmentalists for opposing the "Healthy Forests" boondoggle. But I'll keep an eye on him.

[holmes]

Well the healthy forest initiative is actually neccessary out here, cynus. Much of the forests have been shut down and logging banned by the "enviros". Now they are packed with debris, and genetically inferior trees. The leftovers from all the years of clearcutting and high grading. They NEED to be cleaned out and culled. The trees need to be combed through and the genetic quality trees need to be left free of competition and debris. after this then they need to be LEFT ALONE. Then our forests can once again grow to be what they once were. To totally ban the ability to clear them out is so non environmental. But many enviros do not understand this. They just want nothing to be done. These are not natural self sustaining enviroenments anymore. Man has fuxed them up royally. Now high IQ man must fix the disaster we have created. There is also a growing market for the monstrous levels of pulp that will come from the forests.
Im not sure about Tancredos sustainablity record but he is very grass roots. I am at a point now where I dont care about many other issues except immigration. It must be taken care of first and foremost. I dont care about spoiled rotten whiner issues that many Americans focus on. The me me me me I I I want want issues annoy the piss out of me.
Ill vote for anyone really who has an iron fist with immigration.

[Kylon]

I was thinking, that since it seems like the Republican party is doomed, in large part thanks to George W. Bush, that the constituents of the Republican party might join other groups as the Republicans lose all credibility.

I'm hoping that with the collapse of the Republican party the Libertarians might have a chance at government, because much needed strength that the Republican party saps away could be absorbed by the non-discredited Libertarians.

Fundamentalist might try and form a party, though I don't think I'd vote for them.

The Democrats might screw up the way Bush has by alienating all of the white males and a small number of white females by catering specifically and only to minorities and women.

Anyways, what do you think? BTW I'm a Democrat, not because I support all of there policies, but because I'm not ultra religious, and I'm not anti-environment and I'm anti-war.

[Plantagenet]

I think its possible the democratic party will split over the Iraq war.

Are anti-war democrats going to keep voting for democratic politicians who say they are anti-war but then go to Congress and vote to continue the war?

At some point anti-war dems may want to vote for candidates who won't lie to them are really are anti-war, and that may require a new party.

[Eli]

Here is a great article that is coming out of Houston about how Bush is pissing off the last friend he has.
Bush is a dickwad

Read the comments that are made on the article, all the ones I saw were from Republicans bashing him.

I don't have much hope for change in politics in the US. Hillary is already in the pockets of the neocons and they are behind her now. The Dems are not going to pull us out of Iraq, they already had a chance but they chose to stay.

I think the republicans will disintegrate and splinter, the Fundies are far too worried about social conservatism and most of the country is far past that now. Worrying about gays doing whatever does not come on the radar when we are fighting a loosing war in Iraq.

McCain is a corporate tool who supports immigration amnesty.

If you look at what Bush has done all he has really been working towards is the New World order.

What I think is going to happen is we will see a lot of the New World orders objectives created during the upcoming democratic reign. The former repubs will be splintered and most democrats will not realize what they are supporting until it is far too late to stop it.

I think there are powers and forces at work right now that go far beyond conventional political labels. We were duped by a false conservative and we are going to be duped again by a false liberal democrat.

[I_Like_Plants]

Yes, a rational middle would vote for Gore or sad to say, McCain. Those two have the most experience and track record, are the least "exciting", and are pretty much middle of the road guys. McCain isn't really all that "right", but he's considered so by the lumps in flyover country, where his being a POW gets him huge points. Gore isn't really all that "left" but he's been Veep, he's won the Presidential election once, and he writes books and makes movies. A ton of us would get out to vote for him just to get back for 2000.

Obama, Hillary, that short guy, nah.

[kochevnik]

You're Democrat because you're anti-war ???

You mean like when all the democrats in both the house and senate voted FOR the war 5 years ago ? And continue to keep us in that war by being total pussies ?

BOTH parties will be split within the next 8 years, especially as the economy gets worse and worse.

We will have a third party president in either 2012 or 2016.

[Plantagenet]

I think its possible the democratic party will split over the Iraq war.

Are anti-war democrats going to keep voting for democratic politicians who say they are anti-war but then go to Congress and vote to continue the war?

[Plantagenet]

New political party forming now for 2008 election---they will have an internet convention and will nominate one dem and repub for pres and vice-pres.

http://www.unity08.com/

Ron Paul and Mike Gravel?

[cynicalheretic]

Where is colbert and stewart in that list.