An Open Letter To All Conservatives from Dan Flynn.

Mr. Flynn, author of Intellectual Morons (Now that's a title!) and Why The Left Hates America, posted the following on his blog flynnfiles.com. Even though his memories of Reagan are a bit rose-colored, he makes some good points.

I'm telling you, kiddies, the time is coming when real conservatives are going to take their marbles and their votes off the Repansycan plantation and go home to start their own political party.

My guess this party will, on the surface at least, look like a religious party from Europe. The difference will be an all-American one: True believers in the One Almighty God will join together in an attempt to stop the rot before it becomes irreversible. This party (I'd like to suggest we call it "The Reality Party".) will be made up of of observant Catholics, observant Jews, evangelical protestants, moslems who don't hate and fear the previous three groups or freedom, and assorted other folks of good will who agree with the party's platform of returning the country to reality. (This includes, but is not limited to, democratic republicanism, a limited federal government, respect for life, respect for liberty, respect for the pursuit of happiness, free speech, property rights, gun rights, religious rights, parental rights, states' rights, et cetera.)

In a word, The Reality Party will seek to run the country based on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as written.

I would join such a party in a heartbeat, even though I believe it would never win a major office and its quest would be a futile one. Anybody with me?

Dear Friends:

A man who lacks convictions can't betray them. This is why crying "betrayal" at President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court falls flat. Let us instead look in the mirror and see who, after five years of the Bush presidency, has really betrayed conservative principles.

When candidate Bush vowed to make education his top federal priority, and to provide prescription drugs for seniors at state expense, conservatives reassured themselves, and others, that these were mere campaign promises. When President Bush did what he promised to do, conservatives sought to mute criticism lest it help the Democrats in 2004. When candidate Bush characterized McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform as unconstitutional, and mocked "nation building" in his debates with Al Gore, conservatives applauded. When he signed McCain-Feingold into law, and embarked upon mammoth nation-building ventures, we didn't boo.

One could just as easily cite President Bush's nationalization of airport security, the farm, energy, and transportation bills, plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, unprecedented federal financing of embryonic stem-cell research, support for affirmative action, and grandiose vision of placing men on Mars to illustrate the point. If President Clinton had attempted any of this, would we have responded in the same quiet manner? All of this leads one to wonder if the raison d'etre of the conservative movement is no longer limited, Constitutional government, but non-stop electioneering to keep Republicans in power. Power is not an end but a means.

Amen to that, Brother. Ex-freakin'-actly.

Principles lost are difficult to recover. After selling out our principles for the president's benefit, we now have the gall to accuse George W. Bush of selling us out? It's not difficult to understand why President Bush felt it politically safe to insult his base by nominating Harriet Miers: no consequences for past assaults on conservative principles results in future assaults on conservative principles. Fool us once, shame on the president. Fool us 137 times, shame on us.

The boogeymen of "President Al Gore" and "President John Kerry" are gone. All that remains is the Bush presidency--bigger government, nation-building commitments abroad, a growing national debt, and a Supreme Court that will likely be more liberal than the court President Bush inherited. This is not only disheartening, but a blow to the credibility of conservatives. By projecting "conservatism" upon President Bush, we have tethered our movement to the negative connotations of the Bush presidency. Will future voters think "Bushism" when they hear "conservatism," or will they think "limited government, personal responsibility, low taxes, strong defense, and family values"?

Despite a Republican Senate, a Republican House, seven of nine Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans, and a Republican in the White House, conservative principles have less influence in our government than ever.

It is time to chart a new course.

Ronald Reagan, the greatest conservative leader of the past age, didn't shy away from a fight with Republicans when they fought against conservative principles. He challenged President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976. The next year Ronald Reagan took on the Republican establishment that worked with Jimmy Carter to give away the Panama Canal. Then, he was called divisive, an unwitting ally of the Democrats, and worse. A few years later, he was called "Mr. President."

I still think we need a better example than that old serial adulterer, but I know what the man is saying.

Reagan's example can serve us well today. Ronald Reagan didn't take his ball and go home in the face of a Republican Party that often warred with conservative principles. He recognized that liberalism existed outside of the Democratic Party. He realized the Republican Party was just as much his party as it was Jacob Javits's party. So, he put principle above party and battled the party when it trampled on his ideals. Though he failed in his first two attempts at the presidency, he persevered and won on his third try.

True conservatives holding office deserve our support now more than ever. Republicans who continually offend our principles don't deserve our support on the grounds that they share our party affiliation. Without demonstrating negative consequences, we will never get positive results.

Conservatism can withstand assaults from Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and Nancy Pelosi. Assaults on conservatism from George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and other big-government "conservatives" come at a greater price. When Republicans push liberal policy, we shirk our duty to fight back because we strangely believe that opposing Republicans can only help the liberals. But when we do oppose Republicans who push liberal policy, we help conservatives. Ronald Reagan knew this. Why don't his present-day admirers?

Let us begin by recognizing that though our party controls three branches of government, our cause does not. Before we can win over our nation, we must first win over our party.

Cordially,
DJF
(Thanks to Human Events Online for the heads up.)