The capital city

by Shaun Kenney

One of the great things about being a conservative is that we are inherently an anti-ideology. As the late William F. Buckley Jr. once put it, the great task of the modern conservative movement is to stand athwart history yelling STOP!

Yet in a wider sense, it is far easier for conservatives to tack with the wind than our counterparts on the left. Liberals tend to wed themselves to institutions and then find themselves besieged by conservatives who continue to ask why and progressives who demand more on the what and how.

One of the particular demands on the conservative movement at present is whether or not we are a big tent or a fortress.

More particular is this: do we have to surrender what we believe in order to become more palatable to the wider public?

Or is there simply a better way of packaging what we believe and describing why it matters to working class families? In short, if what we believe has a kernel of truth to it, isn’t persuasion better than fighting?

The truth is that Republicans are far better at adapting what we believe to the times than our counterparts on the left precisely because we keep asking the same question over and over again: Does this expand the cause of human freedom — or not?

For Virginia Republicans, the sentiment is as old as there has been a Republican Party of Virginia — thank you General William Mahone. The maxim was best articulated by one Richard D. Obenshain, who by sheer force of will resurrected what we know as the present-day Virginia GOP from mere footnote to statewide conscience, serving as state party chairman in 1972 before his U.S. Senate bid in 1978.

To some degree, one will be hard-pressed to find a Virginia Republican chairman who has interrupted this spirit, each one serving it in some way. Patrick McSweeney might be one name we could mention; Kate Obenshain’s tenure would certainly be another — by land and title, a continuation of her father’s leadership and vision.

Certainly, the four chairmen whom I served followed in these footsteps, and Rich Anderson is most certainly proudly holding aloft the same torch.

In 2021, Virginian Republicans nominated and elected the most diverse ticket in the Commonwealth’s 400-year history.

In 2023, Virginia Republicans yet again delivered an even more diverse ticket of state candidates — each one carrying the fire in their own way, but all of them on the same theme — that there is a better way to do politics in Virginia; that crazy isn’t normal; that parents matter; and that Virginians deserve something better than to be called a bigot, hater, racist, sexist, or homophobe — all “magic words” designed to stifle debate — when objecting to the policies of the political left.

Virginians are catching on — conservatives, independents, moderates all, and from every race, ethnicity, and class background.

Whether the Democrats figure it out is their problem. They can play the scold; Republicans have a duty to find the energy that state Senate candidates Segura, Durant, Brewer, Woolf and Diggs are discovering among the electorate — and champion those values in Richmond and in the public square.

Good luck, guys.

We are winning this one. I’d rather be us than them right now, that’s for sure. Good luck as well to Juan Pablo Segura — I bet on his campaign early and you guys are absolutely crushing it right now. KEEP HAMMERING.

Shaun Kenney is the Senior Editor for The Republican Standard. Republished with permission from The Republican Standard. 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Freedom, Consistency, and Tuesday’s Election”

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Silly you – the only freedom that matters is the right to kill a baby. And MAGA extremists want to take away your freedom!
    My body, my choice says the Rodney Willett jogger and all the fake doctors (who might be real doctors but are good with killing a human being…seems kinda wrong to simple me).
    Where was my body my choice when required to participate in a medical experiment by unlawful mandate?
    If these people win, we deserve the societal breakdown coming…
    And the authoritarianism – heck – they’ll probably get around to requiring an abortion as a religious rite! (Even for someone designated male at birth)

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    One big problem for Conservatives IMO is do they want to represent voters or their own ideology and beliefs?

    Should people elect you because of your “conservative” credentials in general where the guides your vote or is your
    vote reflective of voter sentiments?

    In urban and suburban areas – how should Conservatives represent themselves to voters? Someone who listens and responds and votes to represent or someone who votes
    their own conscience?

    Abortion is an obvious issue, but there are many others.

    Chap Peterson is a good example of what happens when voters
    no longer think you are listening to them but rather your own
    conscience.

    1. Support for Abortion Rights Varies by Trimester.

      When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy, about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.

      https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Yep. But that’s not how most GOP candidates roll, right?

        And it’s not easy sometimes to actually figure out where the GOP candidate sits on the issue because
        some of them vote their own conscience and do not actually represent the sentiment of their constituents.

        Should candidates hew to their own views or those of their constituents?

        1. Lets talk Virginia.

          Glenn Youngkin has united Virginia Republicans around a 15-week abortion ban. That’s after the first trimester, which is where 69 percent of American think abortion should be legal. It’s also what most of Europe does.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Right, but the GOP candidates have some different ideas and are not fully honest with voters
            on whether they have supported bans or stricter or will do so if they win the GA.

            The point here is do they represent the voters or do they represent their own views or the views of Youngkin?

            Do they respond to voters sentiments or conservative sentiments?

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            Who is not being honest are the Democrats. I hear dozens of political commercials every day on WTOP driving to and from work. Almost all from Democrats. Those commercials go something like this:

            1. MAGA Republicans want to end our reproductive rights in Virginia.

            2. MAGA Republicans want a total ban on abortion in Virginia.

            3. Listen to this one Republican candidate for General Assembly talk about a total ban.

            4. Vote for me, Russet Potato (or whoever else).

            The Republican equivalent would be to claim that Biden Democrats want to allow abortion up to the moment of birth and then cite Kathy Tran’s support of just such a bill from a few years ago.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            All of that is campaigning and done by both sides.

            I’m talking about the candidates themselves in their own words what they support or not and
            whether what they tell voters is also what their own philosophies are or are not.

            Like on abortion, where we know that GOP candidates have said one thing and done another on bans.

            Contrary to your claims that Dems would allow unfettered abortion – the facts are that the vast majority of Dem candidates as well as voters supported Roe v Wade and still do.

            Ask the GOP candidates if they supported Roe v Wade before and do now?

            who has the consistent position – before now and today?

            Claiming the Dems want even less restrictions does not describe the majority of them nor the majority of voters.

            The 15 weeks , newly adopted by some of the GOP that wanted it ban previously is not a solid position, it’s a place holder to save them votes and wait and see if they get a majority and can then go for stricter rules just as they have in other states.

            How many GOP support Roe v Wade like the majority of voters do?

          4. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I do not think most Republicans or independents would support Roe V Wade because it was a court ruling. Its the classic legislating from the bench that has no business being done.

            Now that it’s been reversed, the issue can be dealt with as it should have, by the States. If there is groundswell support for a US law, then US Congress is free to pursue it too.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            not the court ruling, but what it supported in terms of abortion… is that a middle ground?

            If not , why not and what is and why?

            In terms of states, I can roll with that but what I’ve heard from Conservatives is to make it more
            restrictive and make it national… no?

  3. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    The biggest problem with this peace and with today’s so called republican party is that it only stands, with few exceptions, for supporting Donald Trump and his anti-democratic and anti- Constitution views.
    I am a former republican–a Reagan republican–who now considers himself a conservative independent.
    I urge readers to read a 2013 WSJ opinion piece by John Jenkins who is the President of Notre Dame. Its title is Persuasion as the Cure for Incivility: What if, instead of demonizing opponents, we took steps to persuade them? Today, politics and too much of life is spent demonizing those that we disagree with. That is destroying our system and way of life.
    If we want a better tomorrow, we had better start having discussions where listening and understanding precedes explaining.

    What if, instead of demonizing opponents, we took steps to persuade them?

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      How much are you willing to compromise away? The other team is playing for keeps. Persuasion and civility? A ship that left port a long time ago and somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Dems are known as the half-loaf guys.

        Look at Congress and the hard right even in Va for the “no compromise” guys.

        To them, compromise means abandoning your principles… note
        it’s the GOPs’ principles not necessarily the voter sentiments.

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        I am not sure what your point is or your solution. Civility and persuasion have nothing to do with compromising away principle.
        Our system was designed to find common ground. Today, that is almost impossible because of a tendency to treat anyone who disagrees with us as an enemy.
        If you have a way to end the polarization that is tearing us apart, I wish you would articulate it?

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          You are harkening back to the day when the General Assembly addressed members as “Gentlelady or Gentleman”. That world does not exist anymore. We are trapped in the same vicious cycle of the 1850s. I offer no solution. The act will play itself out. I do respect your voice as one of reason.

  4. Teddy007 Avatar

    The party that wants to ban abortion, most forms of birth control, and wants the state to investigate every miscarriage is somehow the party of freedom? How?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The abortion I can understand, not agree with but when they team it up with no birth control and no child care, etc…and yes going after doctors and providers, etc… it’s inexplicable.

      It’s like the Christian Right on steroids!

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        One has to suspect that Speaker Mike Johnson aspires to be a Commander in the Republic of Gilead rather than being the Speaker of the House.

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        They are strongly for the right to life until birth and then protecting life is replaced by an absolute interpretation of the Second Amendment. I have never heard that conflict explained.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          once born, they’re entitled to not be killed, ergo to protect themselves… even if mentally ill… apparently……

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Generally, they are also support the death penalty.

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            It’s pretty ironic that the Commonwealth’s Attorney that sent the most criminals to death row is a Democrat, none other than Paul Ebert.

            I really do wonder if he’d have been able to pull that off anywhere else other than Prince William County.

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            It’s pretty ironic that the Commonwealth’s Attorney that sent the most criminals to death row is a Democrat, none other than Paul Ebert.

            I really do wonder if he’d have been able to pull that off anywhere else other than Prince William County.

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Paul Ebert. 52 years. Nice run. I worked for the man who saw to his election way back in the day.

Leave a Reply