Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/09/00006/
It's been a point of discussion for years that Sanford might be the next standard bearer for the limited-government wing of the conservative/libertarian movement.
I found the above article from the American Conservative to be some of the most reassuring material on his potential in quite a while. As you all know, much as I like free markets and low taxes, questions of foreign policy and civil liberties are a litmus test for me for what should be representative of the Republican/Conservative brand.
It appears for the moment that Sanford has many of the same views on the issues (opposition to Iraq and civil libertarianism) and has simply been prudent in not yet taking to the national Republican stage to articulate them before their time for the mainstream.
On the economic front, as I expected, the bailout (they call it TARP now) was not a one-time intervention that would prevent financial panic and save the marketplace for future generations. Sanford at the moment may be the most visible opponent of the current pro-debt, pro-corporate economic policies being pursued in Washington as a Governor who is bucking the stimulus for reasons he considers of national importance outweighing even his duties in state office.
If you read the article, you'll see that he certainly isn't perfectly polished, but I think that's a redeeming quality in some ways. The GOP would be mistaken for continuing much longer with the idea that they need a new Ronald Reagan.
He just needs to be a problem-solver for the times who can demonstrate independent thought from party and large interests. If he doesn't break the mold for the Republican Party, he has no business being its candidate in 2012, nor does anyone else.
And with that said, it's okay if a candidate like Sanford loses in the general election as long as he's able to demonstrate a change in priorities for the party. A loss will still move the party forward if it loses on the right issues.
The Republican Party's vision for the future has to be critical, but it also has to be downright practical.
Sanford could be an anti-Obama who can level with people more effectively than a Ron Paul. He lacks all of Obama's grandiosity, and all of Ron Paul's bookish nature without acting in ignorance of the country's real and many problems.
Quite possibly the most important attribute that Sanford and the sitting President share, which the conservative movement needs in order to expand, is the ability to practically and rationally explain why their policies will help average people of all backgrounds to improve their lives.
The whole playbook has to be thrown out and the Republicans have to find the populist message that can create a realignment for themselves and the country.
It's been a point of discussion for years that Sanford might be the next standard bearer for the limited-government wing of the conservative/libertarian movement.
I found the above article from the American Conservative to be some of the most reassuring material on his potential in quite a while. As you all know, much as I like free markets and low taxes, questions of foreign policy and civil liberties are a litmus test for me for what should be representative of the Republican/Conservative brand.
It appears for the moment that Sanford has many of the same views on the issues (opposition to Iraq and civil libertarianism) and has simply been prudent in not yet taking to the national Republican stage to articulate them before their time for the mainstream.
On the economic front, as I expected, the bailout (they call it TARP now) was not a one-time intervention that would prevent financial panic and save the marketplace for future generations. Sanford at the moment may be the most visible opponent of the current pro-debt, pro-corporate economic policies being pursued in Washington as a Governor who is bucking the stimulus for reasons he considers of national importance outweighing even his duties in state office.
If you read the article, you'll see that he certainly isn't perfectly polished, but I think that's a redeeming quality in some ways. The GOP would be mistaken for continuing much longer with the idea that they need a new Ronald Reagan.
He just needs to be a problem-solver for the times who can demonstrate independent thought from party and large interests. If he doesn't break the mold for the Republican Party, he has no business being its candidate in 2012, nor does anyone else.
And with that said, it's okay if a candidate like Sanford loses in the general election as long as he's able to demonstrate a change in priorities for the party. A loss will still move the party forward if it loses on the right issues.
The Republican Party's vision for the future has to be critical, but it also has to be downright practical.
Sanford could be an anti-Obama who can level with people more effectively than a Ron Paul. He lacks all of Obama's grandiosity, and all of Ron Paul's bookish nature without acting in ignorance of the country's real and many problems.
Quite possibly the most important attribute that Sanford and the sitting President share, which the conservative movement needs in order to expand, is the ability to practically and rationally explain why their policies will help average people of all backgrounds to improve their lives.
The whole playbook has to be thrown out and the Republicans have to find the populist message that can create a realignment for themselves and the country.
