Why conservatism?

(Maybe for Lent I should have given up *not* blogging... hmm....)

One of the big political stories over the last couple of weeks has been the response of conservative talk radio to the ascension of John McCain as the front runner and now presumptive Presidential nominee for the Republican Party. Almost across the board, the leading lights of conservative talk shows have come out against McCain, due to his deviations from conservatism on issues like tax cuts, immigration reform and free speech/campaign finance reform. The father of all conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, noted a few weeks ago that if McCain or Huckabee were the GOP nominee, "it's going to destroy the Republican Party." Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and other conservatives made similar comments.

In almost every case, the general argument has been something along these lines: because of his stance on issue X, McCain isn't a real conservative, and therefore shouldn't be the nominee.

Regardless of whether or not McCain is a real conservative (and I tend to be sympathetic to Limbaugh et al. here), I think many of these critics are missing an important link in their argument: they need to explain why conservatism is the better position. We're twenty years removed from the presidency of Ronald Reagan and 10 years from Gingrich's speakership, and it's no longer sufficient to simply demonstrate that position X is not conservative, because it's not evident to many people (including Republicans) that the conservative position is the better one on any number of issues.

What Limbaugh et al. need to do is go back to the basics -- or do a more thorough job of going back to the basics -- and explain why conservative positions are the stronger positions. Speaking as someone who is generally conservative on political matters, I agree with these talkers that conservatism is the better political philosophy in our day and age, but I don't often hear an extended argument on talk radio demonstrating why conservatism is the better position. This simply needs to happen.

In the meantime, I'll vote for John McCain for president, even if he's not as conservative as I'd like.

Sean Hannity

On Tuesday, I was talking with some friends about conservative talk radio, noting that Laura Ingraham was my runaway favorite, with Rush coming in second, and the rest finishing far, far back, in this order: Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Gallagher, and Michael Savage. One of those I was talking with indicated her preference for Hannity, and I opined that I basically can't stand him, at least as a talk show host. I find him superficial and quick to exaggerate and demonize his opponents' views. I also noted that his Catholicism seems to be of the cafeteria variety, based on some of his comments on the air.

It was rather ironic that my take was validated by Sean himself just a couple days later, when he had a back and forth with HLI president Fr. Thomas Euteneuer on his Fox News TV show about his (Sean's) views on contraception (which he apparently supports).

He employed his standard form of argument: raise a couple sound points in the midst of a deluge of non sequiturs and quasi-ad hominems. Father said that Sean's grasp of the faith seemed superficial, and while Sean disagreed, I thought that he actually confirmed Father's take.

Find more at Amy Welborn's post here, and do read the comments.

A conservative's candidate (with a chance) for '08?

Some conservatives have been pushing and hoping for a Fred Thompson candidacy for 2008. While I think Senator Sam Brownback is the best on the issues of the current and possible candidates, I think Thompson would be a great nominee.

More on him and his appearance on Fox News Sunday -- including his take on the bigger issues -- here.