GOP's next problem..define "conservative"

[sg0508]

Everyone defines it differently and since it's pretty clear that the party has been in "purge" mode of:

1) Moderates
2) Gays
3) Minorities
4) Non-zealous Christians

the remaining bunch can't define what conservative means.  The excuse when they lose, "well the candidate wasn't conservative enough.  What the hell does that mean, other than we screwed up? Sarah Palin actually said the same thing of O'Donnell in the 2010 Senate race and the interviewer literally laughed at her to which Palin actually looked very uncomfortable.

While one party clearly can't define the word conservative, the other party seems to have an open invitation to everyone across the spectrum and no matter what your race, religion, orientation, age, background, etc.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd argue that the Republicans have defined "conservative" better than the Democrats have defined "liberal". Republicans have defined conservative as "white married church goer", while the other side consists of seemingly opposing sides who's only common ground is that they don't fit in the conservative box.

While one party clearly can't define the word conservative, the other party seems to have an open invitation to everyone across the spectrum and no matter what your race, religion, orientation, age, background, etc.

Let's not get crazy here. Mormons, traditionalist Catholics, and white Evangelicals aren't exactly welcomed with open arms into the Democratic Party.

[Mehmentum]

I'd argue that the Republicans have defined "conservative" better than the Democrats have defined "liberal". Republicans have defined conservative as "white married church goer", while the other side consists of seemingly opposing sides who's only common ground is that they don't fit in the conservative box.

While one party clearly can't define the word conservative, the other party seems to have an open invitation to everyone across the spectrum and no matter what your race, religion, orientation, age, background, etc.

Let's not get crazy here. Mormons, traditionalist Catholics, and white Evangelicals aren't exactly welcomed with open arms into the Democratic Party.

In some ways, not defining liberal has worked out pretty well for the Democrats.  People just assume 'liberal' is what they want it to be.  This means conservatives can characterize liberal and give it a negative connotation, but it also means that 'liberal' can become a much more inclusive brand. 

We see the effects of this in politics today.  Far fewer people actually identify as liberal as opposed to conservative partially because of the stigma behind it.  However Democrats nevertheless have a larger coalition that is for the most part opposed to conservatives.

[freefair]

I think that the Burkean definition can take a hike- it's irrelevant to the basic accepted US Ideal. The "pragmatic, issue based capitalist libertarianism with states holding the majority of power and wealth" definition is quite good, myself.

[Chaddyr23]

It would make sense to have a liberal interpretation of the word liberal, no!?

I'd argue that the Republicans have defined "conservative" better than the Democrats have defined "liberal". Republicans have defined conservative as "white married church goer", while the other side consists of seemingly opposing sides who's only common ground is that they don't fit in the conservative box.

While one party clearly can't define the word conservative, the other party seems to have an open invitation to everyone across the spectrum and no matter what your race, religion, orientation, age, background, etc.