Like a lot of other people this year, I have decided to run for President. True, I have no support, no money, and precious little energy. But I have one thing the other candidates lack: a modicum of respect for the English language. I am not referring to rules of grammar and usage, but rather to the belief that words have meanings and that when formed into sentences or paragraphs these should have meanings accessible to the naked mind. Words are more than notes of music to be strung together to make sweet sounds, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to my opponents. Consider their declaration speeches:
Posts For: March 11, 2007
George Will has written a sensible column on why conservative carping about the ideological flaws of the leading GOP presidential candidates is unjustified. As he concludes, “Conservatism comes in many flavors.” This point is often overlooked these days as commentators try to gauge whether Romney, McCain, or Giuliani is fit to inherit Ronald Reagan’s mantle.
The truth is that the conservative movement, especially inside the Republican party, has been broadly defined for some time. Members of the mainstream media seem incapable of seeing a Republican as something other than a “conservative” or a “moderate,” as if those were the only two possibilities. But the GOP has been influenced by a range of thinkers, from Kirk and Hayek to Buckley, Kristol, and Gilder. That’s why asking whether a Republican candidate for President is a “true conservative” doesn’t yield that much information. Far more important is whether the candidate can articulate a set of ideas that will foster a new conservative coalition.