Rules For Conservative Radicals: How The Tea Party Movement Can Save America, by Dr. David L. Goetsch & Dr. Archie P. Jones
There is a fundamental and deep disconnect between how liberals see conservatives and how conservatives see themselves. For example, many of my liberal friends endlessly rant about how conservatives (by this, I assume they mean social conservatives like myself) want to “control a woman’s body,” but a read of this slim 90-odd page volume will find nary a single reference to social issues at all–no sexual politics, no references to abortion whatsoever. In fact, the authors of this reference make no specific reference of America’s Christian heritage at all, and only make a few oblique references to religion in contrasting the worldview of Muslim terrorists with our own, as well as the origin of war in our lusts and desires (which is a reference to James 4:1-3, albeit one that is not referenced). This is not to say that the contents of this book will warm the hearts of liberals (or even moderates) but rather that the authors of this work appear to have consciously (but without stating it) decided that the best way for Conservatives to win power is to absolutely run from social issues like the plague and emphasize tradition and economics. I disagree with this strategy, but I can understand it.
The contents of this book are extremely straightforward. They offer seven strategies for conservatives to regain power by articulating a coherent political worldview, offering something for fiscal conservatives and neo-conservatives, but not really a great deal to social conservatives, at least not explicitly. The seven strategies are as follows: advocate for limited government (included are recommendations to gut some entire departments like the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and to make cuts to the military but far more cuts to other departments, including elimination of corporate subsidies, which I happen to agree with), support initiatives for lower taxation, insist on a free-market economy, encourage individual liberty, require personal responsibility, support military preparedness and a strong national defense, restore constitutional sovereignty and integrity. If you are a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings, this book is going to be music to your ears. If you are someone who believes strongly in national defense and “traditional American values,” without needing those values to be given specifically, you will probably find much to like. It’s likely to be viewed with a great deal of support from those who consider themselves conservatives and are hostile to liberals, moderates, Republicans in name only, and squishy and compromising Republican leadership. If you’re a squishy Republican inclined to compromise on tax increases in the face of political pressure, expect to be primaried from the Right. That’s the message I get loud and clear from this short book.
In many ways, I appreciate the rhetorical skill of the authors of this book, having known some of their work (that of Archie Jones) from their other work. The authors point to conservative opposition to statism as springing from at least the time of Woodrow Wilson. This is savvy–not only because it completely avoids the issue of the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln (or statism in the Confederate States of America) but because it allows a way for principled conservatives to point if they so choose at the statism of Woodrow Wilson as representing racism and imperialism as well as creeping socialism, a way to knight fork [1] several particularly offensive aspects of American political culture simultaneously. Additionally, the book spends a considerable portion of its slim length in dealing with matters of definition–arguing for the rhetorical clarity of “limited” government as opposed to “small” government, and commenting as statism as creeping socialism leading eventually to government control.
That is not to say that this book is something which I can uniformly praise. For one, I find the book’s avoidance of the ultimate moral causes behind America’s political problems to be troubling. Even if moral issues are somewhat divisive, they are far more core issues than the economic issues that this book focuses on. It is useless to defend traditional values that are a mixture of good and evil when one does not look forward to a greater level of harmony with God’s ways than our nation, or any nation, has ever known. Likewise, I find this book’s attitude of blaming young people for a lack of economic success given the lack of opportunity that is readily available in this society. The rather harsh tone this book takes toward personal responsibility comes dangerously close, if it does not reach, the level of Job’s friends blaming the poor for their misfortunes. Likewise, the book does not offer any replacement for the slashing of our (admittedly unsustainable) social net. Again, there are legitimate concerns here about the political program of the authors of this work that could have been dealt with–but are not dealt with at all, and I find that lack of balance troubling, mirroring the sort of frustration I find in political discourse with libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives in general. This is a problem that needs to be fixed if the potential friends of the Tea Party Movement become actual allies, and if America is to repent and reverse our widespread decline.
[1] A knight fork is a chess move by which the knight, the most chivalrous and honorable piece on the chessboard, threatens several pieces at once, which by nature of the unconventional way the knight moves on the chessboard means that not all of the pieces can be defended simultaneously, meaning one will be taken with no countermeasures possible.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Pingback: Book Review: Right Wing Handbook: Debunking Ten Lies Of The Left | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: There’s No Such Thing As A Victimless Crime | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: The Five Thousand Year Leap | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Mother, Should I Trust The Government | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Becoming The Answer To Our Prayers: Prayer For Ordinary Radicals | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Blinded By The Right | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Election 2014: Why The Republicans Swept The Midterms | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Solutions: 2016 | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: There’s Nothing In The Middle Of The Road But Yellow Stripes And Dead Armadillos | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Can God Bless America? | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: How To Win The Culture War | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Saving A Sick America | Edge Induced Cohesion
Reblogged this on James' Ramblings.
LikeLike
I’m glad you’ve found this one 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted August 2025.
Thank you for the heads up.
–
Something to understand about such works is that they were focused more on tactics and practicality than on principles or even policies. That’s how politics is. Think Ecclesiastes. Chapter 7 in particular, but ALL of Ecclesiastes. Bill Maher criticizes the Left, but some mistake his criticism for fundamental disagreement. Just see his appearance on Gutfeld! His real point is, “Too far, too fast.” It’s not so much that he cares for his country in a patriotic sense. It’s that he doesn’t see the stage set for the destruction of Western civilization just yet. In truth, he’s talking tactics.
–
This conservative work likewise is pragmatic. Its discussion of policies might seem less about principle than it does about politics. How do you make the basic traditionalist/conservative/… whatever workable and appealing to the electorate? This is fundamentally contrary to the aspirations of Armstrongist preaching, and indeed a lot of religious approaches. But it is realistic. As Donald Trump said, “You gotta win elections.”
–
What religious actors need to understand is that in our country the politics are the practicality which opens the way for them. Churches are different than political movements (though in the Black community, it is a different story – Johnson Amendment be [cursed]). The idea is for political efforts to give religious movements the opportunity to preach righteousness more than it is to enforce it.
–
Some OT kings of Israel and Judah are described as “doing right in the sight of the Lord,” yet the pagan worship places remained. Reading it from a detached perspective, it genuinely looks like two interlocking things: First, religious freedom. People were allowed to practice practice their religion of choice or conviction, even if not mainstream. Second, political pragmatism. The pagan worship places included practices of fornication, chemicals, and child sacrifice. Sex, drugs, and (ultra-late-term) abortion? At various times, had those good kings tried to tear them down, they may have found themselves overthrown. Then someone far worse could get in. That’s not the whole story, of course, but it should be considered when examining those records.
–
We see an element of this pragmatism in evangelical support for Donald Trump. Whereas less than a decade before Trump came down the escalator, Newt Gingrich had been politely rejected by an evangelical group because he had “two divorces — that’s one divorce too many.” The experience of the B. Hussein Obama had made them more pragmatic. As one put it in 2016, they were just happy to have somebody who didn’t hate them. Whatever one says about 45/47’s personal religiosity and morality, he has enabled the religious community to better operate. (Some compare him to Cyrus in the Bible — maybe not a [deep] believer, but a leader who actively facilitates their goals.)
–
And yes, Ronald Reagan with his one divorce might mark an early example of what happened with Trump and the religious community. Remember Jerry Falwell’s famous line (paraphrased): “I’m hiring a President, not a Sunday School teacher.” (Jimmy Carter, in fact, did teach Sunday School in his church.)
–
Now for the shot: This impurity is often used by traditional Armstrongists as one of the arguments against Civic Duty. It’s portrayed as compromise. Yet, (almost) every single one of those Armstrongists attends an ACOG which is imperfect, impure, “falls short” in their view. They hold their churches to a LOWER standard than they hold the politics of their Genesis 9/Romans 13 communities. That is kind of reversed.
–
That sort of fail beyond Armstrongism is why organized religion has lost much of its sway in our society. And it goes to why that book downplays the role of such things in its conservative activism.
–
Armstrongism parallel: The 1996 Feast of Tabernacles seemed like a political convention. Several parties having them wherein they promoted their ideas, touted their accomplishments, took shots at the competition, and worked for the votes and support — tithe and attendance — of a people suddenly faced with choices that only a few years before would have seemed anathema. It was exciting. In that election year, this was OUR politics. We as a separate people. At the time seemed so appropriate. Looking back now, it’s actually a bit horrifying.
–
And I gotta say this: If the religious community – including Armstrongism — really wants sexual ethics in society, then those people — including Armstrongists — need to learn to keep their own pants zipped first. In Basic Training, we were held to high standards by drill sergeants, and called upon to do difficult things. But a line in the Army Drill Sergeant Creed says that a drill sergeant will not order a trainee to do some thing that the drill sergeant wouldn’t attempt himself. They did indeed lead by example (sorta lol). The religious community — including Armstrongism — needs to do the same. And more. Much more.
–
Now, actually banning Trans — operations, hormones, false pronouns, etc. — might be possible down the road. That’s an issue that TRANScends getting one’s… jollies. But legal restrictions on conjugal activities between consenting adults not in prohibitively close familial categories? Or graphic depictions of the same? Think of yourself as Paul Santorum on “artificial” birth control.
–
What I had hoped would be addressed was the Saul Alinsky rule about doing things that your supporters enjoy. Conservatives are particularly selfish, IMO. (I tell people that I am a “conservative” only in the sense that I am not a liberal.) Figuring out activities and events that might fit them is an excellent idea. In my own experience, especially a sense this last turn of the century, I have found the conservatives are less and less willing to do street activism. Signwavings, etc., don’t appeal like they used to. Maybe it’s the fear of receiving violence, as I have on more than one occasion. Here is a link to a write up I did back in 2006 to encourage folks in an activist group to take part in an upcoming event. It addresses the psychological difficulties some may have and taking such public stances. Both of us coming from a religious background where public expression of our beliefs was discouraged (yes, it really was), you might appreciate this: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/04/a-20-year-old-lesson-of-hopefully.html?m=1
–
In closing [CHEERS], as I said elsewhere, I have to describe myself as having a “Rightwing ideology, but Leftwing mentality.” The book hints a little bit at that, perhaps. My Armstrongist background actually did benefit me in my politics. Yes, I do give credit where credit is due. It helped cement the concept of seeing my life in a cause, rather than a cause in my life. It was a cause I now see was and is something other than what it was portrayed to be, and it went overboard times ten (during Basic I learned what Garner Ted meant when he said he joined the Navy to get out from under authority). But nonetheless, the lesson was taught. Moving that to Christian terms, it’s the difference between “having Christ in your life,” and having your life in Christ. Liberals for all their problems are much more willing to sacrifice the personal for the ideological. I learned that lesson. And even as I get older and have to deal with more personal issues, and gain more in the way of Ecclesiastes 7 common sense, my causes — “cats, guns, and national security (heritage)” — remain the driving force. If conservatives could learn to subordinate their individualism in favor of their family, race, nation, and country, we would see a blessed new America.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. I think that a large part of the appeal of conservatism is more temperamental than ideological and that greatly hinders the right acting as you would like them to.
LikeLike
There is truth in that. A state of mind, more than a vision to work for. “I am busy,” “I have a family,” and “I have to work.” The three-legged stool of conservative laziness.
I genuinely suggest you take a look at this article from 2011. Then — here’s where a little bit of a quiet part (for me, anyway) is said out loud — think about the assessment at the end, and then think about MAGA in… ten years, maybe? (Hopefully.😁) I disagree with some of the characterization, but I’m just “intense“ enough not to worry about it. https://vvv.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/07/the_need_for_a_militant_conservative_movement.html
–
LikeLike
This is one of the posts I linked to yesterday. If nothing else, just look at the meme. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2022/09/relative-priorities-of-teabrainery-in.html?m=1
LikeLike