The end of the Reagan Coalition.
By jay115 Posted in Republicans — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have always wondered how the Reagan coalition has survived all these decades. Indeed, the Southern Strategy under Nixon did wonders for the Republican Party: the business groups provided the funding, the Religious right provided the votes and manpower, while the national security hawks provided consistent ideology that deeply religious voters and big business voters agree with (war usually positively impacts the economy).
However, I think (and I'm more than sure people are going to disagree with me on this) that the Reagan coalition is fractured.
Neo-conservative hawks have lost face due to the enormous unpopularity of the Iraq war. A mark of how unpopular the neo-conservative hawks are is the fact that only 18% of the American public supports military action on Iran by the US military (http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.html).
While a majority of Americans now still do not support gay marriage, the newest voting generation , my generation, is in strong support of equal rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27poll.html?_r=1&ref=us&ore...). Everyone has heard of the new poll in CA where in the first time in the Golden State's history, a majority of voters support same-sex marriage. Regardless of whether or not that number actually cracks 50%, the fact that it is anywhere close should be an ominous sign for social conservatives.
Sadly, because of the economic turmoil, economic conservatives are also in flux. A recent poll published by a REPUBLICAN showed that around 51% of REPUBLICANS support some form of universal health care (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-unive...)! I know "some form" can be construed in a plethora of ways, but the poll does not include democrats or independents, so I can imagine what an all-encompassing poll might show.
I know polls and public mood change like the wind, and some massive military victory in Iraq could shift public opinion in favor of staying in Iraq or something like that. However, I think the Republican Party can focus around a new ideology that will be able to regain its majority in 2010, when the census/redistricting for congressional seats takes place.
I don't know what a new coalition would look like, but I do know that the current one just isn't working.
I'm from California, and when you see a Republican state senator (Tom McClintock) constantly writing scathing editorials in state newspapers against a Republican governor while Democrats gain more and more traction in a state they already own, you know the coalition is a problem.
When conservatives like Pat Toomey are more interested in spending money in a primary election chasing away moderates from the party then waiting and saving money to attack a liberal democrat, then there is a problem.
Republicans have always been the party of new ideas. It's time to generate some more.
Indeed, the Southern Strategy under Nixon did wonders for the Republican Party: the business groups provided the funding, the Religious right provided the votes and manpower, while the national security hawks provided consistent ideology that deeply religious voters and big business voters agree with (war usually positively impacts the economy).
That is not the coalition I saw. Particularly the trope about war benefiting the economy. War is almost never beneficial to the economy, and certainly simple "pro-war" is not a big draw for either fiscal or social conservatives.
My interpretation of the Reagan coalition was this:
1: Fiscal Conservatives: Provided the idealogical rigor and intellectual arguments for why government should have less power. The offensive part of the coalition- focused on dismantling the welfare state, lowering taxes, and cutting spending. (Notice that the first two have been very successful- relative to 1979).
2: Social Conservatives: Provided the moral backbone and basis for trusting the moral judgments of individual Americans rather then the government. Primarily defensive, as most activities focused on trying to prevent government actions (or reversing recent government actions) that undercut traditional values and social morals. Opposing abortion, opposing sexual promiscuity and the redefinition of marriage and family away from being a children raising institution, ending the immoral incentives of the welfare state. Unlike fiscal conservatives, social conservatives have been losing. We've barely managed to slow the advance of immorality sweeping the country and have already lost several important battles.
3: Anti-Communism, pro-America: The Neo-Conservatives were accepted into the coalition based on the importance of defeating the terrible threat of godless communism. Clearly a natural alliance for religious people and capitalists, since Communism openly vowed our total destruction. Vietnam has also created a feeling among conservatives that liberals can not be trusted with the military or foreign policy.
We have concluded that the extreme liberals actually seem to hate America- or at least several traits of America, and therefor can not be depended on to protect American interests. They America "needs to be humbled". Other more moderate liberals do love America, but love power more, and therefor promote extremist liberal foreign policy positions least they end up like Lieberman.
This has created a large source of friction between Neo-Conservatives and more traditional conservatives who disagree about the best ways to protect American interests. (Specifically about the extent of foreign adventures, and how beneficial spreading democracy is). However, we are stuck together because you can't trust the left.
Iraq is an area of agreement. Even though we do not all agree about whether Iraq was handled well, or even if it was a good idea to start with- we all agree that we want America to win. We can not comprehend the left which actually wants America to lose. I'll be blunt. They are indulging in traitor talk.
So looking over the Reagan Coalition I see the following problems:
1: Fiscal Conservatives have already achieved their more attainable goals. We need new specific goals for the Fiscal conservatives.
2: Social Conservatives are losing. We need to win something. Truthfully, only abortion seems anywhere near within reach now. I have some ideas that might give new breath to the alliance between the social and fiscal branches.
3: Communism was dead, but we must not forget how dangerous it was and is (since Communism seems to love coming back from the dead). Short term the Iraq war will keep this part of the coalition together. We can not afford to let our internal disagreements divide us when facing off against the left.
inhabiting, but it isn't this one.
1. Your comments relative to the "success" of fiscons are laughable. Welfare was reduced, not eliminated. Pretty much any savings from the reductions were passed on to the states in the form of block grants. GWB's tax cuts are not permanent and may get blown away. NCLB and Medicare Part D are pissing money into the wind faster than we can print it. SS and Medicare are both completely out of control and on auto pilot. Combine that with the fact that no presidential candidate supports reducing the size and scope of government and you have a disaster in waiting that will destroy the country long before the newly invigorated ice caps melt.
2. Socons have made "no" progress and need to "vet" something? How about they they get a dose of reality. GWB used his veto once in his first term - for stem cell funding. He gave us two conservative Justices who will likely vote to overturn Roe. There is no way on God's earth that any version of the HLA will pass. Same for the FMA. Neither will get through the Senate, let alone the various state legislatures. There will be no federal legislation banning or further limiting abortion. If the Socons want "action" then they'd best get off their butts and convince the American people that they're right and something needs to be done. It's not the responsibility of elected officials to do that, it has to come from the grass roots. Socons have decided to lay back and let the politicians do it and that won't happen.
So, bottom line, other than the fact that you have no clue about fiscal or social issues, you're right on track. You can go back to Ork now.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Fiscal Conservatives have had massive successes- relative to 1979. You seem to be focused on the last 8 years, which have not been nearly as successful.
I am addressing why fiscal conservatives are not having as much success now as they used to. I hold that a major reason is that fiscal conservatives have been so successful that Americans no longer feel the need to worry about fiscal liberalism. Fiscal Conservatives have been resting on their laurels a bit too much and need to provide a re-articulation of their goals to the American people; in a way that recognizes the success they have had and the resulting change in circumstances for Americans
I say this as a Fiscal Conservative.
Consider some of the following changes since 1979:
1: Tax rates: the top tax rates are now around 35%, compared to 70% in 1979. That is a significant change.
2: Price Controls: The last time oil prices skyrocketed like this price controls were implemented. The fact that price controls are no longer even considered by the mainstream of American political thought is an amazing victory for fiscal conservatism.
3: Welfare Reform: Welfare recipients are now expected to swiftly move to employment. True this does not go as far as we fiscal conservatives would like, but it is an incredible leap forward compared to things like President Johnson's "Great Society".
These are just a few of the major achievements made by fiscal conservatism in the last 30 years. Paradoxically, the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism has weakened the ability of fiscal conservatism to appeal to Americans. Before we could point at the Soviet Union and say: "That's what Communism gets you." People looked at the USSR and said: "I don't want that!"
The younger generation has no memory of the Cold War, and I have grown increasingly disturbed by the open embrace of communism going on among the college graduates of this generation. Fiscal Conservatives need a plan of action to combat this, and repeating the same arguments that were so persuasive for the last 30 years is not enough. They need to be revisted and refined for the new age we are in. I don't see why arguing for that offended you so badly.
The fact that none of the current presidential candidates are arguing for a reduction in government proves my point. (Although at least McCain is opposed to earmarks- 1/8 a loaf is better then none).
Your vitriol towards Social Conservatives is unseemly and not warranted. Social Conservatives are usually fiscal conservatives as well. The last 30 years of Fiscal Conservative success would not have been possible without the votes from Social Conservatives. An alliance has to flow two ways. If they are truly our allies then we ought to be concerned about the fact that Social Conservatives are losing their struggle.
The only area Social Conservatives have really had any success is on the Abortion front. True, there has been little legislative success, and a Constitutional Amendment is out of reach. However, overturning Roe vs Wade is possibly within reach with only one more conservative appointment to the Supreme Court- although I'd like 2 or 3 more to be safe. More importantly, Social Conservatives have successfully halted and are now slowly beginning to reverse the increase in approval of abortion by Americans. That is a pretty big victory, and has within it the seeds of future legislative victories.
Social Conservatives have been out there arguing and trying to convince the American people to return to traditional values. However, with the exception of abortion Social Conservatives are suffering crushing losses. America has become far more socially liberal in the last 30 years. Consider the prevalence and acceptance of pornography, divorce is no longer disproved of by most Americans, 70% of Americans view pre-marital sex as moral. These are huge changes in American society, and yet they are passed over as if they have no consequences.
Why have Social Conservatives been losing?
Because liberals control:
1: All levels of education
2: The popular media- just compare movies and TV shows. Compare the morals of the Cosby Show, or even Full House, with today's prime time television.
3: The News Media- The fact that conservatives who have affairs and/or violate morals are pilloried while Bill Clinton's affairs are treated as nothing important is a severe undercutting of moral standards. It has to be deliberate too. Basically they are saying that anybody who supports traditional morals is a hypocrite, but if you abandon traditional morals then you are just being human.
4: The Judiciary- which has been a way of the left imposing not only set backs to fiscal conservatives (since the Great Depression) but to social conservatives as well (Since Roe vs Wade).
5: The regulatory apparatus: What the judiciary does in public, the government bureaucracies do in private. The surprisingly uncontroversial decision to remove the tax exemption of churches that involve themselves in politics for example. Despite the fact that churches have been major players in American Politics dating back to the American Revolution (including the American Revolution itself which has been depicted as exclusively secular, but would never have started if not for the Puritan revolt against English corruption). Churches were involved in politics when they supported the Civil Rights movement. Yet nobody blinks an eye when the argument is made that Churches somehow don't have the same free speech rights as other organizations- and somehow it's only conservative churches that get targeted too.
It doesn't help that liberals have taken over several large mainstream Protestant churches too, dominate American Catholic clergy, and have successfully convinced black churches to subjugate their social views to identity politics.
Essentially liberals control most of the sources of societal imagery. Social Conservatives control the family, Boy Scouts (liberals got the Girls Scouts) and about half the churches. Is it any wonder we are on defense?
Now perhaps you might argue that fiscal conservatives have similar disadvantages but they've succeeded. Well... that's because fiscal conservatives convinced most of the leaders among the Social Conservatives that Fiscal Conservatism is correct. If Social Conservatives continue to lose, then that means Fiscal Conservatives won't be able to win either. Just look at Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. He was supposed to be a fiscal conservative and a social moderate- and how he turned out is how almost all fiscally conservative but socially moderate politicians turn out.
Fiscal Conservatives are not numerous enough to win without Social Conservatives.
You say I have no clue about social or fiscal issues. I say that you are so focused on the immediate conflicts and related tactical decisions that you have lost the ability to look at the larger picture and consider overall strategy.
For example: Looking at the issues above it seems clear to me that the number one strategic objective for both Social and Fiscal Conservatives is to break the liberal control over the education establishment. Therefor most of our energy and resources should be focused there. The fact that it is an issue that provides unity for Social and Fiscal Conservatives makes it an even better thing to focus on.
I mostly agree with your take.
To claim that fiscons have made no strides in the last 30 years is a claim that's hard-to-impossible to defend. Not only are tax rates much lower, and not only has welfare reform passed, but we actually had balanced budgets for several years in the late 90's. I'd say that's a pretty successful record.
The socon record is much more mixed (I think they can be partially credited with the rate of divorce leveling off, with drug use and promiscuity being way down among teens, with discrediting out of wedlock and illegitimate births, and with reducing the popularity (if not the legality) of abortion). But I'm of the opinion that if Gay Marriage becomes a national (or even a significant local) reality, it's a sign that America is going to end up on the ashheap of history, right next to Europe. So clearly, the next decade is make-or-break for socons.
Defcons have had a pretty good record too (up until recently, so-called "Vietnam syndrome" had been completely destroyed), though I am mystified why public opinion fails to turn around on Iraq when it so clearly was not only the right thing to do but it is also so clearly *working* now. So I guess this is make-or-break time for defcons too - if Iraq (& Afghanistan, 'cos you know Obama and the Left would pull out of Afghanistan as soon as they're done pulling out of Iraq) is(are) allowed to fail, the U.S. will likely be finished as a significant world military power.
And that will be bad for pretty much *everyone*, even if most of the world hasn't figured that out yet.
As to the original poster's point, I think the Reagan coalition is currently in a coma.
But it'll wake up *fast* in a Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Ginsberg-run America...
A congressperson that preaches fiscal restraint and is caught taking bribes no only loses his/her own credibility but hurts the cause as well.
A Preacher that talks about morality but is caught in a motel, loses credibility and hurts the attempt to support morality.
McCain's stance on the GWOT lost any credibility when he wanted to let an unknownable millions in the back door.
When (ok, this is lame but you will get the point) Gore and Co started screaming "the ice is falling, the ice is falling" and the temps started falling, well, he loses credibility too (eventually).
Credibility on issues: People equate conservatives with Republicans - to the extent that no conservative has made a counter to that, leaves the impression that, yea, Republicans = conservatives. Well, Republicans have been losing credibility for a long time...and conservatives (at least the standard bears and causes) have failed to either gain some separation or separate credibility.
We don't need some political wins - nor do we need to look at the past 'wins' and say we have been doing well/good/fair/poor. We need credibility on issues. You can't be for fiscal restraint and more government intervention. Hell, you can't support pre-emption and Condi Rice at the same time...
On what subject do we have credibility right now?
Member, American Conservative Party
I also have the ability to understand where we are today and where we are trending. You obviously don't.
Your cites for advances by fiscons end in the mid 90's and we've done nothing but give ground in the last 10 years with no end in sight. If you think we are in good shape fiscally - or even better shape than we were in '88 you've got rocks in your head.
As far as "vitriol" toward socons, you're wrong again. I'm one. I've been active in the anti-abortion movement since 1976. I'm also smart enough to realize that when we decided to "let the government do it" we lost the war.
As far as liberals controlling education, run for your local school board. As far as the judiciary is concerned, you have to lobby the WH and your Senator to get nominees out of committee. We've controlled the nomination process for 20 of the last 28 years and we've absolutely no excuse. You're simply whining.
The media? So what. They've been that way for 40 years. Deal with it. If you have a good marketing program, you can overcome the media. Remember when NARAL did a survey a few years back and discovered that more Americans favored significant restrictions on abortion? As far as gay marriage is concerneðwhen it's addressed at the state cnstitution level it's been a winner every time but once, in AZ where the idiots who put the ballot initiative together made it so confusing nobody understood what they were voting on.
I will admit to being fed up with the most vocal of socons, starting with Mike Huckabee, because they've turned into a bunch of demanding, foot stomping whiners who are totally out of touch with reality (see HLA/FMA) and won't do the grassroots work required to win. And the constant threat that if they don't get their way they'll stay home.
The regulatory apparatus is liberal? Gee. Since it was created by liberals why should we be surprised. See Achance's writings on that subject. The difference between fiscons and socons today is that fiscons want to dismantle the appratus while socons want to expand it so they can fund their social outreach programs. It was a stupid idea when GWB proposed it and it hasn't improved with age.
With regard churches being liberal, that only dates back to the '50's. Church membership was significantly more conservative until recently when leaders discovered the government wanted to give them money to "help". It's called selling the farm.
Bottom line, as long as the money is flowing from DC to schools and ministries they will continue to get more liberal. Shut off the funds and starve the bastards and the liberals will go look for another home. Local school boards have to take on the NEA as well.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Anytime someone makes the observation that of the three legs of conservatism that the SoCons have been doing very well in comparison to the Fiscons they are being nasty. Its our own strange form of political correctness at work. We can't talk about the fact that what can be accomplished for the SoCons by and large has been and continues.
If you point out that the small governmnet,Fiscons and libertarian minded have gotten precious little you are a traitor.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
they have and will turn a lot of issues back to states and localities.
I am not sure I would characterize the fi-cons as not "getting" anything. The fact is that the fi-cons, and I am one of those too, to a large extent (after all the heart of conservatism itself is smaller govt), but the fi-cons have not crafted a real PLAN to reduce the govt. A plan to take the addicted off the govt tit in an orderly way. They haven't sold it. Its harder than selling strong defense and judges.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I just said very little.
Being a Socon(*who feels communities get to decide not a federal Socon) and a Fiscon it gets really painful to see the Huckabee types advance their agenda. Said agenda tastes good but leaves you empty.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm whining?
I point out that Social Conservatives are losing and suggest that we need to rethink our strategy so we can win and you scream at me that I'm a whiner?
WTH?
I agree with the fact that we need to eliminate government funds being distributed through all these programs. Government money creates corruption and infects everything it touches.
Did I argue against that somewhere?
I'm a fusionist you dolt, and I've been arguing that point on this site repeatedly over the last several years.
You say I have rocks in my head for thinking Fiscal Conservatism is better off then it was in 1988- but that's not what I said. I said we are far better off then we were in 1979! And we are!
Why are you attacking me?
You are using vitriol against Social Conservatives- by lumping us all in with Mike Huckabee- even though you know better since you're a Social Conservative and you aren't agreeing with him.
I respond to a diary arguing the Reagan Coalition is outdated and should be replaced with a more "moderate" coalition- I go over the achievements the different parts of the coalition have made since Reagen was elected in 1980, and argue that the Reagan Coalition isn't outdated but that it does need a revitalization of ideological goals. Suddenly you jump in and start calling me names.
Go dunk your head in a lake till you cool off and can tell the difference between your friends and your opponents.
and your more moderate coalition, we'll see nation in bankruptcy court.
What part of it doesn't matter that we are marginally better off by a couple of metrics but worse off because of where we're heading don't you get?
Oh yeah, all of it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"Moderate"?
Where did I ever argue for a more moderate position?
I'm arguing against a retreat into moderation!
I want to disband the FDA!
I'm so Fiscally Conservative that in debates people think I'm a libertarian looney, and so Socially Conservative they think I'm Hellfire and Brimstone preacher.
I am simply observing that we have had a lot of success and that now we have stalled and therefor instead of abandoning our principles for a moderate position like the original poster suggests, we need to re-evaluate our goals and strategy so we can make the next step in turning back the atrocity that started with FDR and the New Deal!
I'm saying that the arguments made in 1980 have to be updated to reflect the real advances we have made. Sheesh.
and we need one more. We are the most loyal leg of the school, period, and will be in Nov 08 to stop the Obamanation.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
* Embryonic Stem Cell research federal-funding ban.
* Limitations on abortions at the state level.
* Partial-birth abortion ban.
* 39 State ban on gay marriage (many of which are consitutional amendments).
Social Conservatives have made a lot of progress over the past thirty years, despite eight years of Clinton Presidency.
The "victories" are just too easily overturned.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - The Republicans just nominated a man to represent the party who ADVOCATES stem cell research.
Gay Marriage - Wait until this hits the courts. With California's validation of gay marriage, and New York and Rhode Island following suit, I think the wave of constitutional amendments against gay marriage is over. I won't be surprised if the amendments are overturned by a US Supreme Court ruling, seeing that Kennedy is pro-gay rights, and we don't quite know how conservative Roberts is. From reading his rulings in ConLaw class, I know he's more pragmatic and less results-oriented than Alito.
Abortion - I agree that the ban shows SoCon traction; most people find partial-birth abortion disgusting. However, I think a ban on partial-birth abortion is as far as SoCons will ever be able to achieve. The Gonzales v Carhart upheld the ban because the ban did not unduly impede a woman's right to get an abortion. While partial-birth is justified, the decision further validates the right to abortion as a while by asserting the test of a ban would unduly impede a right to abortion. Furthermore, people who are pro-choice but don't support partial-birth are against partial-birth because of the image of skull-crushing. That image doesn't pop up in regards to the morning after pill, or a 1st trimester abortion.
Views on abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research become more and more progressive in each successive generation. While pundits have seem to highlight what is seen as a "conservative resurgence" in my generation (generation Y) in regards to pre-marital sex and alcohol/drug use, the three main social wedge issues, especially gay marriage, become more and more popular as the older voters die off and newer voters come of age.
I think republicans should retool their message towards SoCons in a different manner; perhaps a less masculine attitude should be adapted. If you look at the Pew Research Center's overview shifts of religion in America (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations) you can see evangelical affiliations are tanking. The only reasons Catholics are keeping numbers is because of the massive inflow of Hispanics, and "independent"-affiliated church-goers are booming.
I think this is because people like Dobson and Falwell poisoned the church. They made religion too political, and people are becoming disillusioned in that religious people are seen more of as a voting block instead of a foundation for a community.
Perhaps by reaching out to the "foundational" aspect, SoCons can be re-integrated into the party after ditching the Republican brand in 2006.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Natural Rights - Declaration of Independence
I believe it is wrong to lump homosexuality and abortion together because the first speaks to a matter of faith, lifestyle, tradition, and behavior; while the latter does not. It is better deemed a matter of "human rights." I would like to know who put them together and who coined the "social" label, but I have yet to find that out. It was poor logic, and I believe it hurt the pro-life movement. Perhaps younger people are seeing this mismatch.
I doubt a Supreme Court redefinition of legal marriage will follow anytime soon because of the decline in cert grants. I predict the court will deny cert itself out of relevance. I would not be surprised to see the definition vary by circuit.
I don't believe your assertions of young people on abortion because some recent data seems to show otherwise. Young people are certainly equally on the same page if not more so than older people:
A total of 62 percent of young Americans say abortion should not be permitted (24 percent) or more strictly limited (38 percent). That's higher than the 58 percent of older adults who give the same answers (split 21 and 37 percent respectively).
The poll also found fewer young Americans saying abortion should be available at any time with 37 percent favoring that compared to 39 percent of older adults.
Though not broken down by age, Rasmussen has noted a change:
Abortion is another issue on which the Democrats usually have the advantage. This month, the parties are tied at 40% as to who voters trust more. Among unaffiliated voters, the GOP has a one-point lead on this issue.
Your remarks on partial birth abortion show that is something that is apparently still very poorly understood. It did not do anything except limit the location and position of the baby as he or she was being killed. Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out the more commonly used alternative during the same 16-24 week period is still available. Indeed I believe it to be even more cruel and barbaric since it poses up to an hour of excruciating pain and torture to the baby, something the pro-aborts will not acknowledge or address. Whether pro-life people ever seek to capitalize on this or to prohibit only second trimester abortions by partially overruling Casey remains to be seen.
You may be right about the court right now, but it is mostly because the issue is not a priority for people, and states will likely not challenge it. People will not want to take the time, money, or energy to defy or challenge the ruling.
We may have one last hope in South Dakota as the people there vote on another ban, this time with exceptions, in November. But if that fails, I doubt any other states will even try.
In any event, I believe the pro-life movement could make a better case by separating the issue from faith and no longer using it as a vehicle for preaching the gospel. It is not a religious or Biblical issue anymore than anything else in any other law.
I do believe you are deluding yourself if you believe "SoCons" had anything to do with election losses in 2006 or with the current declining support for Republicans, especially given people's priorities.
Some socons want to throw it away by refusing to back McCain. We'll lose ALL the gains we've made in the past ten years.
1. Non-embryonic stem cell research is proving to be more promising than embryonic, so McCain's support won't matter here. Besides, enough states are supporting it that the federal ban isn't really making much of a difference. The libs just like to make you think it is, because for them it isn't about research, it's about ending life.
2. McCain will appoint conservative SCOTUS justices. There's nothing in his record or statements that would lead me to believe otherwise. Like it or not, the SCOTUS is the strongest branch of our government right now, so that's where we need to double our efforts. Constitutional Amendments are nice to talk about, but the current government and population of the U.S. simply won't get one through, and pushing the issue too hard from that direction will only increase the resistance.
3. Fiscons have taken a back seat for a much longer time. For socons to now say they won't support McCain because they aren't getting their way shows me they aren't reliable. Fiscons have been waiting for a long time and finally in 2006 gave the party the finger. McCain will be good on fiscon issues (if we can keep him at bay with AGW). Don't you think there's a reason Romney & McCain got the most support during the primary?
Socons can get what they want with McCain (reduced abortion, hold the line on gay marriage) if they'll get involved and give support. If they stay home, we'll get President Obama, and I guarantee we'll lose everything we've gained and much, much more.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
my sense is that conservatives became far too complacent and corrupt. Look at the number of house members under indictment and in jail. Look at the set of scandals. Remember Sen. Young's bridge to nowhere. The author makes a good set of points about people holding conservatives, neo and paleo, responsible for the debacle in Iraq. Basically, conservatives brought this upon themselves because when their ideas turned into failed policies.
The American people are holding conservatives, specifically Republicans, responsible for 7 years of failed policies. American democracy is a self regulating system that is likely to self regulate another thirty Republican congressmen and women out of office along with another 3-4 senators. "President McCain" is another really long shot.
Even the evangelicals are no longer a solid Republican block. This year, it sounds like that group is going to be no better than 60R/40D and could be closer to even.
Bush and company failed in most endeavors. Iraq, Katrina, the budget, NCLB, trashing of the constitution. The list of Republican/conservative failures during the Bush administration goes on and on.
Thanks for letting me back on RedState.
When Republicans are facilitating bridges to nowhere, fiscal responsibility kinda flies out of the picture.
In the same way, when Mark Foley can't stop harassing young boys, and Larry Craig's desire to play footie in the airport bathrooms overcomes him, concerns about the welfare of "societal health" don't echo as well.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Natural Rights - Declaration of Independence
I do think there was a bit of knifing of friends in it, but let's get back to the point.
I think the problem tends to be that we think that we don't need each other.
I also think that there are issues where we agree in part and where we disagree in part. I'm about an 80% fiscon, a 90% socon, a 100% anti illegal immigration con, and a 95% milcon.
However, I think that we have to take a different approach to control.
1) We have to get behind McCain because he's going to be a stopping poing on congress and good for judges and GWOT. I hate his stands on illegal immigration, but that's besides the point right now.
2) I believe in a two tiered approach to retaking the house. In safe Republican districts and states, we need to push for three (four if you count illegal immigration) legged conservatives.
In more moderate states and districts, I'll take whoever I can get who has an "R" after their name.
I LOVE the MAINE sisters. Two votes on at least a few of our issues and back in the day they were good for control of the Senate.
I'm about ready to start looking for more conservative Senators for my state of Georgia after the last farm bill though, what a couple of losers on that vote (they also initially backed McCain on immigration before getting slapped down by voters).
I am not being picky with you, but all of us.
I am 100% conservative.
I have strong opinions on fiscal issues: the federal government is spending too much money, therefore taxing too much; It is spending too much because it is trying to do too much - much more than it is Constitutionally authorized to do.
I have strong opinions on national defense issues: the military put their lives on the line, and on hold, for all of us - we need to support them 100%; Pre-emption is the only choice in the global world we live in; We have the right to know, and limit the people we invite into our lives and country. Immigration is wonderful, done legally.
I have strong opinions on social issues: issues of personal rights belong to the states, not in the federal government;
I am not 80% of one, 50% of another 95% of another. These are ALL conservative positions. Would anyone here willingly give up one of the above forever, just to get their one issue implemented? If so, I think you need to consider your positions. Yes, you can work and strive and bleed for your one issue - but at what cost?
Republicans and liberals have succeeded in a way no one could have hoped for: we are divided.
I will NEVER give up overturning Roe for a smaller government. I will NEVER give up enforcing our immigration laws and protecting our borders for gay marriage.
Member, American Conservative Party
Occasionally I'll get a questionaire regarding my priorities and I can't ever answer it. Invariably it asks me to rank certain things into priorities and lists things like tax cuts, spending cuts, strict constructionist judges, defense.
I can't rank them. They are all #1 in my book. If a candidate is weak in any area, I'm looking around for another candidate. There is no area that I'm willing to say, "Oh, well. That doesn't really matter."
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
but conservatives (I know this is "knife-y") don't seem to comprehend the concept of "winnability."
I happen to think of New Mexico, and Pierce vs Wilson. I definitely think that Wilson was the stronger candidate because she had stronger name recognition and had more resounding moderate values to New Mexicans. Pierce won't win in such a toxic atmosphere, and New Mexico is a guarenteed loss for Republicans.
I hold the same for Virginia. Gilmore is gonna be creamed, and Davis was right to snipe at the party for holding a convention instead of a primary. In CA, we have the same kind of problem. The CA GOP only allows registered Republicans vote in primaries because it's mad paranoid of moderates. Thus, moderates who vote in the democratic primaries tend to vote for the democrat on the general ticket.
In some ways, I find the "RINO" biting of moderates by conservatives slightly obnoxious, because yes, the Maine sisters might be pro-choice, but I dare any Republican to run in a New England state pro-life (I mean like MN, ME, NY, etc. not PA and such) and win.
Perhaps Republicans did not learn anything from 2006, and deserve to suffer again in 2008 before they learn to widen the tent.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Natural Rights - Declaration of Independence
I don't know that people fall into these neat little divisions of conservatism. They can encompass many unrelated topics and issues, tying together things on which people can logically take opposite positions. Moreover, many issues like illegal immigration cover all three. And other issues, like light bulb and toilet bans, really don't fit well under any of them.
If you look only at spending, not a single member of Congress (except arguably Ron Paul) is, in my opinion, conservative. Not a one. But that shows where even the Republican voters are. I doubt they are very conservative on spending either.
Probably one of the worst things Republicans are siding with Democrats on are the draconian energy and environmental regulations. People are worried about the economy, their jobs, a war, and terrorism, and they spend all their time and millions of pages of legislation on something 2 percent of voters prioritize (most of whom probably reside in Berkeley).
One of my biggest fears is what appliance is going to be banned next. We've already lost light bulbs and single-flush toilets. Soon we'll have no more toilets, no more toilet paper (thanks to Sheryl Crow), no more heating and air conditioning, no more cars, and meal plans that Congress will mandate everyone follow (or pay a fine to help pay the farmers who make 2 million dollars).
If national security conservatives were the glue, it still exists. I think most conservatives - the vast majority of them - support the military and our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe the Republicans - those never conservative - have put their finger into the wind and disavowed...
The fiscal conservatives have been abandoned by Republicans. All sense of propriety on government spending is gone.
After the discussion during the week on social issues, I am going to leave that debate stand on it's own.
For the most part, we still have a Reagan conservative coalition - unfortunately we don't have a Reagan Republican coalition. Republicans seek only power, and have become the Democrat lite coalition: Judicial activism sounds like sour grapes - we didn't like the outcome, judges are biased. People - most of them here, have pointed out that it needs to be states issue, but frankly, we are small and they are not....they being everyone not online. Bush has been replaced by the State Department pod person...as Powell and Rice before him. Talk at all costs. National security IS now in the hands of everyone BUT the United States. Earmarks, need I say more - but we still want federal control over financial issues best left to states.
We have good ideas to run on....we are just crawling.
Member, American Conservative Party