RS Radio - Debating the Death of the Reagan Coalition
By Erick Posted in Podcasts — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In this latest Redstate Radio podcast, Rick Moran and Leon Wolf join Ben Domenech to debate the future of the Reagan Coalition, answering the questions: Does it still exist? Should it still exist? Does it have a future?
Discussed within:
Rick Moran on The Huckasplitter
Jonah Goldberg on Conservatism's difficulties
Ross Douthat on the Looming GOP Civil War
David Frum in 1994
Pew Research on Politics and Faith and on Latino Evangelicals
You can hear the whole podcast here.
or listen here:
« RedState Radio: Senator Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives Fund — Comments (1) | RedState Radio - The Michigan Edition — Comments (0) »
RS Radio - Debating the Death of the Reagan Coalition 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It is OBVIOUS that the party leadership does not care much for many conservative policy positions and philosophy in general.
I see 3 possible reasons for this:
1. Because the leasdership personally disagree with many conservative policy positions.
2. They are convinced that being too conservative is an electoral loser.
3. Our major corporate backers are actually liberal on a number of social issues, especially immigration.
If its the philosophy then there is nothing that can be done short of a conservative insurgency taking over the leadership of the party.
If its electoral success then perhaps we can change their mind by showing them that conservatives can run on truly conservative positions and win - ESPECIALLY IN BATTLEGROUND RACES!
If its fundraising then I don't see how we can change their minds.
And even the unique Year Six grievance election in 2006 was no evidence of same. Most assuredly talking heads aren't.
We hear MSM declarations of conservative crack-ups and death of the GOP and conservatism all the time, yet,
when voters face conservative v liberal choices, they choose
us!
They will in 2008 as well.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Do you think that the reason for the conservative coalition having a hard time coming together this time is do to the far left positions of Hillary & Obama, which maybe forcing moderate dem's to look to the Rep party for an alternative in the primaries?
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
It is the fact that our candidates all have flaws that the others attack. also, the fact that we have candidates that strongly appeal to each branch of the GOP makes it hard for the coalition to come together.
I don't think the Dem nominees or their policy positions have anything to do with it.
that this has opened the door for mod Reps to enter the race in more numbers and have greater success. As I see it we have 3 mod's Rep's (Rudy, McCain, Huckabee) and 1 1/2 conservatives Reps with Fred & Mitt. I think the Rep mod's are taking advantage of the far left position of the dem front runners to move our party away from conservatism.
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
The Dem condidates are spouting the same policy positions as they usually do. No more motivation now then in the past for moderates to go GOP.
Also, if anything, the 2006 results show more movement left then right by moderates and independants.
from what I remember wasn't it mod dem's candidates that won most of the elections? It would appear that maybe we are trying to win them back with mod Rep's candidates. The problem I see is that I think Hillary or Obama will shift back to a more mod dem position after the primaries and effectively kill a mod rep nominee.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
because they ran on conservative values.
The blue dog democrat revival was a big MSM splash.
Of course, they found out that conservative stances didn't mean a hill of beans to the Democrat leadership in DC.
One survey I read a month before the 2006 election summed it all up. 76% of the voters surveyed wanted limited government and a reduction in government spending. A majority of those surveyed thought the Democrat party would do it better than the Republican party!
Political hacks, like us, know there is no way the Democrats would reduce government in anyway (other than our defense). However, in elections perception is everything. The MSM was successful in making the voters think the Democrat party would be more fiscally responsible. Go figure!
The electorate is generally conservative. They want limited government, reduced spending, and to be left alone. These are conservative values. Republicans lose when we do not run on conservative values or don't stick to them after they win. Republicans win when they run on conservative values and stick to them in DC.
There's a few obvious cases of right-leaning D candidates winning, like Heath Shuler in NC or Chris Carney in PA, but in a lot of places you have liberal or populist candidates winning in moderate or swingy districts - I think of the two seats in CT, both NH seats, Yarmuth in KY-3, Walz in MN-1, Sherrod Brown for Ohio Senate, the two IA pickups, Perlmutter in CO-7, John Hall in NY-19, and Ron Klein in FL-22. The latter group outnumbers the former - the 2006 victories were more about moderate/swingy districts rejecting Republicans generally, with a few standout cases of conservative Dems winning in very conservative areas.
but Perlmutter ran a pretty conservative race to win. He really played up family values and painted Rick O'Donnell as a bushy flunky. Colorado has two liberal districts Mark Udall's (Boulder) and Diana DeGette's (Denver). A liberal has to mute his liberalism to win any of the other districts. Perlmutter's district is the next most purple, but he would not have won it if Beauprez had stayed there.
There are a high number of independents in Colorade. They do not like big government, and they do not like other people telling them what to do or think. This is the conservative connection that wins these independents to the Republicans. When Republicans show that they are as spendthrift as Democrats independents have a hard time voting for them.
at the Presidential level. The only Dems that have won since the 60s are those that ran as moderates, and with Clinton he still needed Perot. Plus, he won after the cold war and when we thought no won was at war with us.
The weakness of the dems on defense is a loser, and this year all their candidates are running as McGovernites to a certian degree, and ANY degreee is a major loser. Many dems don't like dat. See past landslides. And many of those are the ones that crossover and vote in open gop primaries.
That is why McCain has a chance in SC. Dem military voters.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
How so?
If anything I'd say that moderates that had been voting GOP shifted left in 2006 (especially to vote for "conservative" Dems in right leaning districts).
Some folks believe they will come back to the fold in 2006 if the party double downs on conservative positions. Others say they won't if the party tries to be too conservative.
I'm from Iowa, and the Dem caucus had a record turnout this year. The Republican caucus had an excellent turnout too, just not the huge increase that the Dems had. So speaking for Iowa only, I didn't see that dissatisfaction with candidates was a significant problem on either side here.
I think the perception of chaos is mostly a function of the fact that the campaign started one day after election day 2006. I think the fact that we haven't yet settled on a nominee is a function of the large number of strong candidates but all of whom which have a particular flaw or perceived flaw. In the past we got down to two candidates by now. And after Super Tuesday, we probably will get to 2.
I think the talk of a problem is overblown.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mich and SC, it has been a big factor in some, and can be in SC. It can help McCain mostly and also Huck.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
see links below
I found anecdotal evidence that many establishment repubs I know that McCain offended in 2000 had forgiven him because they think he can win. I had been out of the state for 6 months.
But, that does not ensure a McCain victory. But I find the race in SC hard to predict. I do still believe that the GOP will not noninate Huck or McCain.
Take that and a quarter and get...
The crowded field is the main reason. Since 1980, it was always down to 2 main candidates by the time we got to SC.
I suspect Florida will be the "SC" of 2008 for the GOP.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/PO...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2008/jan/09/thompson_fighting_uph...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
I *read* this site, you know, and it's kind of embarrassing.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
living breathing document.
Tell it, Fred:
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2008/the-constitution-is-not-a-living-br...
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Can you believe this? And to think he won Iowa.
What a goofball!
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
We're supposed go by 18th century standards of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
And where does it say in the Consitution that we have to go by the original intent or meaning of the words as opposed to a contemporary interpretation?
One final point. The study of language has shown that the meaning of words is dependant on the social context in which they appear. Change the social context and the meaning of the words change. Therefore, trying to determine the original intent is difficult at best and subjective as we all want the interpretation we favor to be the "real" meaning.
you lose the moral requirement to adhere to the document. If you redefine terms to match the current social context, then all parties would have to re-agree to it. Unless of course you take a might makes right approach, or unless of course they were foolish enough at the time to agree that the terms could be arbitrarily redefined without the consent of of all parties.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
First, no one has ever explained to me why we have to go with the original meaning of the words. It doesn't say we have to in the document so if we are truly going to follow what the document says then I don't see how strict constructionists can make the argument that WE MUST apply the original understanding of the language. Plus, given the fact that understanding language is a contextual and subjective exercise by definition (and this is not disputed AT ALL by philosophers and linguists) it is a fruitless exercise to say the words have a completely objective meaning. If interpreting language was a subjective exercise then it should be now as well.
Second, contemporary interpretations do not mean ARBITRARY interpretations. You simply cannot make up meanings of words to suit your fancy as that is not even a rational way to understand the document or language in gneeral. Contexts allow for meaningful multiple interpretations - but they do not support irrational ones.
the real risk with interpretation based on current social context is that it is rarely done by the people. It is usually done by an unelected judge, and we are basically forced into an oligarchy.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Why would you doubt I interpret it without reason? What statement have I made that indicates I would.
Plus, while I have a mountain of linguistic evidence I can rely on to support the position that ANY understanding of language is at minimum a partial result of PRESENT subjective social contexts - you have no zero CONSTITUTIONAL evidence that we MUST to read the language of the Constitution within the context of the late 18th century.
The fact is we have the Supreme Court to make these decisions. If the citizens do not like these decisions they can pass RATIONAL laws to overturn those decisions or amend the Constitution or limit the jurisdiction of the Court.
You can argue you do not like the decisions of the Court. You can argue as a matter of politcal philosophy that the Supreme court should or should not hear certain disputes or apply a particular form of jurisprudence when deciding a case.
What you cannot argue is that there is a Constitutional directive to apply what judges believe is the original intent of the language was. Judges can make up what they think the original meaning was just as easy as they can make up contemporary meanings.
I said "I don't doubt that you do interpret it with reason" or more clearly I believe you would interpret it very reasonably.
I agree with the majority of your statement especially as a matter of practicality. You can't expect to build a real-world system where the constitution won't be misinterpretted by whoever gets the job of interpretting it. I don't agree that we should have to constantly pass laws to override a bad judgement or interpretation by the courts.
When a judge misinterprets something so agregiously that they end up inventing a non-existant right, like a right to privacy, the other branches should get a spine and remove said judge with the authority the constitution grants them. That way we only have to re-write laws to cover bad decisions a minimum number of times.
The courts apply their judgement to just about any law that anybody wants to complain about. I believe the same should be the case for their handywork by the other branches.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I think everyone is overcomplicating what President Reagan meant to this country. We sit here and discuss the death of the Reagan coalition like it has gone away. The fact is as long as there are conservatives who are willing to speak their minds and not take the path of least resistance, it will never go away. President Reagan expressed his conservative values in a way that everyone could understand and with inspiration that made everyone remember why we should be proud to be Americans. The only death I see is the inability of our elected officials to express what being a conservative is about. They are more interested in getting along with their congressional colleagues, than pushing the conservative agenda that they were elected to represent. The coalition is alive as long as we keep it alive. When we stop fighting and begin to capitulate, then it will be dead.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Just maybe not in the GOP