Message to the GOP: You’re Close to Losing Me.

I hear you Dennis. And I would self-identify in a similar way - fiscal conservative, social liberal. But long-ago I decided the Republican party wasn't for me anymore and decided to back the Democrats - primarily due to the increasing influence of the religious wing of the party. I'm still officially registered as an Independent, but with the Republicans trending farther and farther right, and becoming more beholden to the religious wing...well, let's just say it's going to be a long time before I support any Republican.

Well, this is going to be the rhetorical fight for the next few weeks to months -- did the moderates lose it for the Republicans or did the Conservatives lose it? I doubt anything will really come of the debates unless a singular leader takes over. Instead, they're just going to have to fight it out and then when 2010 comes around, each group in the party will need to support candidates that win. The type of candidate that wins the most will be the direction of the party going forward. I guess my point is that to win this battle, moderates are going to have to elect people. The words will settle little. (Same is true in the Democratic Party. Dems moved more center in the early to mid 90s because it worked for Clinton, not because he persuaded many.)

Dennis: "The frustrating thing is that the party has closed their eyes to people like: someone that is economically conservative, but socially liberal."

I share your politics and hear what you are saying, Dennis.

Brent Bozell's comment was, I would argue, analogous to the notorious "stab in the back" gambit that Germany used to blame its defeat in WWI -- on the Jews, the socialists etc. -- without taking a hard look at itself. We all know how that ended.
I imagine he thinks it good politics to try and smear the moderate wing of the party to play to the Palin cadres before the election fires have cooled down.

Pacatrue calls this right, I think. This is the first salvo in a long battle for the Republican Party.
I would advise you to stay in and stay involved. There will be lots of morons in the GOP to set a fire under in the months and years ahead.
As JW's comment suggests, there are large disenchanted numbers in the middle.

If there is any consolation, it is that the Netroots are showing early signs of wanting to purge their own moderates. It is ironic how both GOP and Democrat activists make claims for the centre, while standing at their respective extremes.

I hear you as well Dennis, although I would ask what 'ideology' it is that the Democrats stand for that you don't agree with?

My views are similar to yours and JWeidner, which is more accurately described as 'Libertarian'. Unfortunately, the two party system does not include a Libertarian party that is capable of competing, which requires in this environment to choose one tent or the other. As a former republican, I've found my comfort zone in the democratic party since the GOP has gotten less and less inclusive. Meanwhile, I've discovered the Democratic party not only welcomes fiscally conservative democrats, but I've met numerous in the party that share my partiality towards economic conservatism and social liberalism.

Both parties and their sets of beliefs are not static, but constantly evolving. Yes, the republican party base appears increasingly more rabid in its demands for orthodoxy and its outright rejection of social moderates and liberals. As much as I
might agree with the calls for moderation from the likes of Frum, Brooks, and Douthat unfortunately these pundits don't represent the rank and file that are considered the party's 'base'. They are instead seen as the media 'elites' that the flocks of social and religious conservatives feel are out of touch from their positions. Then consider the pervasion of anti-intellectual, anti-science attitudes and policies that have become more visible in all its ugliness in recent years and the GOP is not just less appealing to me, but downright repulsive. From setting back for years the great potential in medical advances in stem cell research to the push to teach Intelligent Design in PUBLIC schools in biology classes as an alternative to evolution in order to unravel such fundamental tenants as the separation of church and state. These sorts of issues have made the GOP seem alien to what it once was supposed to represent.

I want to point out that BOTH parties have changed, not just the GOP, as I believe you might have some dated ideas of what modern day Democrats represent; as the party has a large tent. In congress there are conservative, moderate, AND liberal Democrats. Gone are the old stereotypes that the Democrats represent tax and spend policies. The parties priorities have flipped, where Democrats now have the track record of fiscal responsibility compared to the reckless borrow and spend policies that republicans have practiced. Democrats are NOT looking to raise taxes to ridiculous levels like 70 percent, nor are they looking to provide handouts to those too lazy to work even though republicans continue to push these myths despite them knowing that it's not true. Obama's plan provides tax relief to the 95% of the population making under $250,000 a year while he advocates allowing the Bush republican tax cuts for the wealthy expire, which would return taxes for the top 5% of the population to the levels they were at in the nineties at a 37% ceiling. This tax plan is supported by such stalwarts as Warren Buffet, the richest and most money savvy man on earth and one of Obama's financial advisers, and republicans are all too aware that labeling Warren Buffet a socialist or advocating socialism would only bring them ridicule which is why you don't hear it. And Obama's budget in comparison to McCain's is far more fiscally responsible as it doesn't involve further slashing taxes only for the rich, which has been shown to increase the gap between rich and poor and diminish our sizable middle class of which our economy depends.

Since you brought up your allegiance with fiscally conservative ideas, I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say you are philosophically conservative. If that's the case, then you shouldn't have any problem supporting democratic candidates that have a track record of agreeing and supporting your stance. It's the republican party that betrayed your principles in this area.

If you believe in open borders and unlimited immigration, you are not a fiscal conservative. Adding millions of poor Hispanic voters who will automatically vote for liberal Democrats who will raise taxes and expand the government is not conservative.

also, can you really say that the Democratic party that wants to ban transfats is really socially liberal. At best the Democratic party could be called big government libertarians where the government creates large programs to mitigate the impact of bad personal decisions but asks little of those same citizens. Real Social libertarisns would want the drug users and spend thrifts to suffer for their bad judgements. Big government liberals wants to create government programs to employ people that will pretend they are fixing the social ills caused by personal choices.

What is hopeful is that there are people like David Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat and others who are calling for a more responsive conservatism.

Oh yes, the Ross Plus-symbol Reihan brand of Brooksian commentary will save you from the dead-enders. "Q:What will help us get past TownHall style conservativism? A: Returning to WSJ-style conservativism! Natch!"

The answer to bad punditry is not more punditry. People have got to stop confusing conservatism with media representations of Conservatism. You need boots on the ground, because sooner or later the media outlets are going to have to let some people go, and then they'll be the community organizers of the conservative future you're talking about, and the cycle will just repeat. When Fleischers and Santorums leave government positions, they start lobbying. For non-wonks, that means lots of nasty ads on TV. Basically what you're agitating for here is a slightly-less-stupid NRO and slightly-less-horrible political PACs.

Tuesday night, rushing home to catch the results, I listened to Gary Bauer whine, on the radio, about how black people were voting against their values because they voted Obama while helping pass the gay-marriage bans. I don't get it! says Bauer. Our values-voter coalitions have long stood for the same acrimonious cultural battles that black people voted for, and yet we can't get them to keep us in power! Don't they understand what they're doing? It was kind of funny, until I found out that Prop. 8 passed. Do you think Frum is going to lead a nuanced discussion of Obama's first great civil rights challenge (confronting homophobia in the black community)? Good luck on that. Do let me know where the Overton window ends up.

Between Eunomia, the Atlantic, Culture11, Balloon Juice, this place, Reason, and the rare HotAir post, Conservative commentary has plenty of interesting "new" outlets for discussion that range from snarky fun (Gillespie, Cole) to thoughtful exasperation (Larison) to stupid reaction (Cathy Young, Cap'n Ed). People don't need any more Conservatives to tell other Conservatives how to be Better/Real/Responsive Conservatives, because the upshot is that trouble in the Conservative area only means more ex-pols flooding the airwaves in PAC and think-tank form, yelling about who the Real Conservatives are. Or is Gingrich running anything but his mouth these days?

Seriously. Political factions may spend "time in the wilderness," but all political schtick needs is a stage to perform (cf this comment). What c's need is a firm intellectual footing for policy reform, and you don't get that at the carnival. So why waste another square inch on a Bozell blockquote? I can get that from alicublog. Where do non-conservatives go to understand a conservative political philosophy? - because I haven't found that yet. Instincts and upbringing only carry you so far.

The GOP has held together on three coalitions:

1) social conservatives;
2) fiscal conservatives;
3) pro-military types

They still have the first group, the second group is bleeding fast due to Bush's reckless spending, and the third group (because of the strain of optional wars) is now beginning to jump ship to the Dems.

The GOP is in intensive care, make no mistake.

JS1031 This Liebrul reads all the pundits you mention except I draw the line at Hot Air. Listening to the sycophants at KOS or NRO is intellectually boring. To paraphase SunTzu know your enemy.

I do unfortunately agree with Arias that the Dems are more a big tent on not only identity but also ideas right now. But I also know first hand that it isn't always the case. I was a Dem for a long time until my hometown purged most of the fiscal conservatives from city office. But on the national and most state levels it isn't that way. I however feel that with Obama winning that in the long run (maybe with not during his term(s) but other Dems) the Dems will lurch left and eventually the fiscal liberal side will take over. It has to for all the programs progressives want.

I think you can keep voting for Dems on a national level but work with local and state GOP people to help put in more moderate GOP. I still feel that eventually the GOP will get it, because if not they will be a minority for a long time. I guess I don't see the need to be rigidly GOP or rigidly Dem. If there is a candidate you respect on the other side it's ok to vote for them.

Right now the GOP has to find it's voice again and yes it sucks that most of the people in power are completely clueless. But if all moderates jump ship and the GOP does fall off the wayside, what will stop Dems from putting forth there more progressive policies in place? Things aren't always easy and I know you have been fighting for a long time but defeat can bring victory. Maybe I am too optimistic but for me growing up in a more progressive place I know that I don't agree with large majority of there policies and while I don't agree with the current GOP policies either I know that they were tried and failed so hopefully, just maybe in the next 4-8 years they will get it.

But if you do become a Dem or just become an Indie like Jazz, it's good to have people keeping both parties honest even if it's just in the little world of blogging.

I’m someone that is open to taxes, but also wants the budget balanced, and I don’t want to us to go back to the bad old days of 70 percent tax rates.

Wow... you must be both incredibly rich and old to remember those days :-)

I am not aware of one moderate Republican left in the Missouri GOP. Therefore they have no one for me to vote for. They never nominate moderates for the Senate or House any longer, either. Also I think that conservatism as we know it is completely incompatible with actually doing anything about the problems facing our country so I just don't vote for any Republicans any longer and haven't for quite a while now.

BBQ,

AS the Republican party collapses, the former Republican voters will start voting in large numbers in the Democratic primary. The next question is what effect will it have on politics to have one political party. Some groups like blacks will lose power since being 25% of the winning party is a more powerful position than 12% of the only party. the same could be said of Jews.

Jim I doubt you ever voted for any GOP candidate and have a feeling you favor more progressive Dems anyways. I could be wrong but nothing you ever write speaks "moderation".

Most of the Republicans I voted for were back in the late '70s and early to mid-80s. I found Reagan insulting to my intelligence with his promise to slash taxes, increase military spending drastically and still balance the budget. I also don't care for the religious right and never have. I voted for Jack Danforth. Kit Bond used to be rational back in the days when I voted for him as governor. There were others whose names escape me now on down-ticket races. My positions have changed as the times have changed and the Republicans haven't recognized that fact.

I agree about the GOS (though not Kos himself), but liberal commentary is a lot closer to practical and theoretical foundations than its counterpart, which is to thoughtful commentary as competitive eating is to chess. If someone wants to "be" a liberal they can study intellectual work of pretty recent vintage, or do community work, or both. I don't see an outlet for similar intellectual work on the right - Brookings et al. barely fits the bill, really - what work have they done? And even then there's an argument to be made against a purely theoretical approach. But other than that, you've got the Rand/Hayek/Trekkie axis for free market analysts, and the Bible-study school for social mores.

I read all the sites I listed too (HotAir is also hard to visit), but that's not quite the point. The point is that there's good commentary, but it can't be all commentary - there's got be some aspect of a ground-up approach. It's as if most commentary and all social action on the conservative side is either dedicated crazies or media-savvy astroturf. If I've rejected the likes of Rove, I'm going to reject the likes of David Brooks. But if they're back to defining Conservatives as centrists as a matter of self-interest, and RedStaters are retreating to the bunkers as a matter of self-pity, actual moderates are bound to be confused about what real-world examples of conservatism look like. And won't have good information on where to go to learn to exhibit qualities of conservative thought in their own life.