An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« GOP Losing Its Last Jewish Senator, Moderate Arlen Specter of PA

Specter Switches To Democratic Party: Potential Democratic Filibuster-Proof Senate Closer (Includes Roundup) »

Memo To Republicans: A Pure Minority Is Still A Minority

Posted by PATRICK EDABURN in Politics.
Apr 28th, 2009 | Comments

Memo: I originally posted this last week but given the events of this morning, with Senator Specter switching parties I thought it worth bumping up.

Right wingers in the party have long condemned/attacked/etc Senator Specter for being a RINO and said they would love to dump him. Well today they got what they want which means the Democrats are all but certain to get 60 seats this year.

Senator Specter may not always vote exactly the way party leaders wanted but he was with them on a number of issues even when he might have been on the fence on the subject. Now with his departure he is likely to sit on the other side of the fence.

As President Johnson once said, better to have them inside the tent that on the outside (well he was more colorful but this is a family friendly site)

*********************************************************************************

Ever since the election last fall we have seen an ongoing debate in the Republican party over which direction it should take in the future. Hard liners in the party have stated that they need to swing hard to the right to become as ideologically pure as possible. Web sites like Redstate.com and Polipundit.com regularly rail against so called RINO’s for being insufficiently pure.

In recent weeks however another voice has emerged as leading Republicans call for the party to be more of a big tent organization. Calls for the party to tone down social issues like gay marriage and abortion have been met with contempt by the web sites above.

Well I’ve got a message for those hard liners, being ideologically pure may be a nice idea but if you are in the minority it doesn’t do you very much good since you lose almost every vote. I certainly understand the desire to have people in office who you agree with on all of the issues, but the fact is that absent a situation where I become King of the World this isn’t going to happen very often.

If the GOP is going to succeed in the future they need to consider the impact of the hard line attitudes being pushed by the evangelical right.

Let us first consider the advantages of having a party that is ideologically pure, only allowing those who follow the party line 90-100% of the time to be members. On the bright side you are, as a hard liner, going to be happy with the way your party caucus votes most of the time. You can count on a 90-100% satisfaction rate.

But there is a problem when it comes to actually winning elections and getting policies implemented. I think it is fair to say that right now about 40% of voters will tend to support Republican/conservative views, about 40% will tend to support liberal/Democratic ones and about 20% will shift from one side to the other.

We can debate demographic trends but I’m not sure that it will change too much from this in the future. Even in our most one sided party periods there was a pretty solid middle set of voters that held the balance of power. I’m someome who likes to play with numbers so I ran up the following calculations.

So if you restrict your party to only the hard liners that are GOP/Conservative oriented voters, you’re gonna win about 40% of the votes, which means you are not going to control much more than 40% of the seats. This means you might be able to pull off wins about 10%-20% of the time at most.

So taking 90-100% satisfaction and factoring in 10-20% success on legislation and you end up with a ‘victory quotent’ of about 10%-20% of the time, and that isn’t very good.

On the other hand if you work to a broader coalition in your party, reaching out to those 20% of swing voters and maybe even some of those on the other side you will probably lower your satisfaction figures from 90-100% down to 70% or 80%. But you raise your success rate to 80-90% because you are winning elections.

This gives you a victory quotent which could approach 75% which is a whole lot better than the 15% or so that you had before. You might not get success on all of the social issues or the harder line domestic and foreign policy debates but you do win most of the time.

To put it another way, while I understand that subjects like abortion, gay rights, etc might be important to you and you might not like the inability to get your agenda passed. But the fact is you are not going to get that agenda passed no matter what. Either you’re going to be in the minority and fail or you’re going to be in the majority and have to give ground.

When it comes to these kind of polarizing topics majority or minority status isn’t going to matter, whether you are on the right or on the left. But when it comes to the other 90% of the agenda, being in the majority is quite important.

In addition the future is only going to exacerbate these conditions. Younger voters are far more libertarian in their attitudes towards social issues. This is unlikely to change as they get older. But when it comes to domestic and foreign policy issues there is much more room for movement, and in there the GOP has an opportunity.

I’m not saying you should give up your core beliefs. There is nothing wrong with the Republicans having a strong pro life element, but there is also nothing wrong with including voters who agree on most other issues, but happen to be pro choice. There is nothing wrong with having a strong evangelical contingent in the party but it should not be able to dominate.

During the 60’s and 70’s the Democratic party forgot the rule of broad inclusion and the result was a serious of major defeats. So far the Republicans have suffered two losses in a row and if they do not change things they are likely to see many more.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

superdestroyer

It is impossible for the conservative party to be the majority party given the demographics and economics of the United States. The Democratic-lite is just one of several roads to failure. Becoming big tent does not get the Republicans one black, hispanic, Jewish, gay, academic, or government worker vote. HOwever, it causes the Republicans to lose the social conservative votes.

The Democratic-lite idea is based upon the idea that social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, national defense conservatives, will behave the same as blacks. I doubt that social conservatives will be as loyal as vote as often for moderate Repulbicans as blacks seem to willing to do for anyone with a (D) next to their name.

Abnerdoolittle

Frankly I find it hard to understand how those on the left want to adhere to the constitution and then reject the idea that we need to follow the constitution on matters such as states rights for abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. George Bush Violated the law but we dont want to follow the constitution when it comes to other things. Its time for either the GOP to choose the way of their libertarian brothers or else its time for a 3rd party. Either way is okay with me.

CStanley

I don't think the internal split in the GOP is going to be resolved until the moderates find a way to address the concerns of the social conservatives. Personally I think the best compromise would be to support the language of state sanctioned marriage being changed to civil unions, which would then be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

If I were a party leader, I'd be holding meetings with evangelical leaders and explaining to them that this is the legitimate way to uphold civil rights (which we're obligated to do in a pluralistic society) but still maintain a foothold to protect religious freedoms regarding various sects' interpretation of a covenental marriage (IOW, by removing the word marriage you simultaneously remove the effect of having the state sanction the morality of unions one way or another, as the courthouse certificate would simply be a legal construct of a partnership) and you give some protection for the right of church leaders to sanction any or all of those unions according to their church's moral teachings.

To be sure, the hardliners will object- but they need to see that their position isn't really supported by the Constitution and the alternative to accepting this deal is that the more conservative of our two parties remains fragmented and unable to win elections, and then no one will look out for their legitimate concerns at all. This approach isn't dismissive of the concerns, which is how the moderates in the party currently come across (basically saying that the socons need to get over it, suck it up and keep voting GOP anyway.)

Regarding abortion too, the platform should support meaningful but Constitutionally sound restrictions on abortion, while also promoting practices that can help reduce the demand for abortions. Here too, hardliners won't be totally happy (this is an issue on which my own moral compass would have to compromise to accept that approach.) But speaking as one affected by the moral conundrum there, I'd still feel that it was correct to vote for the party that took this approach over the one that fought against all restrictions.

Will the moderates realize that they need to make these kinds of offers of meaningful compromise, instead of just trying to shout down the hardliners? That's the question, I believe, on which the possibility of the "big tent" hinges. It's true that you don't expand a party by being purist, but you certainly don't expand it by abandoning the concerns of the base completely either.

DaGoat

I don't think the internal split in the GOP is going to be resolved until the moderates find a way to address the concerns of the social conservatives.

We've talked about this before CStanley and in general I agree with you. Speaking as a moderate though, my response to the GOP telling me I have to find a way to address the social conservative's concerns would be "I've already left, why are you telling me to address the concerns of the people that wanted me to leave"? At this point I am more hopeful of a third party although it will probably take a long time to develop. Despite Obama's popularity his economic plan seems unsustainable and eventually he'll hit the wall. A third party could step in at that point.

CStanley

Who told you that they wanted you to leave, DaGoat? If you interpreted things in that way, it doesn't mean it was so. Can you give examples? The only thing I recall you citing in the past was the Terri Schiavo incident- would you consider that an example of the hardliners in the party 'wanting you to leave'? If that's what you mean, then what you are saying is that you felt that you were being shown the door when people didn't respect your views, but how is that different from social conservatives continually being told that their views have no standing?

CStanley

Also, DaGoat, how would a new party avoid the same landmines? You've got to have some coalition in mind- so would you exclude the social conservatives, even if they're willing to compromise in the manner that I suggest they should?

If you would exclude them, then what block of voters would fill their place, in order to have any hope of a majority? Why would any other moderate block be seriously considering abandoning the Democratic party? What would attract them, given the high hurdle of crossing the expectations of third parties floundering in our system?

elrod

Culture war (left or right) is a luxury of prosperity. In hard economic times political parties will jettison their social reformers in return for support on economic policy. In the short run that hurts the GOP more than the Democrats because the GOP has used social issues as an election-winner far more effectively in recent decades than economic policy. That the GOP has no coherent economic policy beyond 1980-vintage "tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts" only makes the GOP's future more clouded.

As for the Democrats, they will get their social policy passed only if it is sold as part of economic policy. That explains Obama's tenacity (however dubious) in linking health care and energy reform to the economy. If voters don't see a connection between a particular policy and the economy right now, they will reject it as "wasteful." Heck, even marijuana legailzation is being pushed as an economic plan...

GeorgeSorwell

How much influence should an uncompromising minority expect to have?

D. E.Rodriguez

I thought "Conservativism" was all about principles, and values, and not about votes?

CStanley

Conservatism is a set of core beliefs but a party organized around those principles has to then consider votes, just as any other party does, DE. Is liberal/progressivism different than that somehow in your view?

Lynx

C. Stanley, I can see how your compromise version could work for marriage. I happen to disagree with the premise that the word “marriage” belongs to religious institutions (that would mean that no atheist, gay or straight, could ever be married) but I could meet socons half way if it meant full civil rights for GLBT people.

I’m more unsure about abortion though. You say:

Regarding abortion too, the platform should support meaningful but Constitutionally sound restrictions on abortion, while also promoting practices that can help reduce the demand for abortions.

I’ll freely admit I’m basing this purely on instinct, but I happen to think that a vast majority of Americans, whatever their convictions, fall somewhere in the fuzzy middle between “A single celled zygote is a full human child!” and “If it hasn’t been born it’s just a lump of flesh!”, even if these two extremes seem to dominate the public debate. This dominance is a problem, but so is the fact that emotions run high even in the fuzzy middle. The definition of “meaningful but constitutionally sound restrictions on abortion” is likely to vary wildly even in the fuzzy middle. In the end you have to draw a line in a process that has no clearly defined lines. No matter where you draw it, you are likely to have many very unhappy people on the other side of it.

I should note that this is an issue for both parties and I’ve no clue how it can be resolved to any degree if satisfaction.

CStanley

Lynx, all I'm trying to suggest is that the approach I described for abortion is both philosophically sound and inclusive (in a more honest fashion, void of the current propagandistic rhetoric that currently drives each side) of the broadest swath of American voters. Is it politically teneble or would the devil in the details derail that approach? Sure, possibly- but I still think it's worth attempting because it's correct on so many levels.

As to your comment about no atheists being able to be married, there'd be nothing stopping anyone from performing their own rituals and ceremonies and using whatever language they choose to define their relationships. We'd just remove the government sanction of them, and leave the government to what its role really should be, in determining contractual rights and obligations between two parties who enter into a legal agreement. What do atheists do now when they marry? I presume they organize their own ceremony with their family and friends, right? Same thing could just as easily happen with the piece of paper from the courthouse saying "Registration of Civil Union" at the top instead of "Certificate of Marriage'.

DaGoat

Who told you that they wanted you to leave, DaGoat?

It's both literal and figurative, CStanley. I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian (for lack of a better way to pigeonhole myself). The GOP stopped being either one of those things. What did they think would be the outcome?

Past that I've been doing these discussion boards for a long time. It became clear the social conservative wing of the GOP had "won", and the majority of the time I would bring up a moderate position the reaction was very hostile. I was called names and asked to leave the GOP many times. Now I know I shouldn't judge the whole party on the basis of internet wingnuts but in a sense the wingnuts were running the party (and still are). It would be analogous to the MoveOn types controlling the Democrats, eventually they would alienate enough moderates to cause some to leave.

Assuming Obama over-reaches, blows up the deficit, worsens inflation, tanks the economy or some combination of the above, there will be an opportunity for a new party to move in. I think there are a lot of people in the middle that are pretty happy with Obama right now, but if he blows it they will be looking for an alternative.

I know some of that is wishful thinking and there is a good chance there will not be a party that reflects fiscal conservatism/social moderation in my lifetime.

CStanley

Now I know I shouldn't judge the whole party on the basis of internet wingnuts but in a sense the wingnuts were running the party (and still are).

Like the way they made sure that the least outwardly socially conservative candidate in the whole field got the nomination last year?

CStanley

I know some of that is wishful thinking and there is a good chance there will not be a party that reflects fiscal conservatism/social moderation in my lifetime.

Why not the Libertarian party?

But someone brought up an important point earlier (I think in another thread), that part of the question regarding third parties is who will finance them. And when you're talking about a party whose platform helps to reduce the collusion between business and government, who is going to finance that party? Isn't that the main problem, really?

GreenDreams

Well first, I support the GOP being pure as the bloody driven snow on social issues and tax cut fiscal policy, plus stay as angry and racist as their loudest-mouthed spokesclones. It's good for my party. And what would be best for America, IMO, would be for the current GOP to be displaced by a party that truly represents what the GOP used to: fiscal responsibility, individual rights, states rights, the rule of law, non-intrusive government, strong defense.

But while the right rants, the Dems are co-opting those issues. And in order to denounce every single thing Obama does, the GOP gives up those issues, and will continue to do so. It's fascinating to watch the self-immolation of the GOP. How stupid can they be? The Dems always know what their position will be: NO. So they take a position that the GOP once held and the GOP predictably says NO. What an easy player to beat. All the GOP is left with is wedge issues that appeal to its dwindling base.

Plus, as SD predictably says, the GOP has lost, by choice, the demographic battle as well, by alienating blacks, Hispanics, Asians and non-Christians. While Obama makes government and voting "cool", which appeals to the young, the GOP paints itself as the party of rich old white men, big business bosses and heartless shredder of both the social safety net and of the Constitution. Argue if you want, but that's the perception.

GreenDreams

CS: the collusion between business and government, who is going to finance that party? Isn't that the main problem, really?

Wow. CS. Well said, if you mean that collusion is the main problem. In fact, that is exactly what the Boston tea party was about, the collusion between the British royals and the British East India Company. Maybe there is some ground for agreement here, but it's tough to get either the GOP or the Dems on board with disempowering corporate influence peddling.

DaGoat

Like the way they made sure that the least outwardly socially conservative candidate in the whole field got the nomination last year?

True, I think there was enough pragmatism left in the GOP to nominate McCain, but what has been the reaction since he lost? Has it been to embrace social moderates?

Some of this CStanley is I just don't trust the GOP any more. They claimed to be the party of small government and fiscal responsibility and they were not. From what I have seen I don't see any reason to start trusting them.

The "capital L" libertarian party isn't an option for two reasons. One is so far they have had unelectable candidates, the other is they take libertarianism to an extreme which is as bad as extreme conservatism or extreme liberalism.

GreenDreams

Lynx, antiabortionists are actually much more fragmented than proponents of choice, as you suggest. For the latter, a woman has the right to choose, as with other medical decisions. For the former, there is a demonstrable split between pro-sperm (anti-contraception), pro-zygote (against morning-after) and pro-fetus (restricting abortion). Split up those factions and each is pretty small. Sadly, most on the "pro-life" side are not pro-baby. Details HERE.

CStanley

And what would be best for America, IMO, would be for the current GOP to be displaced by a party that truly represents what the GOP used to: fiscal responsibility, individual rights, states rights, the rule of law, non-intrusive government, strong defense.

But while the right rants, the Dems are co-opting those issues.

How so, though, GD, in terms of the Dems co-opting those issues? On every single issue you mention, I see moderates accepting the Dems and giving them benefit of the doubt, without even asking for any evidence that the Dems have a responsible stance on them- and mainly I have to assume that's because of how poorly the GOP has performed, not because of anything positive that the Dems have done.

Plus, as SD predictably says, the GOP has lost, by choice, the demographic battle as well, by alienating blacks, Hispanics, Asians and non-Christians. Does SD say that? I guess I have noticed one or two comments like that...;)

Wow. CS. Well said, if you mean that collusion is the main problem. In fact, that is exactly what the Boston tea party was about, the collusion between the British royals and the British East India Company. Maybe there is some ground for agreement here, but it's tough to get either the GOP or the Dems on board with disempowering corporate influence peddling.

Of course collusion is the main problem, and it's the main argument for small government. Power corrupts, whether the people we give the power to have D's or R's by their names (and it would sure help if the voters who enable the Ds would have at least the slightest bit of accountability and stop constantly giving them the benefit of the doubt for making the right noises about caring about the everyday guy- all while raking in the VIP priveleges and campaign contributions every bit as much as their counterparts across the aisle.) Part of my leaning toward the GOP has always been because at least their upfront about being pro-business, and the collusions are more transparent; plus, of course, when the party does stick to small govt platform they're helping the cause, while the Dems never seem to see any solutions to problems that don't involve growing the government.

CStanley

@ DaGoat:
True, I think there was enough pragmatism left in the GOP to nominate McCain, but what has been the reaction since he lost? Has it been to embrace social moderates?

What exactly does "embrace social moderates" mean? If you mean that the social conservatives haven't changed their mind because they just experienced the loss of the candidate that they were told they should suck up and support, why would they? The candidate didn't represent their views very strongly and he lost- so why would their opinion then change as a result of that? If anything, by your logic, they're the ones who should be asking why your group is not now embracing them (not saying I agree with that, but based on the loss of McCain- though I guess you could counter by saying that having Palin on the ticket hurt his chances, if you think that's what happened.)

If anything though, the people who seem to be the most strident post election are the fiscal conservatives, especially the ones who are anti-amnesty who opposed McCain due to his immigration stance.

Regarding trust, I hear you. And in some ways I think that's the biggest argument for starting over with a new party- but then the problem becomes how do you keep enough of the old coalitions together (presuming your not going to find brand new ones) without bringing all of the old baggage along? Somehow we have to go through at the very least some kind of Chapter 11 restructuring- throwing off old liabilities, but then leveraging the remaining assets.

Rudi

@ Abnerdoolittle
States rights are trumped when we have "separate but equal" and miscegenation laws ignore basic Constitutional law. When a state (rights) says your daughter can't marry Malcolm or Melissa...

jwest

It will be interesting to see how social issues play out in future election cycles.

Of course, conservatives will have their traditional views on fiscal matters – smaller government, lower deficits, free market, low taxes, etc., but if we hold to the traditional social values, it could very well help to swing certain demographic groups to our side.

The most anti-gay marriage segment of society is African Americans, followed closely by Hispanics. Among white voters, age is more a factor than party in approval of gay marriage, as young republican voters are ambivalent on the subject. If a new crop of congressional and senate contenders unite in a theme to portray the democrats as the “Gay” party, it could help to swing these groups to the GOP.

Naturally, just the gay issue isn’t enough to bring traditional democrat voting blocs into the republican column. Issues like education and health care will also be large factors. Candidates vying for office will need to explain why rich white children and Obama’s kids get to go to good private schools, while the black inner-city youth are expressly forbidden to receive the funds to do so. Once health care is debated, liberals will need to show how having a government bureaucrat or insurance company employee tell these minorities what kind of care they can receive instead of being able to decide and pay for services with dignity for themselves from individual health care accounts.

Individually, the social issues might not be enough to sway people who have voted one way for their entire lives, but collectively, if the case is made that the democrats have been making them a “victim” and using them without giving anything back for years, a sea change just might occur.

DaGoat

If a new crop of congressional and senate contenders unite in a theme to portray the democrats as the “Gay” party, it could help to swing these groups to the GOP.

And if that didn't work the GOP could just shoot itself in the head, which is about as likely to work.

D. E.Rodriguez

Sorry, CS. I guess I have been listening too much to Rush and Hannity...

GreenDreams

How so, though, GD, in terms of the Dems co-opting those issues?

Examples include closing GitMo, a U-Turn on class war by the GOP on behalf of rich folks and management against labor and laborers. GOP loves to talk about "class war", but since the majority are on the other side of the financial divide, that doesn't play well for them any more.

As for a "responsible stance" the GOP has not shown such a stance for over 30 years, and we the people see that. After growing this huge wealth gap, the majority are no longer receptive to "trickle down" which is what the GOP is still offering.

Sure, power corrupts, but let's get beyond that jingo. MONEY corrupts, and as long as corporate support of politics and politicians is protected for "corporate persons" these corporations will feed the politicians and expect the laws to favor them. It's not about small or large government. It's about bribery.

As for "small government" perhaps you are tricked by the GOP lip service to that. I'm not. They played you like a fiddle. They cut the number of government employees by paying their buddies to do what government employees did or could do. So instead of American soldiers protecting the Green Zone, we had $900/day mercenaries. We paid 3 to 4X as much to contract out disaster relief and other legitimate government functions, and this is very widespread. "Small government" is a shell game of outsourcing, just as much as is raising GDP by cutting American jobs through outsourcing.

And the GOP is not just being "up front" about being "pro business." They have compromised public safety and health, the environment and our infrastructure by putting lobbyists in regulatory positions and pushing "deregulation" at all costs. You have to admit, even though Dems take money from corporations too, they have been far more pro-regulation, which generally puts public health and welfare above corporate interest.

The GOP has not lived up to a single promise made, including fiscal responsibility, small government, non-intrusive government, individual rights, or the rule of law. And it didn't trickle down. "What's good for business" was not good for America. Pick ANY area of supposed GOP superiority and they have proven to be complete failures at delivering.

CStanley

Interesting how your response to my question about where you see the Democratic party doing positive things was to list by my count, one item (closing of Gitmo, which has nominally been done but hasn't been achieved yet) and then a litany of your complaints against the GOP. Which I believe was my point- that people are siding with the Democrats right now because they are willing to take a chance on them, not because of anything positive that they are actually doing.

Now, get back to me after a few more years of complete Democratic control of Washington DC and we'll compare notes on who's been 'played like a fiddle'. I realize that you buy into the notion that the collusion I described only happens when government programs are outsourced, but when the private companies are removed from the equation it just means the crooks are all inside the government instead of being half on the private side of the divide and half public. The programs are still corruptible because the money is still changing hands.

True small government means we downsize all of the expectations of functions for the federal government to perform.

HemmD

jwest

"Individually, the social issues might not be enough to sway people who have voted one way for their entire lives, but collectively, if the case is made that the democrats have been making them a “victim” and using them without giving anything back for years, a sea change just might occur."

Not trying to take you out of context, but can't the same argument be made about Republicans? I mean, the Religious Right has been promised anti-abortion laws by the Republicans for years? It's not like pro-choice has been elasticated, has it? In 8 years, the Terry Schiavo case is the only thing that followed this groups tenants, isn't it? It seems to me Republicans are every bit as guilty as you say the Democrats are.

GreenDreams

CS, I admit it's too early to see results from Obama, so yes, the jury's still out on that. But the jury is clearly in on GOP rule. It has failed.

jwest

HemmD,

For years the GOP has agreed with the anti-abortion forces to oppose pro-abortion legislation, but I don’t believe the failure to outlaw abortion makes the religious right “victims”.

I like to use words that have specific meanings, like in previous threads where I argue against using the words “torture”, “Nazi” and other words that have definitions, history and deep meaning incorrectly for shock value.

When I wrote about democrats making minorities a “victim”, I chose the word carefully and meant it in the traditional sense that these minorities have had a crime committed against them by the democrat party.

The most major of these crimes is the democrat party’s preventing inner-city children from receiving an education in order to protect incompetents in the teacher’s union. Liberals cry about the fleeting discomfort of waterboarding terrorists, but blissfully ignore hundreds of thousands of minority children being subjected to a lifetime of ignorance and poverty because a democrat needed the votes of the teacher’s union.

Hang your collective heads in shame, liberals (criminals).

http://serenitythruhaiku.wordpress.com/2009/03/...

CStanley

As usual, I see the arguments about political parties using various voting groups for advantage but failing to deliver as cutting both ways.

Am I really in the minority in being equally skeptical about both parties? To me it's a no brainer- of course the politicians pander, and then often fail to follow through on their promises. Sometimes that's because their intentions are good but they don't gain enough power to override their opponents, and sometimes it's because they never really had any intention of following through. Or, a third possibility is that they actually do deliver on promises, but the result turns out not so good for the constituents (be careful what you wish for.)

To me it's terribly naive to think otherwise of either party, and I have to think that a lot of people have just become conditioned to see it on one side but not the other. I wish we could get away from voting on that basis- presuming that one party has scoundrels and the other doesn't really isn't a logical political philosophy. We ought to make them make their case in a positive manner for why their policies might be better than the other guy's.

DaGoat

To me it's terribly naive to think otherwise of either party, and I have to think that a lot of people have just become conditioned to see it on one side but not the other.

You nailed it, CStanley.

superdestroyer

I do not understand why people would be disappointed in the Democratic Party. The Democrats ran on a platform of expanding the size and scope of the government and that is what the Obama Administration has delivered. When the size of the budget is approaching four trillion dollars, I dbout if many groups inside the Democratic Party are going to be disappointed.

The real question for the future is whether the economy can keep producing enough to feed the growing levels of the government. The other question is how do the Democrats plan on a massive expansion of entitlements while maintaining open borders and unlimited immigration.

GreenDreams

SD, in what way has the government size or scope expanded? What new roles have been added, and where are there more employees than under Bush?

superdestroyer

GD,

You have to have read in the newspapers where the executive branch is firing corporate executives and trying to manage mergers. There also is a massive stimulus program that will get the federal government more involved in local infrastructure.

Michael Merritt

"I don't think the internal split in the GOP is going to be resolved until the moderates find a way to address the concerns of the social conservatives. Personally I think the best compromise would be to support the language of state sanctioned marriage being changed to civil unions, which would then be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples."

"Regarding abortion too, the platform should support meaningful but Constitutionally sound restrictions on abortion, while also promoting practices that can help reduce the demand for abortions."

Agreed.

Wait, does this mean I'm a Republican under your vision? :)

GoodBerean

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

Gegenschattenbild

Mr. Lofton, why confuse things by applying writings originally meant to be applied to one nation, the nation of the Hebrews? While I really do enjoy reading the psalms myself, this Christian things it's anachronistic to apply them in this context.

blog comments powered by Disqus