Bob McDonnell No Fan of Gays & Feminists

"in their heart of hearts many are still very much in sync with the McDonnell of 19"

It depends on who you call "the Right." You'd even be mistaken regarding some of the Religious Right.

That is not to say that I'm surprised that my liberal friend in DC views Virginia (outside acceptable parts of "Northern Virginia," i.e., DC metro, land of rainbow flag items on many a motor vehicle) as a foreign and hostile nation (even if has beautiful Piedmont country there).

The problem with Deeds pulling this out is that it shows how badly he is doing. In their debate he promised not to talk about social matters, ten turned around and started talking about how he was pro-choice. When that fell flat, he pulled out a picture and insinuated McDonnell was a racist, then had to turn around when it turned out that wasn't his flag and 10 years Deeds was bragging about how he had a Confederate flag in his household when he was growing up. The fact that they have to go to a paper McDonnell wrote 20 years ago underscores the fact that Deeds knows he is getting whipped on the economic issues and is trying to smear McDonnell. Sadly for him, this election will be decided by who can turn around Virginia's economy, and Deeds has no idea what he is doing.

First: shock of all shocks! A Republican man who is against feminism, gays and unwed mothers. (BTW -- how can one be "against" unwed mothers?)

Second: I read about 10 pages of the thesis, and it kind of makes me sad that someone who was presumably quite young at the time could sound like such a curmudgeonly old fart. He may as well have said "Kids today! All their 'individuality' is ruining everything! Get off my lawn!" Otherwise, he basically gives a bunch of statistics on different things and automatically presumes that any change from the idyllic family values of the '50s must be bad. I guess for a wealthy white man, that might actually be the case.

So they're both awful candidates.

Deeds actually didn't bring this up. The Washington Post did, after a reporter heard McDonnell reference a Master's Thesis he wrote on "welfare policy." The reporter sought out the thesis and then published it for the world to see. Deeds pounced only when the opportunity arose.

The problem for McDonnell is that he's been hiding his social views the whole time, which conservatives up to now thought was OK. They know that far-right social conservatism doesn't sell in Virginia anymore (it probably never sold in 1989 either - that was the year Doug Wilder was elected Governor, largely on the basis of his support for abortion rights). But now that his views at age 34 - when he began his political career - have seen the light of day, conservatives would like him to at least acknowledge that they were and are heartfelt. Instead, he's throwing the social right under the bus. And do you think moderates in northern Virginia are going to be persuaded?

I grew up in northern Virginia. Republicans there are mostly of the Tom Davis variety. If they are socially conservative, they are more like Frank Wolf - they never speak about it or advance it as part of a political agenda. Obviously there are parts of Virginia where McDonnell's actual social views sell well. But those parts no longer comprise a majority of the Virginia electorate - or anywhere near it.

Is this going to do McDonnell what "macaca" did to George Allen? Probably not. Deeds is not as compelling a candidate as Webb. And Allen showed himself to be a racist jerk, not a guy who just happens to harbor some nasty views. Still, McDonnell is going to have to face this head on. Claiming that he completely disavows his Master's Thesis, which he wrote at age 34 as he began his quest for political office - and a Master's Thesis that specifically laid out his political agenda - is fantasy. He wrote a manifesto for a Master's Thesis. He needs to write another one to disavow it.

Conservatism has changed. McDonnell's represents a Pat Buchanan, James Dobson variety that is demonstrably waning. The only question becomes: What will the new conservatism look like?

In today's climate, a "Leave it to Beaver" model can never work. Even with the falling prices of homes, what family can make it on one income? Equal pay for equal work should be a conservative mantra as much as a progressive one. The last bastions of male-only professions should be taken down. A conservative, for example, who tracks left by saying that women have proven that they can officially serve in all combat roles would win votes at the center.

But having moved left in some way, knowing that our country is a right-of-center nation in many ways, the new conservative will in a principled (but not hateful) way hold strong on:

1. drug laws;
2. abortion policy, favoring further restrictions;
3. the issue of homosexuality, favoring long-standing social conventions;
4. fiscal policy, appealing to a "Blue Dog" democrat philosophy, winning former Ron Paul supporters
5. the importance of higher education
6. immigration, looking for a compassionate solution

An educated conservative - one with at least a master's degree and able to engage those to his or her left - and who has a consistent record as laid out above would be incredibly winsome in 2012. The final two points would swing over some moderates, and the first four points would re-assure the base.

"Conservatism has changed. McDonnell's represents a Pat Buchanan, James Dobson variety that is demonstrably waning."

So far I still see godawful [pun intended] neglect on this thread. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, people.

And more to the point here and now, even many Religious Righties, like the caricature this guy's OLD (note) work has raised, have changed with the times, just as most of the public did in the 1960s.

On another thread recently I revisited a book I bought years ago that discusses just what Red Bus has described, being colorful about it, while discussing real-world agreements (he's firmly grounded in the real world, as his statement about liberals wanting to return to the 1960s reveals) that can be reached among conservatives as well as liberals (who constitute the great majority that's out of touch).

And of course, normal people (which the author notes) do have problems with unwed mothers.

(Recommended reading in particular for naive, unrealistic Obamaniacs as well as others all too simply impatient to overreact to something that was written decades ago! You're being given a relevent exerpt here in case you're too emotional and wrongly reluctant to view things realistically.)

"Father worked, [M]other stayed home with the children, divorce was sanctioned, sex was unmentionable, a teen-age girl who became pregnant hid from society, homosexuals were sent to prison, literature and movies were censored, and drugs were unknown. That world is gone forever, not because pointy-headed, left-wing, granola eating, atheist intellectuals have captured control of the government, but because most blue-collar and middle-class, church-going, hard-working Americans WANT that world to be gone forever.

In social issues Americans overwhelmingly support a live-and-let-live approach to the private matters of sex and family. Referenda at the state level circumscribing the rights of gays and lesbians fail as often as they pass, and those narrowing welfare rights generally fail. Legislatures regularly loosen the divorce laws, and judges consistently side with "modern values" against "traditional values" on questions of sexuality, abortion, and lifestyle. These are all democratic decisions, and they demonstrate conclusively that we are not going to return to the moralizing social paradigm of 1950. A new value system in sharp distinction to that today will necessarily emerge from ... government bankruptcy and social collapse ..., but the new value system will not be a replay of yesteryear."

But also,

"Illegitimatacy and divorce are to social insurance what leaving a pot of oil in a burning stove is to fire insurance. Obviously, as soon as losses become rampant through carelessness, we no longer have an insurance program but, rather, something else. Increasingly that "something else" is not politically acceptable, which is why the middle class won't pay taxes. ...

All public agencies -- welfare departments, domestic courts, and the public health departments -- are crumbling under the burden of acting as a surrogate family. ... Democrats must stop denying the evidence before their own eyes: The real world of deteriorating public services stands in stark contrast to the prevailing political claptrap about new social programs. Old-style tax-tax, spend-spend liberalism in the 1990s [and beyond] is right out of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." We can still have humane and caring government, but the techniques must change significantly from yesteryear if we are to sustain the support of the middle class. ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=gxYdofJnAmkC&d...

DLS -

I'm not sure what your Liberty University comment was about. I did look at the book you linked. It has a copyright of 1994, so not exactly cutting edge stuff. My wife has worked for the welfare department in two midwestern states, though, and she saw enough family breakdown to deeply depress her. Her last stint was for just 12 months, the caseloads were crushing and the stories heartbreaking (though she never of course shared them by name). The premise of the book is correct: The government is not a substitute for good parenting. I would update the premise, though, and say that it helps to have one parent at home. It needn't be the mom. I had a friend (a dad) who stayed home with his kids while his wife had a better paying job than he could land. My prediction is that more and more families will have an addition on the house that allows for grandma and grandpa to live with them. It's more economical all-around, and makes for great inter-generational interaction. Heck, when my wife and I retire (I won't say how long off that is), I hope our kids will take us in!

Liberty University (decades ago) = Jerry Falwell = Religious Right mascot.

(Also, Virginia and the Religious Right -- it's not restricted to areas farther south and west)

* * *

"not exactly cutting edge stuff"

True, but I believe much of it remains valid today.

"My prediction is that more and more families will have an addition on the house that allows for grandma and grandpa to live with them."

I agree completely. I suspect it will overpower contemporary zoning and related objections to it, as I saw in Los Angeles metro in the late 1980s and 1990s. And it'll be for multi-generational living per se in addition to obviously meeting a substantial future need when the Baby Boomers have aged.

In my own experience, I had a colleague who was a welfare counselor (and got burned out), and my girlfriend at the time had a daughter that became my goddaughter #1, to be joined by #2 when the other girl's mom (in a bad home situation) went to prison. (My girlfriend became guardian of the girl.) Those years I spent with them were very rewarding and they have said it was rewarding to them, too.

One man's past is another man's future.

We are an open society inclusive of all political points of view.