As anyone who’s been paying attention to conservative politics over the past 72 hours is well aware, Ryan Sorba is angry. He’s angry at CPAC for inviting a gay conservative group to its event. He’s angry at GOProud for existing. He’s angry at our own Alex Knepper for being smarter than him. And so on. But the thing that Sorba is the most angry at is that, like Nelson Rockefeller 35 years ago, the Republican Party seems to be leaving him. And the barbarians are at the gates, threatening to infuse his tired, old, dinosaur of a party with new life and new blood for a new decade with new challenges.
I remember reading an article a few years ago where an old-line Republican activist described what he witnessed at the Reagan Revolution in 1976 and 1980. According to the activist, he knew something was up when the folks who usually showed up to vote in the Democratic primary in his precinct — blue collar types, evangelicals, middle class Catholics, etc. — showed up in droves to the Republican primary, presumably to vote for Ronald Reagan. This naturally made the Rockefeller Republicans who thought they owned the Republican Party quite uncomfortable. After all, if this riff raff started showing up regularly to vote in GOP primaries and became active in local Republican politics, they would change the Republican Party. And that’s exactly what happened, as Americans who were once considered moderate Democrats actually moved the GOP to the right, as they were eons more conservative than the old-line Republicans on issues like taxes, the Soviet Union, and abortion.
Now, another group of former moderates, or in many cases, voters that you’d expect to be staunchly Democratic, threaten to change the Republican Party again, and today’s old-line Republicans — the Sorba crowd — are terrified that they will see the Republican Party taken away from them, and that their fate will be similar to that of the Rockefeller and Ford Republicans of yesteryear. And their fears, from the purely selfish standpoint of Sorba, etc., are understandable. In a world where Joe Lieberman becomes the vote that kills the public option, in a world where Christie Whitman defends the Tea Partiers while Mike Huckabee attacks them, and in a world that includes Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), there exists the very real possibility that a new group of voters is prepared to take the GOP by storm and may very well succeed in changing the DNA of the party into something far more amenable to Alex Knepper than to Ryan Sorba.
These voters threaten to have an impact similar to the Reagan Democrats because like the Reagan Dems, they are far more conservative than the current Republican establishment on a variety of issues but have long been barred from the GOP for tribal reasons as well as due to moderation or liberalism in other issue areas. The Southerners, the working class white ethnics, and the evangelicals that comprised the demographic bulk of the Reagan Democrats had long been told that the GOP was no place for people like them. Similarly, their support for the larger components of the New Deal, such as Social Security and Medicare, and their union-friendly nature seemed to be deal breakers amongst the pre-Reagan Republican elite. Yet once they made their way into the party, they succeeded in becoming the most conservative Republicans, replacing detente with destruction of the Soviet Union, Justices like Stevens with Justices like Scalia, and 70 percent tax rates with 30 percent ones. They ended up being no more liberal on entitlements than their Rockefeller predecessors, though possibly less concerned about debt. And they transformed the Republican Party from a snowbelt party into a sunbelt one.
Today, instead of Reagan Democrats we have Brown Democrats. These are voters who are largely white collar, educated, from outside the South, and who often feel that the GOP is no place for voters “like them,” whether that be because of their secular nature, or their sexual orientation as in the case of the GOProud folks. The Brown Democrats are very conservative on issues of economic freedom, spending and debt, and size and scope of government issues, as well as on national security and law and order. They run moderate to liberal on many social issues, which has also made it difficult for them to enter GOP politics. But President Obama and current events are giving them little choice. A Republican Party infused with their blood would be eons more conservative than the current Republican establishment on entitlements, spending, and the national debt, and would probably begin giving new and better arguments for tough national security measures that Republicans no longer know how to sell. With their support, the GOP would become more regionally balanced, and the center of gravity of the party would no longer be in the buckle of the Bible Belt.
This scares guys like Sorba. It probably scares the power-for-the-sake-of-power wimps at the RNC more, as they’re the real contemporary Rockefeller Republicans who would prefer continuing to tax your kids and spend and still can’t figure out what all this Tea Party nonsense is about. But Sorba, even if he agrees with the Brown Democrats on economics and national security, still can’t abide the notion of something “intrinsically evil” entering his party and potentially changing it. The Rockefeller Republicans would have preferred eternal co-existence with the Soviet Union abroad and perpetual status in the minority at home to a Republican Party that was run by those “religious wackos” and “gun nuts” and the practitioners of “voodoo economics.” Similarly, the Sorba Republicans would probably find the complete collectivization of our society less appalling than the entry of “godless heathens” and “sodomites” into the GOP. And in both cases, the political was also personal, as the Rockefellerites dreaded the transformation of the GOP from the party of the country club into the party of Sam’s Club, and as the Sorbans fear working alongside folks who are spending the weekend at the casino instead of at a spiritual retreat. But just as it took new blood to save the GOP before, so will it again, and 2010 and 2012 will prove that. As for Sorba and his ilk, it’s time to man up.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
we must, Must, MUST accept that America is broken both culturally and economically, and that there is substantial work to be done on both sets of issues. America cannot return to world dominance without a strong economy, nor can we expect to remain at the top of the pile for very without respect, admiration, and obbediance to the sound cultural ideal about traditional families, religious freedom, life, and so on.
I don’t advocate kicking out the GOProud people, so in a way I am probably not 100% in line with Sorba, but it was wrong to invite a group that is openly hostile to a substantial part of our party and our platform to a CONSERVATIVE gathering.
For all who talk about the big tent, GOProud is no more of a “big tent” movement than the social conservatives you revile so much – but it is significantly smaller. Forced to pick between losing Evangelical Republicans or Gays, I’ll let the Gays go any day of the week.
Perhaps Sorba was out of line, but no more than those who want the GOP to get on board with the cultural demolition derby that are radical social movements.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
What Huck said today:
Huckabee praised the tea parties as a venue where “a lot more truly grassroots people are getting involved”–something the tea partiers love to hear–but it’s rare these days for any Republican to offer a correction, prescription, or even an annotation, to what the tea partiers are doing–however gently it might be phrased–to the effect of Huckabee’s point about channeling the movement’s energy into something more concrete.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee blasted the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as outdated, nearly corrupt and unrepresentative of the conservative movement.
Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential contender and potential 2012 candidate who had spoken at the conference for years, said the reason he blew it off this year was that the meeting has become dominated by libertarian activists.
“CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year,”
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Who won the CrazyPAC straw poll?
..I rest my case.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
#1:
We don’t need to throw out the social conservatives to make room for new people in the GOP coalition, but socons need to understand that they are not the dominant group within the Republican Party. Also, social issues just don’t play well in blue states and marginally well in purple states. Having social conservatives get a veto over Party matters in those areas is not electorally viable and helps no one.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
“but socons need to understand that they are not the dominant group within the Republican Party.”
In fact, along with economic conservatives, THEY ARE THE DOMINANT GROUP. Signifiant, if not downright overwealming, majorities of Republicans oppose Gay Marriage and abortion.
If we invite everyone in, how do we ever get anything done on those issues?
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm
The GOP should not have a DADT policy to join us in the battles we are going to fight in this country. But gays that belong to the party are also going to have to accept that the largest part of the party, and a majority of the country, do not support a liberalized gay agenda. In that sense, we invite them to join us in the same way we have choice republicans, but who we aligned with on most other issues. in similar fashion, they must know that we are going to work aggressively on the other side of the issue.
Whether we ever “come around”, or whether we should, can’t be a condition for their belonging. But there should never be the kind of behavior Sorba displayed which was uncivil.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with inviting gay individuals who happen to agree with us on economic policy, etc. to work together for shared goals under a kind of temporary “tent”
The problem is when you invite in those who are not primarily focused on economics, and who are openly hostile to the majority of our party and a major part of our platform.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
#6:
Economic conservatives are different from social conservatives and they aren’t necessarily the same thing. I would say that Rudy Giuliani is an economic conservative, but he is certainly no socon.
What people care about right now is the economy. Look at Bob McDonnell, he won a landslide victory in Virginia not because he was a social conservative, but because he talked about jobs, the economy, and transportation. His opponent tried to make social issues the big deal and it backfired because people don’t care about gays getting married when they don’t have a job. Moderates and independents voted for McDonnell not because he was a social conservative, but because he had a plan for Virginia’s economy.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I suspect the GOP is not in any danger of being overrun by gays anytime soon. Fresh blood or not.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:13 pm
no, I meant that both groups have huge majorities of the party within their ranks. I can say that two groups are the majority, even if they are not one in the same.
#10 – probably true, they are not enough Gays in this country to overrun ANY party, but we must be careful of opening our tent too wide – we will be left with a substantial majority, but one that leaves us virtually no ability to govern.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:16 pm
#11:
But again, economic conservatives aren’t looking for the same thing as social conservatives. An economic conservative is far more interested in balancing the budget than in gay marriage.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
No I understand that…
The point I was trying to make was that both groups are in the majority in the party. GOProud, which goes considerably beyond just working with others on issues of mutual support, stands as much in oposition to Republican principles as a proponent of radical wealth redistribution.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:21 pm
#13:
GOProud stands in opposition to the principles of a majority of the party in one certain area. If the folks in GOProud want to support our tax policies and our views on the War on Terror, then we should welcome them with open arms. If they stand in opposition to the majority of the party on a particular social issue, then it should be acknowledged that they are in the minority. However, that doesn’t mean we should kick them out or say that they aren’t welcomed in good faith. That is a recipe for permanently being in the minority.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:23 pm
What good is a majority if it does not allow us to govern?
My fear about allowing GOProud into the party, and similar groups, is that while they may give us the majority, they do nothing to help, and probably hurt, our efforts to legislate on our cultural problems.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
#15:
Then we can reach out to socially conservative Democrats to pass social legislation. Republicans united with pro-life Democrats to pass the Stupak Amendment, they could do the same with other pieces of legislation as well.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Well then you’re just completely breaking down the parties….
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
“The Brown Democrats are very conservative on issues of economic freedom, spending and debt, and size and scope of government issues, as well as on national security and law and order. They run moderate to liberal on many social issues, which has also made it difficult for them to enter GOP politics. But President Obama and current events are giving them little choice. A Republican Party infused with their blood would be eons more conservative than the current Republican establishment on entitlements, spending, and the national debt, and would probably begin giving new and better arguments for tough national security measures that Republicans no longer know how to sell.”
Great storyline. Got any actual evidence to back up all these assertions? No? OK, just checking.
I think you’re confusing a few different things here. The Republican party AS A WHOLE has become very conservative on issues of economic freedom, spending and debt (well, rhetorically at least – they haven’t governed that way in a while). But I don’t see any reason to think that Northeastern Republicans are going to be in any way more fiscally conservative than their Southern counterparts. Romney signed the country’s first universal healthcare bill into law after all. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe were the votes that allowed the stimulus to go through. Scott Brown, Snowe and Collins just voted for Obama’s jobs bill.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 pm
#17:
Socons play an important role in the GOP, I don’t deny that and we need to keep them within the Party. But we are the minority party, we need to expand the number of voters we appeal to in order to win anything. If more people come into our party because they like our position on economic issues but aren’t too keen on our positions on social issues, why not let them? Instead of just turning them away or casting them aside, let’s welcome them into the party and then debate and discuss these issues to try to find some common ground.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Texas Poll Preview
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/02/texas-poll-preview.html
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
well if you’re going to do that, then you have to be willing to open the doors to unions, tax-and-spend liberals, and socialists who will side with us to overturn abortion and keep marriage between a man and a woman.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Voters tuned out
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/02/voters-tuned-out_22.html
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
yes, sadly, we can’t seem to get people interested in the election..
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:41 pm
#21:
Don’t we let Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani in? Many would argue that Mike is a social conservative and an economic liberal. Rudy is an economic conservative and a social liberal. Yet both are welcomed within the Republican Party. This isn’t Europe; we don’t have five or six parties to choose from which are ideologically pure. We are never going to get an ideologically pure political party.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Senator Scott Brown Statement on Jobs Bill
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/senator-brown-statement-on-jobs-bill/
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Just a reminder, folks, that Reagan himself had no use for absurdly anti-gay politics like those of Mr. Sorba and his ilk.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/298623.php
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Meet the new boss
same as the old boss..
Brown Helps Democrats Break GOP Filibuster
By Chad Pergram
– FOXNews.com
The election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) energized Republicans that he would give them a critical 41st vote to help them block Democrats and filibuster key legislation.
So in the second vote of his Senate career, Brown promptly voted to help Democrats cut off a Republican filibuster of a $15 billion jobs bill engineered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
“It’s not a perfect bill,” Brown said shortly after voting. “I was comfortable with that vote.”
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 pm
3rd Party Dreamin’
Bloomberg in ’12? Minnesota Independence Party wants Mike to seriously consider running for prez
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/3rd-party-dreamin/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/22/2010-02-22_minny_indy_likes_mike_in_12.html
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Former Vice President Dick Cheney hospitalized with chest pains
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/22/2010-02-22_former_vice_president_dick_cheney_hospitalized_with_chest_pains.html
Ex-GOP presidential nominee hospitalized
Former Sen. Bob Dole is recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center after knee surgery and a bout with pneumonia, his consulting firm said Monday.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/ex-gop-presidential-nominee-hospitalized/?hpt=T2&fbid=3yD69jy7vA4
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
18. All true!
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 pm
…as did Kit Bond and George Voinovich.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 pm
3. Of course Huck blasted the conference. He got a lousy 1% or something like that? Hehe.
He got tired of playing second to Romney year after year. I’m sure that if he had won the straw poll 3 years running, he would think it is still relevant.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
But I don’t see any reason to think that Northeastern Republicans are going to be in any way more fiscally conservative than their Southern counterparts. Romney signed the country’s first universal healthcare bill into law after all. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe were the votes that allowed the stimulus to go through. Scott Brown, Snowe and Collins just voted for Obama’s jobs bill.
*****
And now we have Scott Brown joining Obama and Reid today against us!
Give me a break! BIG tax breaks, that is for all businesses so they can put all of of America back to work.
No thanks, Sen. Brown – the bill you voted for today with the liberal Dems is weak. Period.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Btw, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were of no help today either on the Obama/Reid weak jobs bill.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
CPAC straw poll: Just one percent list stopping gay marriage as a top priority
http://66.147.244.188/~conserz8/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2-10-CPAC-Straw-Poll-Final-Compatibility-Mode.pdf
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/21/cpac-straw-poll-just-one-percent-list-stopping-gay-marriage-as-a-top-priority/
CPAC’s winners and losers
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/22/preston.cpac/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Republicans are still unpopular. I hope social liberals like DaveG don’t write too many divisive posts like this. It will only encourage third party candidacies in 2010. That only helps Democrats.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Not to far away from a serious Republican Conference (not a Ron Paul CPAC dominated one)
Big Names. Big Ideas.
As the largest GOP gathering prior to the 2012 Republican National Convention, you can expect to see the top Republican leaders in the country. The brightest minds and the freshest ideas will be in attendance.
Ron Paul won’t be winning this one (nor will Romney even come close to 1st or 2nd) -
Pick a winner:
http://www.srlc2010.com/
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
OMG, I can see why ACT-Blog was banned. WSU — his newest incarnation — makes posts run right off the rails!
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Scott Brown may have just killed his 2012 POTUS chances in voting for this Government jobs takeover.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:06 pm
“makes posts run right off the rails!”
This post is about social conservatism – and those of you trying to destroy it.
We get a defense.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:12 am
38 Kavon has an extremely tolerant policy, as you have personally experienced much of.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:20 am
I’ve got to read this post when I’m not so tired, hungry, and busy, but it seems like its a “the Republican Party is turning into me post”. If you find yourself thinking that, its really time to consider that its not a coincidence that you think the party is turning into an image of your brand of conservative philosophy and consider that your biases are likely playing a good role in your anaylsis. Finding a story, such as the Brown Election, and making sweeping generalizations off of it that make you happy is not hard to do, however, its not very intelectually honest.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 am
Dave,
You make some great points. I think that is a great take on the fear in general of social conservatives have over the direction of the party. I beg to differ however if Ryan Sorba is really that focused on the overall direction of the GOP. I think that is making out Ryan Sorba to be way more intelligent and visionary then he is. Ryan Sorba appears to be about himself and attention and self-promotion. He probably is sincere in his anti-gay tirades but that seems to be from some deep personal issues and insecurities with his manhood, possible weaknesses and yes maybe his own sexuality. By the way, is it just me or did Ryan look like his eyebrows were waxed?
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 am
#14 Prepare for utter hypocrisy on this issue. If a group of social conservatives promoted Communism, should they be invited to CPAC? If a different group advocated pacifism and unilateral disarmament should they speak at CPAC?
How about truthers and birthers, should they have had their own booth?
How about GOPers for Gun Control? What standard will YOU use?
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:14 am
“OMG, I can see why ACT-Blog was banned. WSU — his newest incarnation — makes posts run right off the rails!”
This is a portent of things to come. There will be some venues where homosexual activists will be allowed in, and they, with their “big tent” philosophy will immediately begin to work on banning those that oppose their viewpoint. Like-minded liberals do the same thing.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:20 am
Another post about Unicorns….
They are supposed to be the future of the party, or at least the missing piece that thrusts us into the majority and saves civilization. Socially, they they are Diane Feinstein. Economically, they are Ron Paul. For foreign policy, they are Rudy Guiliani. And they are legion…..
Well, supposedly. In the real world, no one can show me a member of Congress who actually votes like this. Nobody can identity a cohesive group of Social Leftist, Randian, Über-hawks. We keep asking where these people are, and we keep getting stories about Alex. Surely Alex isn’t the only one?
Ironic that the author should hold out Scott Brown as the poster boy of the New Era of the Randian Leftist Über-Hakws (or R-LUH for short) right after he voted for the leftist jobs bill. I thought guys like him were supposed to be “eons more conservative than the current Republican establishment on entitlements, spending, and the national debt” And yet….. and yet……. he votes to expand the debt for the sake of government control in the economy.
One of you believers in unicorns show me a member of Congress who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and even votes as conservatively as half the Republican caucus on economic issues. Where are they????
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 am
Dave,
Before the Reagan Revolution, we could point to dozens of socially conservative, strong-on-defense Democrats in Congress. In the mid-to-late 70s, there were well over 100 pro-life Democrats in the House, for instance, and they were representative of tens of millions of voters whose Democratic Party had left their values.
Where are your R-LUHs in Congress (Randian Leftist Uber-Hawks)? How come every Republican who is pro-abortion votes like Specter, Snowe, and Brown on economic issues?
I know not everyone in the party is like the folks at my church. I sometimes wonder though, if there is a tendency on this site to project the rather surreal (and tiny) world of east coast, urban, college Republicans onto the nation writ large.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:46 am
MWS wrote: “One of you believers in unicorns show me a member of Congress who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and even votes as conservatively as half the Republican caucus on economic issues. Where are they????”
This is what I like to call a thread-killer. I don’t think you will be taken up on your challenge. They are dreaming that the Maine gals and Arlen Specter (or maybe Joe Lieberman!) are actually economically conservative. On the other hand, so-called social conservatives who happen to be liberal ecomomically end up abandoning their social consrvatism (Does Harry Reid come to mind).
The people they are talking about don’t exist, though there are many who want to pose as being pro-life while also posing as economically conservative.
Being truly pro-life and pro-marriage goes hand-in-hand with economic conservatism, as the rank and file Republican proves every day of his life.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 am
How am I a “social leftist”?
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:01 am
MWS wrote: “One of you believers in unicorns show me a member of Congress who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and even votes as conservatively as half the Republican caucus on economic issues. Where are they????”
They’re all over the place, but they can’t get anywhere, because people like you won’t let them get through the primaries. A lot of them won’t even run because they don’t want to bother with the MWS’s of the world.
We did just have one of them as the vice-president, though: Dick Cheney’s for same-sex marriage and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; he’s as hawkish and capitalist as they come in American politics. Rudy Giuliani’s pro-choice and gay-friendly; he’s incredibly hawkish and wonderful on economic issues.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:02 am
But it’s awfully funny that MWS, a protectionist, a self-described populist, someone who loves class warfare and opposes the Iraq War would whine about others not supporting the party’s basic platform enough!
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:09 am
Abandoning a 1000 years of Western history in support of the strange notion that men can marry men isn’t conservative, is it?. Your recent supposed conversion to being somewhat pro-life is in contradiction with your lifeboat ethic you defended in the same thread you announced your conversion to being pro-life.
For the record, I didn’t give you that moniker. I am just asking a question
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:11 am
Alex,
“They’re all over the place, but they can’t get anywhere, because people like you won’t let them get through the primaries.”
Lame, whiny excuse. Surely you R-LUHs are numerous enough somewhere to get a single, measly congressional seat????
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:15 am
Alex,
“But it’s awfully funny that MWS, a protectionist, a self-described populist, someone who loves class warfare and opposes the Iraq War would whine about others not supporting the party’s basic platform enough!”
I’m not whining about anything, much less people who supposedly aren’t “supporting the party’s basic platform enough.” I know that there aren’t a whole lot of “me” (politically speaking) although a WSJ poll last year did suggest that a majority of Republicans are protectionist, but that’s beside the point.
The point is that Dave wrote a piece claiming that the Republican party is about to be taken over by unicorns. I’m wondering where they all are. You countered that your unicorn armies can’t get anyone nominated, so I guess that proves my point.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:17 am
Alex,
“How am I a “social leftist”?”
Pro-gay marriage, anti-Christianity, and (until recently) pro-choice. I give you lots of props on that (most of the way there) conversion, but you reject one of the pillars of western civilization (Christianity) not just as a personal belief system but as a positive good.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 am
Alex,
And for the record, I despise class warfare. But that doesn’t mean I believe government power should be used for corporate welfare or crony capitalism. The fact that I’m underwhelmed by the stature of most men and women who pass as titans of industry these days does not mean I support “class warfare.”
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:29 am
He’s right though, about Scott Brown Democrats. That’s where our party’s future growth is.
They are the Hillary voters – Democrats that never fit with the liberal wing, are largely moderate or conservative, aren’t zealous enough cultural crusaders to be Republicans currently, but are otherwise austere on deficits and defense. With our return to these issues at the core of the party platform, we’ll get these folks on board just like Scott Brown did, and just like Reagan did the Reagan Democrats.
It will mean shifts in the coalition, and a tendency to deemphasize social issues. We shouldn’t scrap them entirely of course, as that would be foolish and get us into the same mess that Bush and his Congress got into by scrapping fiscal conservatism. But pragmatism and a deference to local government on the matters would satisfy a majority of Republicans I think. Heck, if a majority of Republicans can back a DADT repeal, while gunning for Obama’s corrupt programs and one-party liberal playground, there is definitely a change in the winds.
When we start playing competitive in New England again, on a consistent basis, that’ll be the new generational realignment
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:32 am
While neither supports gay marriage, both Lisa Murkowski and Kay Bailey Hutchison are pro-choice, and voted, according to National Journal‘s Senate Rankings, more conservatively than 60 and 72 percent, respectively, of their Senate colleagues on key votes on economic issues during 2008.
Arlen Specter (57%), Susan Collins (53%), Evan Bayh (52%) and Mary Landrieu (51%) also ranked right of center on economic matters, and each respect a woman’s right to abortion.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:44 am
ACT-BLOG, you’re batshit. I’m sorry, most Americans don’t give that much of a crap about social issues. Really. Of the three legs of the conservative stool, one of those is significantly shorter. Most Americans care far, far more about economic and defense issues. And of the social issues, gay marriage is only ONE. Americans are worried about their pocketbooks, their security – the looming specter of the gays is pretty tepid in comparison.
Your protestations that social conservatism is a component of conservatism equal in influence and importance to the others is just purely wrong. I mean, geez, only 60-something percent of Republicans are pro-life. There’s FAR more consensus within our caucus on issues of taxes, deficit, etc., than on ANY social issue.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:48 am
Aron,
LOL! So the future of the Republican party is Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Mary Landrieu!
That’s weak. First off, KBH got a 73 on social issues, and is considered “moderate” on abortion. Secondly, there were 51 Senators who caucused with the Democratic party in that session, so Susan Collins getting a 53 means she was about the most liberal Republican on economic issues (which reinforces my point). Three of the people you cite are now Democrats. Two of them are considered “moderate” on social as well as economic issues (further reinforcing my point).
The closest thing to a living unicorn in Congress is probably Arlen Specter, and he will go the way of unicorns come Jan. 2011. If you think that is where the future of the party lies, fight on my friend.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:53 am
If anything, the culprit for all the spending we see is not so much moderates or conservatives, or one kind of Republican vs another, but just the way Washington works. Getting into office requires money and connections, and these usually come from special interest groups. Winning support from these groups often requires, let’s face it, a favor or two.
These favors usually can’t be achieved without spending money. Who do you think the corporations or the labor unions are going to support, the guy who stands around doing nothing or the guy who pushes through a brand new government handout for them? So we get things like Bush’s prescription drug program, as well as all kind of earmarks from a “conservative” Republican Congress, just like we get health care and the stimulus from the liberal Democrat Congress. You can argue ideology all day and blame this group or that group, but it’s these kinds of basic structural incentives that matter much more IMO.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:57 am
Aron,
When you look at the House side- certainly the best place to go unicorn hunting as it is far more diverse than the Senate- the most conservative economic rating that the National Journal gave any congressman that was in the socially liberal half of the House was a 53. Those were two congressmen who had a socially liberal rating of 54.
Go figure.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:59 am
“He’s right though, about Scott Brown Democrats. That’s where our party’s future growth is.”
Apparently, that is not economic conservatism then, if the vote today is any indication.
MWS wrote: “conservatively as half the Republican caucus”
Aron Goldman wrote: “Arlen Specter (57%), Susan Collins (53%), Evan Bayh (52%) and Mary Landrieu (51%) also ranked right of center on economic matters, and each respect a woman’s right to abortion.”
Aron fails to meet the challenge. Being right of center is different than being in the top half of Republicans. Aron’s folks are economic moderates lieing between the parties, hardly conservative.
The MWS challenge stands!
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 am
Perhaps we should do this from the other direction. Name your most stridently pro-life congressmen. They are probably almost every one conservative economically.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:06 am
Even Ron Paul wouldn’t count as socially liberal. He is not against states upholding marriage or stopping abortions. He is just so Constitutionally focused that he would have the states do it (though I disagree with his view of the Constitution on those two points.)
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:10 am
David,
“The MWS challenge stands!”
And it was a pretty weak challenge at that. I just asked for a social liberal who was mainstream Republican on economic issues. They only had to hit the top half. Dave in the FPP made a far stronger claim, as he surveyed an army of unicorns who are “eons more conservative than the current Republican establishment on entitlements, spending, and the national debt,”
And where are all these “Brown Democrats” DaveG was writing of, who are supposedly so economically conservative? In New England? Who was the last economically conservative Democrat elected in New England? Hell, who was the last economically conservative Republican elected from New England, outside of the tiny enclave of New Hampshire?
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:26 am
Abandoning a 1000 years of Western history in support of the strange notion that men can marry men isn’t conservative, is it?.
It isn’t. I’m not a social conservative. I don’t support old things because they’re old, I don’t believe in the insane inanity that “if it’s good enough for my pappy, it’s good enough for me,” and I don’t believe in using the force of government to uphold social institutions. I would prefer the government get out of the entire marriage business and only support same-sex marriage as a prudential matter.
Pro-gay marriage, anti-Christianity, and (until recently) pro-choice. I give you lots of props on that (most of the way there) conversion, but you reject one of the pillars of western civilization (Christianity) not just as a personal belief system but as a positive good.
I’m anti-government marriage. And yes, I am anti-Christianity, because I am pro-reason. I reject the principle of faith.
Gosh, I’m a real leftist for wanting the government to not make any laws endorsing any religion!
(though I disagree with his view of the Constitution on those two points.)
Of course you do. It doesn’t get you the results you want. You’re a power-luster at heart.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:31 am
The trouble with our system, MWS, is that since we have coalitions who all have their little tests, it’s hard for libertarians to slip through those cracks.
Although you are completely wrong that I am a social leftist: I am moderately pro-life, against government marriage, against affirmative action, profoundly anti-feminist, far-right on gun issues, anti-relativism, anti-multiculturalist, anti-Islam. I’m also a bit of a reactionary on certain points; I am extremely anti-psychiatry, for instance, and love the concept of classical virtue. But yes, my opposition to religion is, of course, pronounced. But I am not against religion, primarily; I am for reason. I am not against Christianity. I am against faith.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:50 am
“I am pro-reason. I reject the principle of faith.”
Not really. You have great faith in your own ability to reason.
“Of course you do. It doesn’t get you the results you want. You’re a power-luster at heart.”
Wow! for somebody supposedly depending on reason, you sure show a lot of clairvoyant behaviors (Reading hearts, and seeing in people’s closets)
Actually, I support a constitutional amendment because I do believe that a new issue has arisen that the founders truly never contemplated (two men “marrying” each other). On the issue of life, however, the protection of life is already constitutional and needs no amendment.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 am
Actually, I support a constitutional amendment because I do believe that a new issue has arisen that the founders truly never contemplated (two men “marrying” each other).
They never contemplated women having the right to vote, either. Or, for that matter, the direct election of senators, or the voting age being 18. Time to repeal!
Not really. You have great faith in your own ability to reason.
I have a mind, and I intend to use it. The default position in any position is non-belief, not belief. If I have no evidence that Pikachu exists, I say that he doesn’t exist. If I have no evidence that God exists, I say that God doesn’t exist. The default position is non-belief, not Christianity. If you can understand why you reject Islam, you can understand why I reject Christianity.
“The protection of life is already constitutional” — I haven’t the faintest clue what this means.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:49 am
Why should you trust your mind? Can you prove that it even exists? You may hold an inconsistent belief about the non-existence of things but you do not actually live by it. You put your trust in all kinds of things and in people you have never met. You drive over bridges built by people you know nothing about. You trust in scientists and doctors and grocers enough to eat the things they serve you without hesitation and without a private inspection of your own.
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:02 am
Actually, non-belief is not the default position on a number of issues. First and foremost, impiricists believe–and believe quite strongly–in their senses. This involves all of the following assumptions:
1. My senses do in fact exist.
2. The information they provide me is accurate to reality.
And for a hard impiricist:
3. Things which I can’t experience through my senses do not exist.
This assumption is the bases for your “default non-belief” argument. Of course, it’s not true. You can’t see the number 5, the mathematical concept of pie, any imaginary number (and isn’t that lttle mathematical concept fun), and of ourse, geometric concepts like a point, line and plane. You can’t experience with your senses concepts like freedom, equality, justice, peace, etc. What you see are effects of these concepts. In like manner, Christians–and other theists–argue that they can see effects of God, and hence (often) for his existence. Of course, we also cheat by not being hard impiricists. I’m blind, so I have a bit of a different concept of impiricism, since I take the entire existence of sight on faith *grin*.
actually, I was going to make an entirely different comment on the OP, but I can’t resist a philosophy of religion discussion.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 am
Now, my comment on the OP: Like all of DaveG’s posts, it appears to be an argument–without evidence–that the Republican party is shortly going to look the way he thinks it ought to look. Unfortunately for Dave (and fortunately for the party), there are two problems with his arguement.
1. there aren’t enough “white colar, educated social moderates” to fundamentally change the GOP in the way he expects. Wealthy white collar moderates are an ever-shrinking segment of the electorate, particularly with the meteoric rise of Hispanics.
2. (this is why it’s fortunate for the party):White collar moderates aren’t all that conservative on the economic and security issues Dave mentions. Social issues were clearly less of a factor in 2008 than 2004 or 2000. The economy–and to a lesser extent security–predominated. Yet this demographic that’s supposed to save the GOP and make it more conservative all at the same time voted for Obama. Let me say that again: voted, for, Obama. This was the candidate who wanted to “spread the wealth around” and ran on pulling out of Iraq. Ironically the openly socially conservative Bush did better in white collar suburbia than McCain. Now, if by “economically conservative” you mean “want to see other people, not themselves, pay for the social programs they support”, then sure, but I wouldn’t trust these voters much beyond that.
3. Rather than a realignment, 2010 is likely to be a recorrection. What moderates really don’t like is one party with a majority in both chambers and the presidency. It’s hard to think of a time since the death of Roosevelt when such a state of affairs has lasted more than four years, and the length of time which it can last has gotten shorter as time goes on. On average however, one party dominance of both chambers and the whitehouse has lasted four years before being sharply corected (with some exceptions where it lasted two years, such as 92-94). Ironically, I suspect these “white collar social moderates”, if they hand congress back to the GOP in 2010, will also reelect Obama in 2012, because these folks tend toward ticket-splitting.
Bottom line: this is not the Rudi revolution of which Dave has been faithfully prophesying, but a correction for the over-correction of 2006/8. Social issues will probably be de-emphasized, because social issues aren’t on the front-burner for anyone right now.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 am
Alex,
#69. So you remove the heart and demand the function. Can you think of any countries that share your anti-Christian convictions (say in Europe or Asia) that are also the anti-government, laissez faire, individualist utopias of classic virtue that you desire?
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 am
Alex,
“The trouble with our system, MWS, is that since we have coalitions who all have their little tests, it’s hard for libertarians to slip through those cracks.”
Well surely- if unicorns are going to take over the Republican party as conservatives did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s- you guys should at least hold one solitary seat somewhere, shouldn’t you?
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:52 am
….and yes, trying to re-create society around a book that is less than 50 years old is leftist.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:53 am
…..sorry, 53 years old.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:10 am
We don’t need a big tent. I’m like Beck, “what is this a circus.” The GOproud group wants gay marrige, most Americans and deffinately most conservatives do not. The gays are welcome to vote for conservatives but they are not doing us any favor by telling us we are ignorant for not wanting to tear down the institution of marrige.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
What the Republicans need to do is implement a family values coalition that is based on individuals and families and the choices they can make to help the cause? Social programming is not the job of government, it belongs behind the closed doors and the open minds of the people…not the government. IMO.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:38 am
#69. So you remove the heart and demand the function. Can you think of any countries that share your anti-Christian convictions (say in Europe or Asia) that are also the anti-government, laissez faire, individualist utopias of classic virtue that you desire?
The function of Christianity — of faith — is to rot man’s mind.
And no, I can’t, because the culture has to change, first. I’m not advocating some sweeping change overnight.
Why should you trust your mind? Can you prove that it even exists? You may hold an inconsistent belief about the non-existence of things but you do not actually live by it. You put your trust in all kinds of things and in people you have never met. You drive over bridges built by people you know nothing about. You trust in scientists and doctors and grocers enough to eat the things they serve you without hesitation and without a private inspection of your own.
Observe the inanities of a man who has not cared to examine what the concept of reason actually entails: he visits his doctor, and decides that there is no way, really, to judge that the man isn’t secretly trying to poison and kill you. He decides to accept “on faith” that his doctor is not a madman, that the entire institution isn’t plotting against him.
Notice what he ignores. He ignores what it takes to become a doctor. He ignores the history of the institution he visits. He ignores the lack of motive on the part of the doctor. He ignores what he knows about what doctors do, and whether he knows his doctor is fulfilling that role. He asks himself questions like “Can I prove that my doctor isn’t trying to kill me?” This is how faith rots the mind: by inverting logic, it asks men to prove negatives.
What is David ignoring? Context. All opponents of reason do so: they remove the context, examine something in a vacuum, and ask men of the mind to justify it — but men do not live in vacuums, and men do not live without context. I’m not sure if it would be more depressing to say that David knows this and does not care, or if he does not know it and does not care to know it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
You have answered well, Alex. Too well. What you are suggesting is the same thing that post 72 was getting at. You have received evidence that bolsters your faith in the particular food that you eating or bridge you are crossing. There are bridge collapses and food poisonings but you eat and cross anyway. Why because you have chosen to believe certain things. Christians do the same.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
[...] very efficient, important? Because it signals a new type of conservative. DaveG at Race42012 puts it this way, emphasis mine: Today, instead of Reagan Democrats we have Brown Democrats. These are voters who [...]
February 24th, 2010 at 10:54 am
[...] Race 4 2012: http://race42008.com/2010/02/22/what-do-ryan-sorba-and-nelson-rockefeller-have-in-common/ [...]