Did the GOP Really Lose Its Way?
by Rich MunyMany conservative politicians, radio hosts, and pundits have repeatedly stated their shared belief that the Republican Party “lost its way” prior to the 2008 election. In their minds, the entire conservative movement believed in limited government and low spending and was simply corrupted by absolute power. They may be surprised to learn that this is not the case at all. The fact that party leadership turned its back on limited government and low spending was entirely predictable. In fact, it should have been expected.
The conservative movement is not homogeneous. Rather, the movement consists of fiscal conservatives, limited government conservatives, libertarians, pro-business conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and others. When Democrats control government, these disparate conservative groups share many common goals. They all wish to reduce the power of government and they all wish to reduce taxes and spending. As a result, they usually form a very effective alliance while out of power.
We saw this in 1993 and 1994. Conservatives rallied around core beliefs like limited government, term limits, Second Amendment rights, and low taxes. Party leadership rolled out the Contract with America to universal conservative acclaim. Conservatives all rallied around statements like, “guns don’t kill people…people kill people,” while GOP candidates gladly signed term limit pledges and Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge. United, the GOP won control of the House and the Senate in 1994, and later won the presidency in 2000.
This coalition remained united in opposition to President Clinton through the remainder of the 1990s. George W. Bush’s presidential victory in 2000 gave the GOP total control of the federal government and, unfortunately, sometimes nothing ruins success like success. Far from losing their way, factions within the GOP simply asserted their own visions of conservatism.
The first casualty was any support – beyond empty rhetoric – for limited government. This should not have been surprising. Some within the conservative movement believed as a matter of principle that the federal government should be limited in power. Others, especially leaders of the social conservatives, simply wished for the federal government to be weaker when Democrats were in the majority.
Many social conservatives were unhappy with changes that occurred in America since the 1960s. Rather than relying on changing the hearts and minds of Americans within the context of a free society or advocating for a small federal government that would not harm traditional values, their national leadership instead believed the GOP-controlled federal government could and should actively bring about the changes they sought.
Moving these social conservative activist bills through Congress required compromises within the movement and with the opposition. Under these conditions, fiscal discipline was another early casualty. After all, an active government costs money. Additionally, passing bills desired by social conservatives often required some Democratic votes, and that often meant funding programs those Democrats wanted in exchange.
To keep the conservative coalition together, most Republican politicians simply kowtowed to the demands of the James Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons of the movement on the assumption that other conservatives had nowhere else to go. These politicians liked being in power, so they naturally publicly supported the entire social conservative agenda, as defined by the movement’s national leadership.
This was evident in the online poker issue. Focus on the Family’s founder and former leader Dr. James Dobson felt so strongly about stopping adults from playing poker in their own homes, on their own computers, that he insisted on having the GOP push anti-gaming legislation through Congress. He also insisted on a plank in the GOP party platform advocating a national prohibition of online poker.
The legislation Dobson advocated forced America’s banks to act as an unpaid arm of the Department of Justice. It required banks to screen transactions and to block those related to “unlawful Internet gambling,” a term the Department of Justice was not even able to define for the banks ordered to enforce the act. Needless to say, this legislation is 180 degrees from limited government conservatism.
In a classic “be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it” scenario, many Americans, particularly younger swing voters, adamantly opposed the big government, big spending programs of social conservatives. In fact, many developed a strongly negative view of the big government nanny-state instincts of the “new” GOP, as was evidenced by the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections.
In early 2008, poker players and Internet freedom supporters wrote to the GOP platform committee to oppose inclusion of the Dobson-backed plank advocating a national online poker prohibition. This should not have been a surprise, as the one million member Poker Players Alliance was loudly demanding poker rights. The draft platform committee heard the public loud and clear and removed the plank, citing the need for those votes on Election Day. The full committee, ignoring any pretense of limited government principles, responded by restoring the anti-poker plank. Then, despite the fact that 2008 was already shaping up to be a tough election year for conservatives, the Family Research Council nevertheless released a press release praising the addition of this plank that unnecessarily and gleefully taunted the plank’s many opponents.
What did national leaders of social conservatives get for their efforts? America now has a Congress more likely to pass legislation that licenses and regulates online poker, which I see as one of the few positive outcomes of the 2008 election, but we also have a Congress that is working against the interests of all conservatives. Dobson and McClusky fought for things they saw as “nice to have” rather than the “must-haves,” and they lost both. Not a well-played hand on the part of Dobson and McClusky.
Social conservatism under some of its recent leaders, often morphs into active, big government conservatism. It seeks power to change society. In its current form, it will seek to drive the conservatism movement toward big government conservatism whenever the conservative movement gains power. And, every time the conservative movement embraces big government, voters will reject it.
There is a way to break this cycle. The conservative movement must embrace a consistent set of principles. We either believe in limited government or we do not. We either believe in low taxes – and low spending – or we do not. If we stick to this, we can win elections and stay in power. Leaders of social conservatives would be wise to embrace this as well. Rather than seeking to force changes via big government, then having to fight the big government they helped to create when out of power, social conservatives would be better served with leadership that supported a smaller federal government that kept its nose far from our religious and personal liberties. After all, our values don’t come from Washington, nor do they come from our laws. It’s time to loosen the shackles on the American people and trust them to do what is right.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
264 Comments
hear hear! There was a time when a person's religion decided what was acceptable in the matter of marriage. It should be that again, and if you are a catholic or an orthodox jew there is no question what marriage is or means. This is not the place for gvt. Gvt should stay out of social engineering.
Excellent. In many, many conversations with liberals I have found that it is this overt big-government push when social conservatives are in charge that drives them in droves away from many fiscal realities and policies that they could accept and would help restore our nation.
Social conservatives must bend for a time. As much as I respect many of their ideals and life choices the fact is that they, just like the socialists of the left, destroy they ability to compromise because the very foundation of their ideologies is good vs. evil, rather than bad vs. better. I know that there are some fantastic people here that may rankle at the idea, but we must first have a Republic. We must first put out the fires in our house before we redecorate.
That is an excellent, well reasoned, well thought out, thought provoking article.
"There is a way to break this cycle. The conservative movement must embrace a consistent set of principles. We either believe in limited government or we do not. We either believe in low taxes – and low spending – or we do not. If we stick to this, we can win elections and stay in power. Leaders of social conservatives would be wise to embrace this as well."
Life is simple, keep it simple, stoopid……..
Absolutely correct. The litmus test has to be whether you believe in limited government or not. If you do, welcome to the club. If you merely wish to use government to achieve your own ends, look elsewhere. I had basically the same take on my own blog a few weeks ago:
http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com/2009/11/s...
Excellent article. The key is federalism. Reduce federal power and let each state make rules governing these social issues with limits provided by the Constitution. These state experiments will demonstrate which laws work and which don't.
The federalism argument is laid out in Mark Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny".
Some very good points are raised in this article. Primarily the splintered factions within Right.
The problem I see is that when the GOP gets into power, the conservative movement usually declares victory and backs off. When we back off the pressure on our elected officials, we are literally giving them a green light to do as they want. We need to stand firm and keep the pressure on when our side does get a win or the people we elect will easily turn into RINO's.
As far as Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson as well as the other "social Conservatives" out there, they aren't "conservative" in my book. They seem to be more of an offshoot of the Left than of the Right. It is a total contradiction to be socially conservative while at the same time advocating for more big government control. The two simply don't mix.
One word – Reaganomics.
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff
Absolutely, 100% correct. Limited government, low taxes, less regulation, and sound money should be the core of the Republican Party. This is why I call myself a libertarian, not a conservative.
Pay attention to the Tea Partiers. I do not like elitism in any form. Give me Sarah Palin over any other politician alive today. The only politician who comes close to Tea Party ideals was Reagan. Even though he was not an "elite", he respected the office so much he would be full suit and tie any time while in in the Oval Office. I think Sarah is cut from the same cloth. Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson come to mind also.
absolutely – stick to limited government, and stay the hell out of oppressing people's freedoms by telling people who can get married or not.
American social conservatives stifle the expression of sexuality. I am very conventional in my outlooks and conduct, but social conservatism advocates conduct and an outlook toward sexuality that I find deeply distasteful.
Besides being obnoxious in their views, social conservatives demand that everyone conform to them. They are so insistent in this demand, that they are willing to take over the government and coerce the rest of us to follow their views.
It is a cruel irony that the American Conservative Movement, which claims to be devoted to personal liberty is utterly repressive on matters of sexuality, the deepest and most intimate area of personal liberty. The Movement's repressive attitude on sexuality puts the lie on all their other efforts.
Their repressive attitude on sexuality is the internal inconsistency which corrupted the Conservative movement. This is why corruption, big spending and unparalleled governmental intrusiveness are the natural and inevitable outcomes of conservative government in America.
In comparison liberalism is a docile and tractable beast.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely!! It seems that whichever party gets into office, they let it go to their head and start the power grab! We need people who are FOR THE PEOPLE !! I'm tired of the two party system that ends up with the same agenda…it's all about THEM!!
I know of many so called social conservatives who also support federalism as well.
As far as Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson as well as the other "social Conservatives" out there, they aren't "conservative" in my book. They seem to be more of an offshoot of the Left than of the Right. It is a total contradiction to be socially conservative while at the same time advocating for more big government control. The two simply don't mix.
Dave, good point, but Nazism was totalitarianism of the Right. Big government to support corporations, the military or sexual puritanism are considered conservative movements.
Excellent article. The key is federalism. Reduce federal power and let each state make rules governing these social issues with limits provided by the Constitution. These state experiments will demonstrate which laws work and which don't.
Scoob, good observation, I will read Levin's book, but in the mean time, I am concerned about Jim Crow,
Empirically, have States" Rights served any purpose other than the oppression of the Black Race?
Seriously? There is an argument to be made against the online poker legislation. You can even call it a symptom of a greater problem. But to assert that the GOP's troubles in 2006 and 2008 were actually caused, in any way, shape or form by backlash against it? Seriously?
This is just another in a long line of "if the GOP would just agree with me, especially on my pet issues, it would be successful" articles. Any truth contained within is entirely accidental.
Case in point, can you name a single other of these "big government, big spending" "social conservative activist bills"? The fact is, social conservatives are fiscal conservatives and vice versa. There's a very small segment of the population for whom this is not true, and most of them post things on the Internet, so they tend to think there are more of them than there really are.
Life is simple, keep it simple, stoopid……..
Cowboy, I am a Yankee and all, but I need to comment on your KISS interpretation. We say keep it simple and sincere.
The "sincere" implies respect for the hearer and that the matter will be settled logically and to the speaker and hearer's mutual satisfaction.
Stoopid implies……..
Yes Mr. Chapman. That is one topic seemingly sidestepped. And it's happening on all sides of debate.
Corruption. It's bubbling over. Speaking truth to power has brought pinheads like Evan Newmark out to declare those 'bitching and complaining' are just jealous. Jealous that they are not the ones taking America for a ride. Perhaps her final ride into the history books.
Let's not examine election fraud. Let's not examine securities fraud. Blatant conflict of interests. What is justice anyway?
Mr. Muny. When you are faced with a choice between the 'thieves you like' vs. the 'thieves you don't like' what does that say about the future of our nation? What does it matter what we believe when the system is rigged beyond repair? The Constitution is our foundation. It's time to burn down the house and rebuild from the slab up.
And strong defense.
Indeed the republican party consists of a wide variety of conservatives and because of that I find it hard to believe that so called "social conservatives" read religeous right are the sole cause of the republican party getting away from it's core principles once the GOP is the majority in government. Just doesn't pass the smell test for me. I say sole reason because the only example provided are "social conservatives" .
I do not know of or heard of ANY successfull society or country since the beginning of time that has endorsed say for example beastiality. If that is too harsh then say for example stealing. It has NEVER happened and there are good reasons why it has not. Some people say that is the role of the church, but again it is illegal to steal.
To be more successfull (ie being in a position to protect our country from bad policies vice being in power) I agree bottom line REPRESENTATIVES of the party need to adhere to CORE PRINCIPLES in both good times and bad times. If they do not have the discipline to do this. If they can not represent the best interests of their constituents vice self interests then they can not be trusted with the power that was delegated to them from the voting public and hence need to go.
I knew it all along: The GOP is most effective as the opposition, as a party of no.
The whole point being that SOCIAL issues shouldn't even be part of the Federal Gov. AT ALL. The MSM is taking the MEANING of being a Social Conservative and gotten it all out of whack. Social Conservative USED to mean the same thing as Fiscal Conservative – smaller, HANDS-OFF approach FROM the Federal Gov. in letting States and Localities decide on all those social issues – like the Constitution SAYS it's suppose to.
It has nothing to do with "agreeing with me" that you say. We KNOW what wins Conservatives elections. We also know what LOSES Republicans during elections – NOT voting and acting in that Conservative manner you RAN on – as was mentions, the get in office and turn into RINO's.
i actually agree with this, and this is why i find 2 party politics so interesting – there's no way 2 parties can cover every single principle!
That may be true. I am trying to emphasize that you have to stand for something or you will fall for everything. Either the principles that you promote are indeed good for the country as a whole or they are not. What is next ? Do we start teaching kids in school how to "game" the system so that they will become productive acorn workers?
Empirically tail wagging dog. Pathetic attempt and truely a waste of bytes.
Carrie Prejean
wrong…..nazism has nothing to do with the right……national socialist democratic workers party or nazi for short…..what part of this name do you not understand?……when you get get to socialist followed by workers party you should have a clue……money stolen from wealthy jews to buy off the rest of the country and the use of artists and architects to organize propaganda for herr hitler is as left as it gets…..nuff said.
Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson as well as the other social Conservatives out there ARE conservative. In fact, more conservative than jackasses like you Dave. Conservative Christians are a HUGE constituency that cannot be ignored. When they don't show up at the polls, republicans lose.
Online poker?? what the heck?? Remember voting for Bob Dole, oh well it's his turn. John McCain?
We have politicians who hold office because a relative did before them.
Conservatives by definition don't really want to invest the time into electing a politician who represents them.
We just want to be left alone, The left will pound their agenda relentsly until they get their result.
I think that time is ending.
In 1994 the Republicans had a chance to prove themselves. They blew it, big time. It's time for a new, conservative party.
You have to be out of your mind. The only similarity between Reagan and Palin is their skin color. Reagan had a list of achievements as long as your arm, as well as a solid track record. Palin has no achievements and a track record of being wishy-washy. I'll take old school vs. new school any day.
Dobson is an arrogant ass.
Go legislate somewhere else. I don't want it. Most people don't want it.
Some sins are crimes, and they should be. Other sins are just plain sins, so leave me the hell alone about those. I don't need the governments help in making my moral decisions.
Is that supposed to signify something? Did Ms. Prejean get elected to office last evening while I was sleeping? Could you elucidate?
You're not wrong and you sure as HELL ain't lyin'!
This topic makes my blood boil.
Nazism is exactly where it belongs, well left of center.
I can't think of a single Republican who:
1) Has the national name recognition to possibly be elected president; and,
2) Deserves my support
Huckabee — Gomer Pyle after going back to high school;
Romney — A grown man who accepts the fraud known as Mormonism;
Jindal — Lost me with that incredibly stage entrance at the convention;
Lindsey Graham — Needs a sex change and a "D" next to his name;
Sarah Palin — Answers the question, then prattles nervously until even I'm embarrassed;
Sarah Palin — Uses the adjective "commonsense" until I run screaming into the woods;
Newt Gingrich — Quite frankly, I can't stand the way he says "quite frankly";
Newt Gingrich — Quite frankly, he sounds like a corn cob has been jammed into one of his body cavities;
John McCain — HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, oh yeah, good one; and,
Giuliani — Was mayor of NYC on 9/11, and can't seem to resist mentioning it over and over.
Mister, we could use a man like Ronald Reagan again.
I've been wondering how to find your blog. Thanks!
Why do the dumb-masses require an intrusive federal government?
No sensible person says government has no right to punish stealing, or bestiality.
That has never been an issue. The issue is with sins that aren't crimes. Some people can't seem to bear it to think of a sin not also being a crime. The government needs to leave me alone regarding sins. Some sins are a matter of personal choice.
(By the way, I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in the concept of sin. I use the word for clarity's sake.)
I remember very distinctly the comments made against Reagan. A failed actor from California with no intellect, voodoo economics, etc, etc. A great leader is not made, but born.
Thanks for the reply.
Your point is well taken. IMO, it's easier to refurbish an existing house than it is to rebuild one from scratch, so it at least makes sense to try that first.
Thanks for the reply.
Stealing is unlawful not because it's a sin, but because it infringes on the rights of others. Government is best when it's protecting citizens from aggression of others, not when it's restricting liberties it doesn't feel citizens can be trusted to have.
EXACTLY! Where is the charismatic AND intellectually adept candidate who can stand up for what most American want: to be free to choose their own life, and accept the consequences? America needs someone who can express a vision of individual liberty that is consistent with our deepest values. Someone to contrast the "money grows on trees" liberal, the "I know how to plan the economy" socialist intellectual and the "but what about the children/environment/homeless/etc." sniveling progressive.
Ron Paul, as nice a guy as he is, just doesn't pack the punch.
It may not be important to you, but it's important to many others. If you don't think it's important, then why is it the GOP platform? That can't be wise when there is a one million member organization on the other side of the issue.
Where's Ron Paul?
Absolutely right about Graham, though.
You're the one who is out of their mind !
Palin is America's Maggie Thatcher and the ONLY GOPer who comes anywhere near close to being a Reagan political clone.
And as far as her achievements go…………………do some much needed research !
Oh yes it IS; especially when it is yheallin NO, at the top of its lungs, fighting SOCIALISM tooth and nail.
You're the problem.
How so?
You've managed to swallow a lot of not only lefty KOOL-Aid, but are a damned UNAPEEASEABLE purist.
While I agree with some of what you wrote, most of it is callow, shallow, stupid even; especially where Palin is concerned.
Could it be? Do you mean that *gasp* people don't want the government telling them what to do?! Shock of all shocks…
I really think this is why the Democrats have grown in the past 8 years. Younger voters and independents identified the GOP as the party of the War on Drugs, the Moral Majority, and other intrusive regulations in their personal lives. People tend to care more about things that effect them in the most visible ways. If they can't go online and play poker, for example, they're going to be upset. The taxing and spending isn't really that visible.
If the GOP decides to go more Libertarian in it's social and foreign policies, then maybe they have a chance with younger voters. Until then, they'll just have a bunch of aging Bible thumpers.
Yeah, but so is most of the voting population in this country. If Palin ran, don't you think Obama would try run against the Palin of '08? The woman has ruined herself in national politics and only excites the most vocal parts of the GOP.
If you like the article, don't forget to Digg it: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Big_Government_...
I'm sorry, but I don't think anybody besides Palin can get people up at 5 AM just to have her sign their book. I pretty much agree with all the comments though, even about Sarah. She does go on a little long, but I would much rather have an obvious person like Sarah, then a pat you on the back type like either Bush. Also, I'd rather have any of the above then the Obaminator.
Sarah Palin?!?! She's the reality-tv candidate; overexposed and under-endowed (where it counts…in politics.)
We need a Reagan…or better yet, someone with the intellectual depth and bearing of James Madison and the political acumen of Bill Clinton. Yes, that's right…Bill Clinton. Say what you want about the guy's morals, he was the best politician since LBJ.
I swallowed lefty Kool-Aid?
You're insulting. I'll bet you wouldn't say that within arm's reach of me.
I will vote for and support Palin if she's the nominee. I would prefer her over G.W. Bush, John McCain or any of the others I mentioned above. Still, what I'd most like is someone stronger mentally.
Some interviewers use silence as a tool, to try to get a person to blather. I'd like to see a Conservative who can comfortable wait through the silence and cause the interviewer to blather, instead.
We need a communicator with something appealing to communicate.
Yeah, you're right. Strangely enough, the Republicans now talk about what they would do to improve our health care system. Well, that's not good enough. They had many opportunities to act, when they were in power. Yet, here we are, all these years later, with the Dims trying to do the country in with a healthcare plan.
The Dims wouldn't have gotten anywhere with this, had the Republicans done their job, back in the day.
The only one on your list I disagree with is Jindal. I don't know enought about him, though I agree with your assessment of his convention preformance.
Romney – Don't forget he gave his state Obamacare long before anyone heard of Obama.
The country needs candidates who will deal with the issues by cutting taxes, repealing stiffleing laws, or eliminating programs that don't work. There is no such person on the scene today.
I would disagree slightly. I would suggest that most things which have traditionally been crimes have been made so because they are wrong. Whether the concept of "wrong" arises from sinfulness, or a non-sectarian natural law perspective really does not matter. But I tend to reject a pure "social-compact" theory of criminality, and I think history supports that view.
I would agree though, that a concept of the nature of government is required. Similar to you, it appears, I believe governments exist to provide for the internal and external security of their people. The internal aspect includes some type of definition of property rights, and a means of dispute resolution. But regulation of conduct which goes beyond the necessary function of government becomes suspect.
As to gambling generally, (I will even go beyond online poker) how two or more people decide how to divide their own money really doesn't impact me. For the most part, I hold mine too dear to enjoy parting with it due to matters totally beyond my control. But I understand that others do enjoy it, and if it isn't costing me anything then I really should have no say.
The point was not the two examples that I gave but society along with governments have decided that certain behavoirs are just not acceptable. It is for the benefit of the whole. If I am understanding you corectly, you counter with what you do in private does not hurt anyone and government can't regulate behavoir. Do not get me wrong I have absolutely nothing against you but to a certain extent I imagine Jeffery Dahmer felt the same or a spouse abuser feels the same etc. You say some behavoirs are a matter of choice and yes I agree with you and you are free to choose all day long , but again my point is for the better of the whole societies and governments have decided that certain behavoirs are not acceptable. Don't get offended on a pesonal level I am just stating fact.
Thank you. As you may be able to discern my beliefs are based upon God, but I understand fully that others totally dismiss even the possibility of God and they are 100% free to do so. Why even God will not force them to believe otherwise. Accordingly, I tried to express what I also believe to be true without basing my answer on my faith.You explained better than Idid.
Well I am not looking for a rock star. I am looking for someone who loves America, is concerned for all Americans not just those of a certain political party, practices limited government along with balanced budgets, big on a strong military and is smarter than the lies that constantly come from the mouths of democraps and their media machine.
The repubilcans do not represent the american people anymore than the democrats do! they all are out for them selves and special interests! Kick them all out and put them in jail where they belong! those that chose to fight the will of the poeple i say shot them! Impeach Obama fro running a criminal enterprise out of the White House! he is hip deep in Acorn and SEIU and COI which are all committing voter fraud, tax evation, money laundering, embezzelment, illegal campiagn bribes, voter intimidation, election fraud, climate fraud, theif, union election fixing and fraud, shake downs of businesses for cash intheir pockets and failing to uphold his oath of office! Wake up america! only you cna save us! only you can save yourself and your family! stand up and fight! If you wait they will enslave you1 they are on big crisi away from marshall law! whenthat happens it will be armed rebellion! They willput you in Pelsois Gulags for not paying what ever they decide for health care that isn't health care fo all or better than what we have! they are stealing your wealth and making slaves of us all!
I'm saying personally I could care less about online poker one way or the other.
I think online poker and the conservative movement one way or the other don't really go together.
I know where you are coming from so I will not reply.
Good point
Very good point — I can see the ideal person in my mind, but I don't have the literary skills to paint a word picture of him or her. There are no more Margaret Thatchers or Ronald Reagans, I guess.
A sad fact is that our electorate is pretty much uninformed. I'm sure you saw some of the incredibly dumb things that voters said about Obama, and how he would make their lives easy. I think it's true that a better electorate would make for better politicians which would make for decent government.
Our side doesn't lie, at least not the way the Dim-mock-rats do. We have a lot going for us. I'm just frustrated over what hasn't come to pass before now, impatient for us to get something on the board and show the world how Americans, if left alone by their government, can make awesome things happen.
We deserve the chance to show the world a thing or two. Our side, the Conservative citizen side, really is the best our country has to offer. How I hope the great potential can be unleashed!
How about John Boehner, Richard Shelby, Lamar Alexander, or other Republican politicians from that tier of the national scene? Are any of them strong enough to lead as President?
None of them could do worse than O-bow-zer.
There are terrible problems to be solved, and most of them are caused by reckless politicians.
FDR, Johnson, Carter, then Clinton — All of them took a shot at us. The thing is, when they were trying their best to buy votes for one, two or three generations, we still had something to spare.
Now comes ThuggObama, and we have very little to spare. If he's allowed to have his way, he will plunge us into abject ruin. We might even no longer have our sovereignty.
Very well written!!!!!!!!!!! As a social conserevative who enjoys playing poker I couldn't agree more. The party should read and learn the lessons this article so clearly spells out.
Limited government, Low Taxes, Term-limits (to do away with the career politicians), and cleaning corruption regardless of what party it falls under.
Teddy Roosevelt was a disaster. The history books might be kind to him, but those who love the U.S. Constitution hate Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, as well.
These two "progressives" (yes, they really called themselves that) were fellow travelers.
Jeffrey Dahmer violated the rights of others. So does the person who abuses his or her spouse.
Again, you haven't hit on a crime that is a crime only because it's a sin.
I'm not in the least offended. I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.
Gambling and drug use are the two examples most often cited.
A good definition of a wrongful act, for me: An act which violates the Constitutional rights of another person. If no one's rights are violated, is it really worth making the act a crime?
Libtards can't truly understand us Conservatives. We're just a different animal.
SInce we're not collectivists, we think of the individual, first and last. We don't want to hit the streets and protest. We're busy; we don't really have the time. We don't like to categorize the population into "victim" groups and then pay them off to get their votes for two or three generations, a la FDR.
We don't subscribe to the idea that the environment is everything and must be protected at all costs. Think about it: We as humans made all this progress while trying to protect ourselves FROM the environment.
You folks will never understand us.
Thank you, kooz. I've enjyed your remarks here.
You're proving my point by immediately go on the attack, tap dancing around what I wrote and starting the name calling just like someone from the Left would.
Not all Conservative Christians are "Social Conservatives" as you are trying to imply. Most that I know from various parts of the US are very Conservative on all issues just as I am. Yes, Conservative Christians are a huge constituency. I totally agree however, "Social Christian Conservatives" only make up a rather small percentage of the total Christian constituency. In my neck of the woods which is in the heart of the rust belt (aka union territory), the "Social Christian Conservative" usually votes Democrat because they just can't bring themselves to pull the lever for any other party.
Ron Paul? He's a damned RINO ( ran and continually failed, as a Libertarian, so runs under the GOP's colors and tgakes stheir money, but sides with the Dems ) and he's NOT a conservative .
Hell, Mitt would get more votes than Paul and most conservatives/GOPers can't stand Romney.
Sarah hasn't ruined herself at all.
Obama would turn Tina Fey loose on her, as well as the elitist garbage, who are supposedly on "our" side. But guess what? THAT WON'T WORK IN 2012 !
She excites INDEPENDENTS and far more of the GOP base than just whom you call "the most vocal".
There is a whole lot more "wrong" with Romney, than the excuse that his religion is "THE PROBLEM".
Name one, just ONE, either on the list or not, GOPer who can draw are Palin does and who everyomne can get behind.
I'll save you the bother……………………………………….THERE IS NOT ONE !
They all "blather"; Obama iks a gigantic BLATHERER and sans teleprompter, he fills the air with more "ummmmmmmmm", "aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhs", and utter nonsense, than almost anyone you can name.
Your entire original post is an insult.
Thanks. I'm glad you liked the article I hope to contribute more to this great site.
My bio is very clear on where I'm coming from, so I'll take that as a compliment. You may not care about online poker, but you should care about the GOP losing even one vote in 2008. The rest of us are feeling the repercussions.
I suggest you do some extensive research.
Alexander has failed in several listless, sort of stabs at running for president. Stick a fork in him!
Boehner won't do either; he's a slightly younger, not as forceful in Congress Bob Dole.
Shelby? ROTFLMAO
Sarah Palin IS America's Maggie Thatcher.
Jindal doesn't speak well, has less of a CV than Palin, and sadly, will be raked over the coals, if put out now, as the GOP's "token ". He wouldn't be, but running against Obama, the left would make it so.
You couldn't be more wrong, if you tried to be!
Libertarians are the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. And please don't try to hand me that canard about so and so being one, or "small L" being what most people are, etc.; it just won't work.
The latest polls shows that 40% of Americans now consider themselves to be conservatives, whilst only 20% self identify as Liberals.
Obama got the young through fraud, deception, and the way the KGB funded and run hippies/Yippies got them in the late '60s. And the foolish young won't be out there for the Dems next year, nor for him again, in 2012.
And since you erroneously see the GOP as just a bunch of "aging Bible thumpers", then I guess that excludes you, so don't worry about them and don't give them any advice.
The only problem with liberitarians is that Conservative Fiscal and Defense policy often clashes with their Liberal socail policies. The Republican Party lost its way due to the simple fact that once they achieved power by a majority in both Houses of Congress, they thought that they could govern like Democrats. The Republicans over-reached in many ways (social policy being only one of them), forgetting the principles of the Contract with America. Especially the Term Limits proposal that they never believed in anyway.
It's time to pull the plug on the Republican Party for the Conservative Party….
I don't buy the "Rush Limbaugh Argument" of fixing the Republican Party. If it works so well, why is the Conservative Party in Great Britan a mere shadow of itself?
Where do I sign up?
Haven't you been paying attention? You're confusing the social conservatives with Libertarians. Did you even read the article.
BTW, I would suggest that you check someplace like OpenCongress.org. It turns out that Paul votes with the GOP 74% of the time. http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_Ro...
And what exactly is a "conservative" in your mind? Someone who always toes the party line? Or is it someone who votes on their principals that they put forth before being elected (you know, it's that area of their website that says "Issues"; they usually talk about what they believe in there)?
I'll leave you with this:
"The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." – President Ronald Regan
This is just a request. I'd appreciate it if you don't replay to my comments.
I'll never again make the mistake of responding to any of your remarks.
Actually, that's exactly what I'm going to do: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/27/gallups...
If you would take the time to read the post, you'll see that Gallup finds that about 20% of those polled (this is in the poll that you're citing) identify themselves as libertarians.
I disagree with you on how Obama won the youth vote. Social issues are far more important to younger voters than economic issues. They tend to be attracted to those that they perceive as giving them the most freedom. True, Obama's campaign of mindless "Hope and Change" brought out more than a few clueless idiots, but you can't discount the great number of young voters to went for his stances on social issues (which he did lie about a good bit).
That's the way I see it. It seems like a ton of the GOP wants to tell me what to do based on their religion. I feel I should be free to do what I please as long as it don't harm another person. I'm hoping that the GOP will reform it's way and move back to the party of Barry Goldwater.
Actually, that's exactly what I'm going to do: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/27/gallups...
If you would take the time to read the post, you'll see that Gallup finds that about 20% of those polled (this is in the poll that you're citing) identify themselves as libertarians.
I disagree with you on how Obama won the youth vote. Social issues are far more important to younger voters than economic issues. They tend to be attracted to those that they perceive as giving them the most freedom. True, Obama's campaign of mindless "Hope and Change" brought out more than a few clueless idiots, but you can't discount the great number of young voters to went for his stances on social issues (which he did lie about a good bit).
That's the way I see it. It seems like a ton of the GOP wants to tell me what to do based on their religion. I feel I should be free to do what I please as long as it don't harm another person. I'm hoping that the GOP will reform it's way and move back to the party of Barry Goldwater.
Ditto on that.
That doesn't work here, as far as I know, nor on any other forum. Besides which, you don't own this site, nor make the rules.
But we could try to do it for a bit………………..
I agree with you. Rush is the best talk-show host ever (in my view), but I think he's just wrong on this issue. He's got the talent, though, there's no doubt of that.
The young went for Obama to be "part of the crowd"; just as they fell for the likes of Abbey Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Mark Rudd, et al. They also wanted to be "part of history" and elect "THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT"; yet another specious canard, since Harding was 1/8th black, which makes HIM the first black president.
Just WHAT social issues and "freedoms" did Barry promise the young? It was all just hyped HOPEYCHANGEY, bolstered by the teachers and profs and "stars", whom far too many of the "young" follow.
Not only should the age of voting be raised, but everyone should be made to take and pass a relatively simple test, before being allowed to vote. That would help, as would having to have a picture ID, as is required in many states.
I saw all of the interviews with stupid college students, asked WHY they were voting for Obama and not a one could actually answer the question; neither did they know as much about American history, or politics, as the average 10 year old public school student did 60 years ago. But then, Obama believes that there are 58 states.
I'm getting tired of this urge to blame social conservatives for the ills of the Republicans and Conservative Movement in general. Funny thing, I first heard this narrative not from the Right of Center, but in places like Time and Newsweek, back in the early 2000s. It's a narrative originally created to drive a wedge between the alliances in the Conservative Movement by it's oppositions, and I'm sickened that people actually give it credence.
I grew up as a Homeschooled Evangelical Christian. I was introduced to politics and the ideals of Conservatism by the like of Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family and PURELY social conservative groups. I never saw all this mess that people claim comes from the Social Conservatives, and I was in the movement. Where did I see the idea of using Federal Power as a means for Social Reform come from, not the Social Conservative movement, but from the Neoconservatives and the idea of "Compassionate Conservatism," which while influenced by Social Conservatism ain't exactly the same movement.
Now, a lot of what Social Conservatives want seem to be "meddling" when in fact they aren't meddling, they're seeking to roll back Leftist meddling in our Culture and Society. However, because this meddling has been going on for so long it has become considered status quo, especially in areas like the Schools, it's seen as upsetting the status quo.
Frankly, I never heard of this online gambling stuff until it was brought up here, and honestly, it is within the Federal Government's Constitutional preview to regulate such activities. Whether or not it should is another question, and has everything to do with the ideals you hold. Believing that it should be regulated does not preclude one from being a Conservative, as many Conservatives do believe in regulating what they see as possibly dangerous private activities, it just depends on what activities you believe should or should not be regulated. Gambling can be to be addictive and very destroying not just to the people who play, but also to their families and friends, it can be similar to many drugs in that manner. Hence the urge to regulate it.
Is the discussion worth having over where compromises need to be made? Yes. But this constant drumbeat against the Social Conservatives need to stop, lest the renewed Conservative Movement cut off their nose to spite their face.
At the end of the day, the Social Conservatives are most interested in two areas anymore: abortion and preserving traditional marriage. Sadly, no real progress can be made on Abortion until Roe V. Wade is overturned (and make no mistake, it needs to be). The marriage issue is not the left's pet issue to smear social conservatives with (it used to be abortion, but the tide's been turning on that one slowly but surely), and articles such as this, which attack Social Conservatives from our own side don't help matters.
It is as this article postulates, right now a united front is needed, but it's not the social conservatives who are breaking the united front, it's things like this that are doing it. You call for unity and compromise from the social conservatives, but it seems you may be unwilling to do so yourself. So, are you trying to pull the speck out of the social conservative's eye while ignoring the log in your own?
Just one question…………………………..how can you be singing the praises of Sarah Palin on BIG HOLLYWOOD and slam her here, on BIG GOVERNMENT?
I checked and yes, you are the one who wrote the nice stuff about Palin on the thread about the Canadian idiot who ambushed Sarah at a book signing.
If you don't reply to this post, I'll understand and do my best to not reply to future posts of yours, for at least a little while. But you could hardly expect me to never again post to you, after seeing your posts on the sister site to this one; now could you?
I'm very willing to compromise with social conservatives, but it seems they need to compromise as well. Adding an anti-poker plank to the GOP platform is not exactly compromise.
If you wish to see Focus on the Family's approach to online poker, check out http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A0000042... . You'll notice that their arguments sound very much like those the left uses against guns, and that's no coincidence.
The bottom line is that Focus on the Family is willing to give up a lot of votes over this issue, and that's simply not good for the conservative movement.
You're only repeating what you've already said, and not addressing anything else I pointed out, and sticking to your one issue.
Social Conservatives have compromised a lot since their aspect of the Conservative movement really began to form in the 1970s and 80s. They've softened their stance on homosexuality, they've worked to find compromise on School Choice Issues, they've compromised and created a completely new dialogue on Abortion, to point at just the tip of the iceberg.
Further, after looking over the link you provide, I notice that the information they state focuses on the addictive and destructive nature of gambling (internet or otherwise). I'm not seeing the rhetoric that sounds like those used by the anti-2nd Amendment groups, rather, it reads more like anti-drug groups.
Your concern over this issue, honestly, seems rather shallow at the end of the day. A lot of alarmism on your end with little actual substance supported by cries of "freedom freedom." You're not addressing their core concerns, that of addiction and familial damage (which is FotF's main area of concern, as their name might suggest). There is a place for government regulation, so long as it is within Constitutional bounds and within the scope of proper Duel Federalism. The question is where is that border, and you don't seem to be willing to have an honest discussion concerning both sides of the issue, instead trying to paint this purely about some sort of freedom of choice and making trying to make a relatively minor issue into a major wedge to drive between Social Conservatives and the rest of the Conservative Movement.
Let me finish with this, I'm not for or against this legislation, honestly, I'm more of the opinion that internet gambling should be allowed (so long as we're not dealing with scams and the like, but that's a whole different ball of wax). However, my main concern is you're making this completely an "us vs them" argument, and trying to create an internal controversy. There would be better ways to go about this, perhaps by trying to approach the issue with less emotional rhetoric and try and instead make a solid case to allow internet gambling rather than just go with the rhetoric of "government regulation is bad."
You must be logged in to post a comment.