Posted on 11/17/2008 10:22:05 PM PST by wastedpotential
This is a ramble from a guy working a night shift that is not used to doing so, but I wanted to vent my spleen ........
It saddens me to admit this, but I can safely say that conservatism was defeated in 2008. It was defeated so soundly, that it never even made it to many ballots to even be voted on in November. At the presidential level, it was defeated in February. "Social" and "populist" conservatives lined up behind Mike Huckabee, while "fiscal" conservatives lined up behind Mitt Romney, opening the door for "non" conservatives and RINOs to nominate McCain. I now see these two sides battling for supremacy in the party to define the agenda and its candidates.
Despite efforts to rally behind McCain and Sarah Palin, there remains a genuine rift among self described "conservatives" today. One side views populist themes, not always thought to be "conservative" in the historical sense, as the key to future successes. Mike Huckabee represents this group most, but Sarah Palin does as well. This is not an "intellectual" conservatism, but more of an emotional conservatism. Huckabee went to union events during the primary, an act of sacrilege to many of the right and even played up a little class warfare ("Wouldn't you rather vote for the guy who reminds you of who work with, and not the guy who laid you off?"). Those in this camp tend to view the social or cultural agenda to be most important, and find fiscal conservatism at times to be distasteful on issues like global warming, welfare reform and pure capitalism.
The other side seems to believe that only pure, unfettered capitalism is "conservative" and will sacrifice social and cultural issues on this altar if required to do so. Conservatism is more of an ideology than it is about a way of life. Libertarians find this definition of conservatism much more palatable. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani were classical representatives of this group. They ignore or downplay the social issues, or even take an opposing view, but they will be pure to the religion of limited government, tax cuts and free trade. The Club For Growth mercilessly attacked Huckabee during the primaries as a fiscal liberal who could not be trusted. Strikingly, Mitt Romney, who had championed state run health care in Massachussetts and been a past supporter of gay rights and abortion rights, received little to no criticism from this group.
(To state the obvious - McCain lacked any credentials on fiscal policy and found talking about populist or social issues distasteful, hence his crusing defeat to a marxist.)
Now of course, there are many of us who like both positions and see no contradiction between the two. Reagan was able to make these groups come together in the 1980s, and it led to huge gains in the 90s for Republicans in the house and Senate. Bush was able to cobble them together in 2000 and 2004, and put together even larger gains at the beginning, but now that coalition has disintegrated.
I can tell you this much - democrats, particularly those in the south, have seized on an opening that this rift presents them. That is the combination of cultural conservative candidates with populist or even socialistic economic leanings. This is a very popular combination and is kind of the "compassionate conservative" model that Karl Rove made so popular. Republicans can still point to democratic leadership as liberal, but many of these candidates are themselves more conservative than many Republicans we are fighting so hard for nowadays (McCain, Coleman, etc ....).
So what will we be going forward? The army of evangelicals who want to protect their way of life through cultural conservatism or the ideological free trade libertarians who want to reduce government spending and stay out of the culture wars? Any thoughts?
What’s with the “social conservatives” vs. “fiscal conservative” thing everyone in the media is spouting?
It IS possible to be socially and fiscally conservative. Take for example, um, hmmmmmmm....REAGAN.
Actually most people who are Conservative ARE both.
What’s with the “social conservatives” vs. “fiscal conservative” thing everyone in the media is spouting?
It IS possible to be socially and fiscally conservative. Take for example, um, hmmmmmmm....REAGAN.
Actually most people who are Conservative ARE both.
If you read my entire post, I agree with you that there are many of us that are both. The point I am making though is that we were split in the primary - which is the only reason McCain was our nominee this year.
Are you aware of the concept of the GOP as a three legged stool? It comes from Reagan. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense conservatives: find a candidate who can get the support of all three groups and he’ll win.
This is a description of the Republican base, not a description of the candidates the party puts forth. Reagan had all three legs.
Look - I know people who would vote for a pro-life marxist, and I also know people who would vote for a tax cutting, pro-abortion candidate. Do you disagree that there are people on both sides that will sacrifice the one side of conservatism to have what they care about most?
It’s both social and fiscal. Our problem is Washington money and lack of voice. Voice is possible through leadership, coordination, and marketing.
According to this, we lost because the media covered up everything on Obama: http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
If Reagan's budget-ballooning and deficit-exploding was "fiscal conservatism," no wonder Bush has followed in his footsteps.
We lost before the general election ever began. McCain was not a conservative.
Point taken. Which begs the question who was the last fiscally conservative president?
It's a description of a conservative.
No I don’t disagree with that take. What I disagree with was the bolded statement in my post about Guilinani and Romney.
This covers as far back as Kennedy:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=879
I dunno--we'd probably have to go back before FDR to find an example.
The third leg, defense, is the one that McCain championed, but with the unpopularity (and recent successes) of the Iraq war, this leg currently is not one that any Republican wants to stand on. The Cold War and the War on Terrorism are not the same animal (look at Ron Paul’s fund raising and 7-8% of the Republican vote).
We will disagree then. I think there are many conservatives who find the cultural conservatism distasteful and would gladly cut bait with that crowd if they thought they could win without them.
“Which begs the question who was the last fiscally conservative president?”
Hoover :)
What sort of crack are you smoking? Romney and Giuliani are both Big Government RINOs, and as "fiscal conservative" I can support neither.
Hoover :)
Coolidge
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.