The Myth of the 'Values Voters'

Reason ^ | January 2007 | David Weigel

[mosesdapoet]

Get real 2%, you must be talking about milk . The Schiavo incident had very little to do with this election. If one examines election rhetoric this never came up in any of the campaigns and is an etherial strawman conjured up by a rigid conception. Lets not take ourselves too seriously. If we had any impact we wouldn't be talking with end and meaning less banter about this election as we are.

The Bush people blew this election pure and simple dilberately. Because Bush didn't like the positions those house conservatives took on immigration. Its cheap labor from Mexico that is going to save the Social Security system. Let the house conservatives languish with little or no funds. Where the party pulled some strings was against Duckworth for the Illinois house seat and she lost.

In the Senatorial races because it is PC and the party should be "encompassing" so lets back them. They didn't like Harris because the Bush's don't like Harris, they backed Spector, Chaffee, and when Allen got involved with "Maccaca" they had to be snickering as the MSM week after week smeared a good Conservative Republican and decent person just weary of being harrassed while campaigning. The "Bully Pulpit" remained silent.

[sageb1]

"Conservatives" have regularly supported bigger government and more government intrusion into the lives of citizens; convincing voters that you mean what you say when it comes to supporting the notion of smaller government, is going to be difficult a best as our record points in the exact opposite direction."

How so? If we could actually declare war on someone or something in particular, the wiretapping and Patriot Act could be limited to only a wartime initiative. No one here is in favor of these things as a general rule of thumb, but we are fighting a new kind of war - one where the enemy is living among us.

Other than that, conservatives do not support more intrusive government. We want the federal government to do what it was intended to do, which is mainly protect us. If the Dems were not blackmailing us in order to give us financial support for the war, there wouldn't be such a big problem.

[Dolphy]

No, I don't consider all or even most of those who act on their faith to be zealots. You are right though, the MSM image was greatly exaggerated to make it an issue of the intrusion of the church, which they claim the Republicans followed, on the privacy of a family.

Thank you for a civil conversation.

[CitizenUSA]

mosesdapoet wrote: "The Bush people blew this election pure and simple dilberately (sic)."

I like to think it wasn't deliberate. However, the Republican leadership was ineffective from nearly day one. If President Bush cared as much for the base as he did for saving Chaffee's butt, we might not have fared so badly. I don't care if you're a moderate, conservative, or libertarian member of the party, none of us were well served over the last six years. It wasn't ALL bad, but that's not saying much. I just want the infighting to stop so we can win AND achieve some goals in 2008.

[CitizenUSA]

Luis Gonzalez wrote: "FReeper Southack posts s listing of the Bush administration achievements."

I've read the so-called list of conservative achievements. I also so how Lurker quite handily deconstructed it. More government spending, even for supposedly conservative causes, is NOT conservative.

Luis Gonzalez wrote: "Now, I ask you, if you were the GOP, and conservatives did nothing more than complain about what they weren't getting when you knew that they had scored more victories than ever, why would you continue to court them?"

Uh, because they work for us. Or at least, they are supposed to work for the people who put them in office. Perhaps that's asking too much these days. I'm probably terribly naive, but when I vote for someone who claims to want limited government I kinda expect to SEE limited government.

[Stepan12]

I don't agree with the President on some issues, but in considering the mentality of the voters themselves, I really fear for this country.

Is it true that Americans get their news information from Comedy Central's joke newscasters? We're in real trouble if those Democratic shills are our information source.

[ModelBreaker]

There's no way that conservatives can form a majority coalition unless the fiscal conservatives get together with the right to lifers and religious conservatives and agree to support each others' bottom lines. Otherwise, frankly, they will hand the country over to the Democrats.

If you want to find a fiscal conservative who will actually stick to his guns, find a right-to-lifer. It's a myth that there are ANY significant republican politicians who are actually (rather than pretend) fiscal conservatives without being social conservatives.

Rather, the split is between RINO's like Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, McCain and DeWine (who are neither social nor fiscal conservatives), on the one hand, and Coburn, Allard, and the like, who are both.

On the other side, if you are looking for democrats politicians who are social "do whatever you want to whomever you want and we'll celebrate your choice" (all Dems are that) and ALSO fiscal conservatives, you will be looking for a long time. Many POSE as fiscal conservatives; but all that means in reality is they want to raise taxes.

The other split-out is the big-business republicans, who, by and large lead the charge amongst Republicans for bigger government, as that provides more handouts and contracts. They are annoyed by the social issues because they just don't care about them and don't want R's spending political capital on anything but more contracts. They are not libertarian or fiscal conservatives at all and will be the first defecters from the R's when the dems promise more goodies.

Ironically, the business R's have been the one's who have successfully suckered the libertarians into thinking that the social conservatives have lead the charge for bigger government. It's been the goodie bag congress has been holding that has lead that charge; that, and the business R's lining up for handouts. So they have managed to both lead and be the principal beneficiary of the obscene growth of government and to split the small government folks, whoever they are, off from the social conservatives, by accusing the social conservatives of doing what the business R's actually engineered.

It is probably fair to say that the voters don't quite split out like that. But if you are trying to find actual fiscal conservatives who are "do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want and we will celebrate with you'ers", you will be looking for a very long time.

The supposed socially moderate but fiscally conservative wing of the Republican party is an invention of business R's afraid of the growing power of the evangelical, an invention that by and large took down the Republican party this year.

[ModelBreaker]

Ironically from a budget perspective we seemed to do the best with a Republican congress and a democrat in the White House.

True, if you don't care at all about the composition of the supreme court, or feckless treaties entered by the executive that, under international conventions, have binding effects on us without ratification (ICC, Kyoto, eg), or about executive orders that close off most of the energy resources of the West to development for easily a century or the commander in chief turning our military into a feminist sensitivity klatch, or, or . . .

The executive can do enormous damage all by himself as the eight years of clinton proved.

The problem is not conservatism. The problem is that the congress is run by a coalition of leftists and RINOS and the media is run by the left almost lock-stock-and barrel. Conservatives are a minority in both houses and were a minority during the entire Bush administration. That coalition has held power in the country for a century for all but a few years of the Reagan administration. That coalition will not suffer it's power to be diluted and the viscious assaults on Christians, Reagan and W (as far short as he fall of conservatism) from that establishment is the measure of that coalitions commitment to keeping power.

Bottom line, America is not a conservative country. At most, we elect about 35% of our representatives who reasonbly qualify as conservatives. That's the battle we have to win.

[ModelBreaker]

The defense of personal freedom in the GOP has atrophied. No, it's even worse than atrophied, the conservative movement has become antagonistic to personal freedom to the point that "civil liberties" has begun to take on a negative connotation to many who call themselves conservatives.

Then go have fun in the kinder and gentler Stalinist state coming if the Dems have control for 20 years. Actually, for some, I guess it will be fun because it will be a Stalinist state in all but sexual license. For those for whom sexual license or drug use is the defining issue in their lives, that may not look too bad.

You're right that the R's punted big-time on fiscal restraint. OTOH, what you call the negative connotation of 'civil liberties' amongst conservatives has arisen because of it's abuse by the left to steer our society over the cliff. The term generally has nothing to do with "civil liberties" as the founders would have viewed that term.

Bottom line, most religious conservatives want to be left alone and have the government butt out of our and other folks lives. Unlike the dems, we do not see the government as a positive force for good, but a necessary evil. However, we do have a few moral issues we think society is best making--issues you would decide otherwise.

OTOH, most dem's want to run every aspect of your life, except the part to do with sexual license. On those issues, they want to make sure your kids are given an education that will assure they reject any sexual values you try to instill (if those values involve restraint).

Folks who want small goverment in all areas are a much smaller portion of the population than either conservatives or leftists.

Choose. You will never make religious conservatives into proponents of drug use and sexual license. Nor will you convert the proto-stalinists of the left into small government advocates. So you really have to pick one or the other.

If you pick the left, everyone loses because we slowly descend into decadent Eurosclerosis, stop making babies and become islamic thru demographics. That'll be a libertarian dream come true, no? My libertarian grandaughter gets to wear a burkha!

If you pick conservatives, you might have to find a doctor who, you know, works on the side if you cheat on your husband and get pregnant. Or worse, not cheat. That may be offensive to you. But at least our culture has a fighting chance to survive governed by conservatives. It has none with the left.

[Zeroisanumber]

As a religious conservative, I'm perfectly happy to support tax cuts and budget cuts. Are libertarians prepared to reciprocate and agree that we need judges who will throw out Roe v. Wade, even though most libertarians probably like the idea of free sex without much restraints? But if they want their tax cuts, they will have to support the bottom line issues of the religions conservatives. And they might consider also that Roe v. Wade was bad constitutional law, passed by powerdrunk liberal justices. Put it back with the states where it belongs.

The GOP became my party in college, back when it was the party of Jesus and small government. I didn't care much for the Jesus side, but I was willing to work with those who did care for the sake of smaller government and less intrusion in my private life.

Somewhere along the way the GOP became the party of Jesus and big government, and I found my support waning. The leadership got drunk on power and lobbyist dollars, decided that they actually liked big government and intended to start spawning as much of it as they could.

I'm an easy voter to win back: Stop spending like a bunch of drunk sailors, get the corruption under control, balance the budget, and make the tax cuts permenant. Return to the values of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and I'll come back in '08.

[Rodney King]

"a lot of voters just want the government to leave them alone."

BUMP!

[durasell]

I'm an easy voter to win back: Stop spending like a bunch of drunk sailors, get the corruption under control, balance the budget, and make the tax cuts permenant. Return to the values of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and I'll come back in '08.





Probably won't happen, but how does a tax hike to pay for all the stuff sound?

[Jim Noble]

As you will see from stupid responses to your well-thought out comment, the "L" word, with or without caps, is poison around here.

Start calling them "liberty voters". There are lots of us. And Roveism-Dobsonism is anathema to many of us.

[Jim Noble]

Now the last congress has managed to out spend, out expand and out intrude damn near every previous congress in nearly every possible way.

Right on, brother.

[Jim Noble]

I was in favor of saving Terri Schiavo.

But that's because I'm a doctor with experience in literally hundreds, maybe a thousand, end of life scenarios and I understand the relevant distinctions between the common "pull the plug" case and the Schiavo homicide.

Most commenters here didn't, and don't.

Their advocacy for Mrs. Schiavo openly threatened what has become a very important liberty interest to most people - the right to give ICU care a shot, even a long shot, coupled to the freedom to call it quits when the ship is sinking.

Michael Schiavo was very clever to dress killing his wife up in that right, and he succeeded.

But (almost) everyone could see the end result of "Terri's law" and the loons in Congress who passed it. Almost everyone knows, somehow, that there's a reason the founders banned Bills of Attainder.

Hard cases make bad law (WE were the ones who knew that not every social problem has a legislative solution), and the legislative activity around the murder of Terri Schiavio was some of the worst.

I've never made the connection before with the fall of the GOP, but it's a good argument.

[redgolum]

Great points, but to bad many in the GOP are going the opposite way. They are trying to alienate the social and the fiscal conservatives.

[Alberta's Child]

But John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- both of whom engaged in a direct act of treason against conservative principles with their little "Gang of 14" charade -- have lifetime ACU ratings over 80, too.

[ClaireSolt]

Did you ever hear about guns and butter? It is econ 101. And it has a lot more to do with Republicanism than your ignorant, sound bite profanity.

[Alberta's Child]

Frankly, people who demand spending cuts in wartime strike me as brain dead.

And frankly, people who implement massive, historic increases in non-military spending in wartime strike me as brain dead, too.

[Alberta's Child]

Very good observations -- on a very interesting thread.

For me personally, it goes beyond "libertarian" vs. "social conservative" elements of the Republican base -- mainly because I have strong libertarian tendencies and I am also a hard-core social conservative (this is where we disagree, since I don't think this is a matter of "two masters" at all).

In my mind, GOP voters lost a lot of their enthusiasm in the aftermath of all those silly games over Federal judicial nominations. It became clear to me that the political debate over the Federal judiciary had become completely one-sided -- with a number of "moderate" Republicans taking sides with liberal Democrats over prospective judges who were eminently qualified but were somehow considered "extreme" by these Beltway jack@sses.

When you have people in the GOP establishment lining up to admonish a Republican president against nominating "extremist" candidates for the Federal judiciary -- even as these same GOP senators were willing to give unanimous support to an avowed communist and card-carrying ACLU pr!ck like Ruth Bader Ginsburg . . . well, you can probably understand why a lot of us have simply started tuning out Washington entirely.