Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Winning the Future: The Fiscal-Conservative Fantasy
American Thinker ^ | November 10, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 11/10/2012 3:32:51 PM PST by neverdem

With the loss of the 2012 election, there is much talk of how the Republican Party must do some soul-searching. How will the GOP wage successful campaigns when demographic and cultural changes favor the opposition? Increasingly, the answer is that the party's party is over, that it must move into the future or be relegated to the past. "Dispense with the social issues!" we're counseled. "Don't trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters."

Yet this appeal is the result of critics expressing what makes them uncomfortable, as opposed to actually observing the facts on the ground. How do I know? It's simple: the minority voters everyone is so desperate to woo are more socially conservative than are whites.

--snip--

Of course, some assume that traditionalist social positions are the problem because the GOP's touting them hasn't won over minorities. After all, such matters involve deeply held principle, right?

But this gets at the problem: the people in question find fiscal liberalism -- otherwise known as getting free stuff -- even more compelling (a few different kinds of prejudice factor into their preferences as well).

So you want to keep the GOP relevant? Here's a proposition. Let's woo that sought-after Hispanic voting block by offering the whole loaf: social conservatism and quasi-socialist policies...

--snip--

This America would be browner and bluer, but also likely less accepting of homosexuality and abortion. It would be too poor to finance the big social programs you want; however, while Big Brother might have to recede, he could be replaced by Big Daddy: society may well be more patriarchal. And if there's a huge influx of Muslims? Ha!.

Oh, you feminists will wail and gnash your teeth -- insofar as you're still around. But few of you will remain, given...

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: neverdem

There is no fiscal conservatism without values. The two go hand in hand. Any fiscal conservative who tells you values do not matter is lying. I do not care what your persuasion: Christain, secular, Buddhist or anything in between. If you work hard, pay your bills, educate and love your children then you live by personal values. Those values are pretty much the same for most of. There is not a lot of room for variation.


21 posted on 11/10/2012 4:06:28 PM PST by formosa (consider me galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…

Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that the only that 20% are the real pro-lifers.


22 posted on 11/10/2012 4:14:16 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.

If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…

Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that only this 20% are the real pro-lifers.


23 posted on 11/10/2012 4:14:37 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gleneagle
...as a practical matter, the government can no longer print or borrow to fund the takers.

Perhaps, as a practical matter, someone should spend a year's worth of campaign funds pointing out to them that mega trillions of debt and a noncontributing populace will put an end to any means of paying for all those goodies within the decade.

Oh, and when that happens, it'll be my .308 versus your .223 and I don't think the feds are handing those out to US residents.

Not yet anyway.

24 posted on 11/10/2012 4:26:47 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

OK. So what is going to be the name of your new third U.S. political party?


25 posted on 11/10/2012 4:36:04 PM PST by johnd201 (johnd201)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It’s over if we allow the Dem’s to rig the election, the lesson we should learn


26 posted on 11/10/2012 4:50:25 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mirkwood

LOL! And you’re showing our ages. Ugh.


27 posted on 11/10/2012 4:54:59 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: norton
Unfortunately, Tytler’s stages of democracy theorem has proven accurate. Once in dependency, no amount of logic, reason or education will keep the takers from voting for more goodies. It is human nature as now displayed in Greece. It is like asking a three year old to forego a candy today for two next week.

You are right on with your choice of caliber.

28 posted on 11/10/2012 4:56:54 PM PST by gleneagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.

Jackass statement of the day!

If we become more like them, we'll lose worse.

And since the GOP doesn't like limited Government or fiscal conservatism either, how will the common voter distinguish between Republicans or Democrats?
29 posted on 11/10/2012 4:58:26 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.”

How could they? We have the biggest spending in human history in the White House!


30 posted on 11/10/2012 5:00:51 PM PST by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole AmericaÂ’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


The Place for Conservatives
Why Donate?
We are
Beholden to no one!



31 posted on 11/10/2012 5:01:20 PM PST by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty; Alberta's Child
If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.

No, not Libertarian, because those same patriots lived in states that had already passed laws against sodomy, among other "sins" described in the bible, and you will not find one peep out of any of the writings of the patriots against these type of laws. Something your Libertarians would be dead-set against.
32 posted on 11/10/2012 5:01:49 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
The GOP could become much more appealing to many more people by being proponents of states rights, particularly when it comes to addressing social issues.

Since at least 36 of the 50 states at this point have passed constitutional amendments against Gay Marriage, including one of the most Liberal, CA, I sincerely doubt this will make the GOP more marketable.

In fact, with a candidate that was strongly pro-life and against Gay Marriage, GWB, we one two elections.

Think how much better things would have turned out if Romney had NOT supported Abortion and the Gay Agenda.
33 posted on 11/10/2012 5:05:58 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

The latest is that Romney will beat McLame’s totals and equal Bush 43’s 2004 totals. Uncounted votes. Still 1/2 million in AZ alone.


34 posted on 11/10/2012 5:10:57 PM PST by chiller (Sky is the limit with max T-Partiers in the House and Senate to stifle the RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
I meant Libertarian in the sense of emphasizing individual responsibility, no overbearing nanny-statism, etc. I didn't say condoning of Libertinism.

When the US was founded, there were indeed harsh penalties against sodomy (death, castration)… but nobody is going to win elections campaigning that such laws should be re-implemented. The majority of people in 2012 America are not comfortable with the idea of the Bible being a cornerstone of the law.
35 posted on 11/10/2012 5:46:06 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Well, like it or not, but Romney's expressed position on abortion happens to be consistent with the views of 75% of Americans according to a May 2012 Gallup poll:


Only 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal without exception.

Even GW Bush stipulated that abortion was acceptable in the case of rape/incest/danger to mother's life.
36 posted on 11/10/2012 5:55:11 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
When the US was founded, there were indeed harsh penalties against sodomy (death, castration)… but nobody is going to win elections campaigning that such laws should be re-implemented. The majority of people in 2012 America are not comfortable with the idea of the Bible being a cornerstone of the law.

Don't be absurd.

Nobody, including myself, is advocating such nonsense, however, where Gay Marriage, and even the Gay Agenda parts that Mitt Romney chose to support this election cycle, Gays in the Military, Gays in the Boy Scouts and Gays Adopting, the overwhelming majority of his party, the GOP, do not support such positions.

This is one of the reasons Mitt Romney lost.

You don't insult your base, you don't support the things they consider sin, and then win the election.

Your suggestion, which amounts to little more than an attempt to walk away from the Social Issues, was proven an absolute disaster this election.

Why double-down on a failed course of direction?
37 posted on 11/10/2012 6:34:44 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
Adapt or die. With this last election we can no longer afford to run on traditional values, if we want the Democrats out of office. McCain got more votes than Romney! That statement should say it all.

You are either a RINO or a Libertarian. Romney was more progressive leftist than McCain was.

I do not want Democrats out of office -I want leftists out of office EVEN GOP leftists!

38 posted on 11/10/2012 6:39:31 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
Only 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal without exception.

Even GW Bush stipulated that abortion was acceptable in the case of rape/incest/danger to mother's life.


And yet there are recent polls that show that America at large, is getting more Pro-Life as we go along.

Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

If you look at polls in years before 2012 you'll see those gradually moving in the right direction. But there was a time when it was much greater than 50% in the wrong direction.

So, on an issue as important as the murdering of unborn babies, why would you not have us press the issue and continue to move the numbers in the right direction vs. the wrong direction?

Are you a Christian?

Do you consider yourself a conservative?
39 posted on 11/10/2012 6:40:08 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

As this excerpt articulates well 2014 the Demorats Pyrrhic 2012 win will consume them.

“...But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.

Nationalized healthcare will only be fully implemented in 2014. Americans will only begin watching old men and women die because the federal government denied them lifesaving, but expensive treatments a year from now. They will only lose their doctors due to dwindling Medicare reimbursements in a year.

College students who got out the vote for Obama will only find themselves doomed to low-paying jobs and a life of indebtedness as they fail year in and year out to pay off their college loans, in a year or two. And by the time they realize what it means to be saddled with a national debt of $16 trillion, they will be locked into a government-controlled economy that requires them to keep their silence or lose their livelihoods...”

Full article: http://www.israpundit.com/archives/50569


40 posted on 11/10/2012 7:04:35 PM PST by CharlesMartelsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson