Posted on 03/12/2013 11:35:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
Republicans don't care.
Or at least that's the perception of us. President Barack Obama's convincing re-election in November despite a climate of high unemployment, stagnant economic growth and waning American influence around the globe has caused a great deal of soul-searching for the Republican Party.
One of the conclusions some of us have come to is that our problem is not the message or the messengers but our own detachment from the needs of struggling working families and our lack of vision and policies that address them.
I was struck reading a recent article in which our presidential nominee, after his loss and after volunteering at a local homeless shelter, said, "(The people there) are used to being ignored, I guess -- mostly by people like me."
I think this is a word picture for Republican leaders in general. What do we need to do to reposition the party, connect with Americans and address what Peggy Noonan so astutely observed -- that it's not that "they" don't like us but that "they" don't think we like them?
This week, conservatives will gather at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and begin the complex process of developing a bold conservative vision that will resonate with all Americans.
My own experience during the 2012 campaign has shaped my view on the way forward. Throughout the campaign, I kept in mind my family and the coal country we came from, the needs of the people I grew up with on VA grounds and the inner city of Philadelphia I represented for 12 years.
I tried to provide a vision for hardworking families I came across during my campaign. Middle America is hurting. But I didn't always keep this in mind in a personal way. I remember being chastised by my staff when, during the second South Carolina debate, none of us expressed sympathy toward the unemployed woman who asked us how we would address her health insurance needs. We talked policy, but did we really care about her?
I believe that the conservative approach that focuses on family, community, the private sector and a limited role of government provides the better framework to develop policies that will address the realities of millions of struggling families. But we have to be much more intentional in applying them.
Sure, extending unemployment benefits to two years may seem compassionate, but after two years, individuals are much less employable, and their futures are less bright. Instead of ideas that focus on strengthening families and communities, addressing the appalling conditions in our public schools or creating a business environment that attracts new enterprises and job creation, the president has focused on climate change, gay marriage and gun control.
The way forward is getting back to our basic principles -- but applied to the challenges we face today. We must not be the party of plutocrats, country clubbers and corporate interests. We must focus on ways to deliver our vision for hope and opportunity for working Americans. Here's what I mean:
We must represent and create opportunity for all Americans -- but especially struggling families yearning for a secure future, single moms who face tremendous challenges and immigrant families who must work doubly hard to get ahead in this world.
We must be the champions for working taxpayers and families and promote policies focused on real health care choices and building assets through savings incentives, homeownership and expanded job opportunities through manufacturing incentives.
We must continue to be proponents of fundamental human rights and human dignity by affirming the right to life for the unborn, disabled and aging, as well as protecting freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of speech and association.
We must be advocates for vulnerable at-risk children through programs that strengthen marriage, fatherhood, vibrant supportive communities, quality health care and educational options.
We must empower parents with real educational options for their children, options that promote excellence and opportunity.
We must be advocates for local problem-solving efforts and organizations and social entrepreneurs rather than federal prescriptions and mandates to every challenge.
We must reduce poverty and help struggling families through faith-based, civic and local and state partnerships. Our vision is not to put people on food stamps and Medicaid but to provide a path to a better future.
We haven't shown America that we have the tools to put the rungs back on the opportunity ladder -- the ladder up -- to achieve the American dream. That must change.
I'm not convinced we can rely on the establishment of the Republican Party or today's elected leaders in Congress to get us back. And it's not about moving to the left; it's about appealing to working Americans with a vision that represents opportunity and a better life and offering real solutions to their problems.
“...none of us expressed sympathy toward the unemployed woman who asked us how we would address her health insurance needs...”
Herein lies the problem. Conservatism will never be able to answer this question satisfactorily, but liberalism will.
Here's a dirty fact. People who are poor, aren't interested in not being poor, they wan't everyone else to be poor, it's called "sharing the misery."
There are a lot of “We musts,” but Mr. Santorum apparently has not real solutions. So these are just platitudes.
I tend to agree but I just wonder if the bastids in the GOPe will pull the party in on itself before turning it over to the radical small Gov R’s.
I didn’t leave the Republican Party - the Republican Party left me.
Why? The rats sure don’t. And where in the Constitution does one find the requirement that gov’t help all people?
Because they recognize the majority of voters are women; and women prize security more than liberty.
Right you are, Jim. The ONLY thing that the Conservatives should be doing is putting forth a conservative vision that is in line with the Constitution and the Republic we started out with. Either people get behind the original intent of the Constitution and a Representative Republic, or we do not need them in the Party.
There is NO security without Liberty. Emphasis on the “period” at the end of that statement.
Please support your statement with something more than “emphasis.”
Do you believe that giving the federal and/or state and/or city governments more power to control the lives of average citizens provides greater security? Or, do you, like me, believe that allowing citizens to have liberty leads to greater security? The various government levels of this country are seriously encroaching on our liberties on a regular basis. I do not feel more secure when they have that much power and control over me and my family.
Hey Rick, how about I don’t want your help? The only thing I want Republicans to do is swat away the greedy Democrat hands that are constantly reaching for my wallet. That’s what you can do to “help” me.
Of course there will be an election, one way or the other.
I “believe” you got called on making an empty statement, and now you’re trying to justify it with unquantifiable suppositions.
To argue liberty and security are anything but inversely proportional is empty sentimentalism.
Alternatively, my statement is proved by the 2012 CIA factbook, as well as knowledge so common it is proverbial.
With all due respect, the above is not only an unquantifiable supposition, but absolute empty sentimentalism.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
When people within a free society give over their liberty to those charged with representing those people, soas to gain "security" in exchange, they have neither security or liberty. Look at what is happening all around this country. Bloomingidiot is creating the largest nanny city ever seen. Chicago and Detroit, under the complete control of people who have nearly complete control over the political process (and who are extremely liberal) render edicts and mandates at will. The San Francisco bay area and much of Southern Cal are owned by liberals, and they are on a banning frenzie to the point where people are becoming poisoned by their own food as a result of the ill-conceived plastic bag ban. Hell, the entire state of California is under the complete control of the DemocRAT party, and they are just getting started with their nanny state ideology. When the "State" can make up any rules it deems is in YOUR best interest in order to "protect" you from yourself, you DO NOT HAVE ANY LIBERTY. This isn't an unquantifiable supposition. These are realities that are happening NOW in this nation.
People who bury their head in the sand and believe that allowing this government to provide for their security deserve what is coming.
Incorrect. It is not only quantifiable, it is a given by virtue of those institutions and initiatives dedicated to "protecting" women.
I understand you equate "security" with the ability to protect yourself, but the simple fact is the majority of American voters (women) want someone else to protect them.
When the "State" can make up any rules it deems is in YOUR best interest in order to "protect" you from yourself, you DO NOT HAVE ANY LIBERTY.
And this is precisely my point.
What you don't seem to be able to accept is, despite Franklin's dictum, the voting majority has chosen exactly what Franklin warned against.
Keep in mind, our Constitution was written for a country in which women could not vote. As such, their propensity to prize security is not reflected in its goals and aspirations.
Have you never wondered why so many anti-Constitutional initiatives succeed by virtue of political capital, rather than adherence to our founding principles?
In my opinion, our biggest mistake was to give women the vote without modifying the Constitution to make female tools of coercion and aggression as punishable as male tools of same.
I don't buy this premise. There may be a large number of liberal women, and males who behave like women, who want the government to protect them. But, conservative women do not want the government to protect them. There may even be approximately 47% of the American populace as a whole who want the government to protect them, but a sizeable proportion of that 47% do not regularly vote. Your "majority" that want protection are by and large single issue voters who are extremist on the abortion issue. They vote democrat because of that issue alone. Many of the rest vote democrat as a product of the vilification of conservatives democrat politicians have engaged in with impunity over the last 20+ years. They vote for the so-called security because they are TOLD to, not because that security is real or actually provided. In fact, despite handing over their liberty, they have not gained security. Women are less safe in this society under the auspices of democrat politicians.
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.