Skip to comments.The Republican 'Agenda' -- and the Youth Vote
Posted on 01/02/2014 7:23:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Michael Steele, then-chair of the Republican National Committee, criticized Obama's stimulus plan as "a wish list from a lot of people who have been on the sidelines for years ... to get a little bling, bling." Steele, who wanted to expand the GOP's appeal to young voters, used the expression to, in Steele's words, "take the party to the streets," while making the GOP more "relevant" to "urban-suburban hip-hop settings."
In 2008, Obama took 66 percent of the 18-to-29-year-old vote, and 60 percent in 2012. To broaden the GOP's appeal, consultants hold forums, town halls and focus groups to figure out ways to attract the youth vote. Is it the core message -- low taxes, low regulation, secure boarders and strong national security -- that young voters find off-putting? Is it the messenger? Former Democratic Chair Howard Dean once referred to the GOP as the "white" party.
An April 2013 Washington Post/ABC News poll found 65 percent of young people thought the Republican Party was "out of touch." Only 47 percent considered the Democratic Party "out of touch." Focus groups find young voters, largely because of the GOP position on abortion and same-sex marriage, dismiss the GOP as the party that "tells people how to live their lives."
Blame the GOP, in large part, for either being confused on its approach to social issues or confused on how to talk about them. On domestic issues, the GOP should be the "federalism," growth and empowerment party. Social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and drugs, where the U.S. Constitution is silent, are state matters to be fought at the state level -- not matters addressed by the federal government.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican appointee and arguably the most conservative justice, said the courts lack the expertise and judgment to resolve issues like same-sex marriage, abortion and doctor-assisted suicide.
Scalia argues that such issues are state matters: "On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment. ... Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution."
Social issues are important, but it's still the economy, stupid. Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, capturing 44 states. When he ran for re-election, he won 49 states. Did he win two landslide elections because he converted the country into embracing all of his positions? Of course not. A September 1984 New York Times article lead with this headline: "Polls Show Many Choose Reagan Even If They Disagree With Him." Reagan supported an amendment to ban abortion. Most Americans disagreed. On abortion, the Times wrote, "Half of those who disagree with Mr. Reagan on abortion say they plan to vote for him, while only 38 percent of them say they will vote for Mr. Mondale."
Did the Great Communicator effectively convey his empathy, his heart and his compassion? No, not compared to his opponent, former Vice President Walter Mondale: "Significantly," wrote the Times, "71 percent said yes when asked if Mr. Mondale 'cares about people like you;' 56 percent said that of Mr. Reagan." On the issue of "caring," advantage to Mondale.
So what was it? The Times provides an explanation: "There is clear evidence in the (New York Times/CBS News) poll that the economy is a critical issue in the campaign." On the economy, the poll asked about unemployment, inflation, the deficit and interest rates. Of those naming "unemployment" as most important, half planned to vote for Reagan. "But among the two-thirds who cited one of the other three problems," the Times said, "Reagan supporters outnumbered Mondale supporters by margins of greater than 2 to 1."
At its nadir, the recession Reagan inherited reached 10.8 percent unemployment, 21.5 percent prime interest rate and 13.5 percent inflation. Reagan turned this around with a combination of tax cuts, deregulation and slower domestic spending, assisted by a Federal Reserve determined to rein in inflation. His economic record, as of 1984, convinced voters -- who otherwise disagreed with him on many issues -- to give him a nearly 50-state sweep.
The party that says the federal government should butt out of social issues -- the Republican Party -- is the party that "tells us how to live our lives"? The party that tells an inner-city parent where her child will attend school, the party that attempts to stop you from drinking a sugary beverage from a big cup -- the Democratic Party -- is the party of empathy and compassion?
Reagan, like the people who wrote the Constitution, believed in federalism, that any power not specified in the Constitution resides with the people and the states. President Barack Obama criticizes Congress for "failing to act" on gun control. Yet he recently praised states like Colorado and California for taking action. That's called state action, Mr. President. It's how our republic is designed to work.
You tell young people and minorities the truth. The republican party isn’t going to “give you” a damn thing other than your freedom and your own money back.
People either believe in freedom or they don’t. And you can’t bribe someone to convince them that you’re all about freedom.
Ya just can’t start a story with the words “Michael Steele” and expect people to take it seriously.
The ONLY candidate bringing new blood to the GOP was Ron Paul.
Even though the GOP screwed them in so many ways, many are still in the fight. Most have just chosen to leave the GOP playing catch-up.
And that new blood learned all they needed to learn about the GOP in 2012.
Three Constitutional amendments created the three largest, most loyal, and most permanent Leftist voting blocks: blacks, women, and stupid kids.
“Social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and drugs, where the U.S. Constitution is silent, are state matters to be fought at the state level — not matters addressed by the federal government.”
Stopped reading right there. This idiot must not pay attention when the Federal Courts are busy finding rights to those very things in the Constitution. Without passing laws against them the courts will write the laws.
The term idiot applies better to you. You may disagree with Larry, but an idiot he is not. He is a thoughtful and insightful conservative- not some rino.
Yes, he’s an idiot if he thinks you can dump the social issues in the party platform.
That is a formula guaranteed to win you as many elections as the Liberaltarians!
The success of the left is to presume that people conduct their lives in social isolation, that there is no effect upon anyone else if someone chooses a life of depravity. Yet the children they raise and the medical bills they incur, crimes they commit, and welfare they demand all cost the rest of us a BUNCH of money. They breed a dependent class of customers for the growing police state. Hence sexual depravity IS a fiscal and libertarian issue. That is the message the GOP has failed to broach.
dismiss the GOP as the party that “tells people how to live their lives.”
If they voted Democrat they contradicted themselves since Democrats are telling people how to live their lives.
Sorry, no sale. You and some others commenting are missing the point.
If you can’t convince the masses to vote you in, your plan for passing laws to prevent anything is doomed.
Nope, you miss the point. Conservatives CAN’T win without the social issues!
The Liberaltarians can’t win either for that very reason.
Social conservatives stay home when you run a Rockyfeller republican.
In 2012, Mitt Romney won a plurality of ALL non-Hispanic white voters in the 18-29 age bracket.
He won young white males by 54%-43%.
He won young white females 49%-48%.
How can that be?
Voters over age 70 are about 90% non-Hispanic white.
Voters under age 30 are about 55% non-Hispanic white.
Non-white voters, young and old, vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat Party.
Chasing the “Youth Vote” is a fool's errand.
Unless we find some way to convince non-white voters to reject Socialism, we are idiot dogs chasing our own tails.
I would consider DiBlasio as a possible Chicago Mob candidate for 2016 except he seems to be on Team Clinton.
Every year 2.46m mostly white, majority R voting people die and are replaced by 2.5m >50% non-white, heavily D voting people.
That’s the demographic challenge we face.
Sorry, Larry, but that's just wrong.
"Social issues" were at the core of the civil-rights movement, and they were successfully federalized by the leadership of the movement. You telling us they and JFK and LBJ were unsuccessful in federalizing that whole host of issues?
OK, we know LBJ was deliberately and maliciously wrong about a lot of things. He believed in FDR federalism -- everywhere, everybody, everything, all the time ..... 'coz I'm LBJ, I'm the federal government, and I am GOING to be in your business ..... for PAAAR! Or as he once elegantly put it to some of his girly-man staffers, "Ah wownt it OLLLLLLL!" Whattaguy.
But Larry, you're wrong about homosexualism, because the gays have been quite openly campaigning since oh, about 1980, for an Article IV decision from SCOTUS on their demand for a "right to marry ..... other homosexuals", arguing that once homosex "marriages" are permitted in one State of the Union, then Article IV, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, says that those bastard unions (which are actually an attack on heteronormal marriage, but that's another discussion) requires that SCOTUS order all 49 other States to kowtow to the 2% minority that has successfully obtained in forum-shopped courts and degenerate, forum-shopped States, by means foul or fair (it was foul, but again that's another discussion) this "right" </off Evan Wolfson cant and b.s.>.
That's why homosexual fake "marriage" is a federal issue, Larry. Article IV. I think you're taking a dive on this issue. Sorry, buddy, but I've got to call it.
Not to mention the 1 million new immigrant citizens we currently create each year.
Their voter turnout is low, but they vote 80% for Democrats when they do.
Conservatives are doomed if we do not stop mass immigration.
It’s possible we are already past the point of no return, but I try to be optimistic.
You're calling Larry Elder an idiot?
I needed a good laugh!
Jesus Christ: You cant impeach Him and He aint going to resign.
That's a tall order - because while they are economic refugees, for the most part, they do not reject the system their former countries operate under, only its leaders. They see the USA as a land with more honest tribal chiefs, but still think their only hope of success is to live under the kind of quasi-socialist tribal spoils systems they are familiar with. Democrat rhetoric is immediately intelligible to them: "Support our guy, and we'll pay you off with jobs and services." On the other hand, Republican talk of self-reliance is scary and foreign to their ears, and the concept of a government leaving them alone is not liberating, but horrifying.
I'll bet not one in ten thousand immigrants comes here with John Galt's speech seared into his memory. :)
I’ve tried to make that same argument many times, but you state it much more clearly than I have.
Republican leaders do not understand, or don’t care about, the political motivation of immigrant voters.
My company employs a large number of foreign born temp workers.
Many of them hold “college degrees” from their homeland.
However, ALL of them, and I mean ALL of them, either worked directly for their government, or worked in a “business” that was owned or managed by their government.
Our pay scale for temps starts at $11/hour, which is higher than average in this area, and brings us a lot of very good workers.
But the number one question from our “college” educated temps is, “Why doesn’t the government make you pay us more?”
And these are people the GOP leadership claims will save the Republican Party!