Rudy: Let’s expand the party by deemphasizing social issues
posted at 3:11 pm on January 21, 2009 by Allahpundit
A two-parter from David Frum’s new site, the New Majority; the key bit comes near the end of the second clip. He’s not asking the party to abandon social conservatism, just to nudge it towards the background and make foreign policy and fiscal responsibility the core of the platform. Which … is essentially the approach McCain took.
He’s right about the dwindling numbers of the base, though. I think the GOP’s tacit strategy now is to wait and hope for (1) a messianic figure of its own to emerge and build a new coalition through the sheer force of his/her charisma and/or (2) Democrats to overreach so egregiously that even minority voters who wouldn’t dream of voting Republican today will run screaming for the embrace of small government. All of which is fine, but the opposite of proactive. I wonder how long we’ll be waiting. Exit question: It’ll be good to have Colin Powell saying he’s a Republican again without qualifying it with “I think,” though, huh? Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I’m a New Yorker and there is nothing Rudy is strong is… except advise on cheating on your wives.
stefystef on January 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Allapundit: Democratic Operative on a Republican blog.
The Dean on January 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I think Rudy should get himself elected governor of NY in 2010 and then start showing people how fiscal conservatism is done.
Same with Newt. He’s been telling the GOP what to do about Geithner and other issues. He should get back in the game and run for office.
For the last eight years, the RNC was all about Bush. Now it’s time for the state parties and state officeholders to start weighing in.
Wethal on January 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM
We have representation by payment now. Its’ called Lobbying.
kingsjester on January 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM
OUCH. Well I do think Rudy would make a GREAT AG or secretary of defense.
ousoonerfan15 on January 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Pretty much the way it works now. The more money, the more influence.
JiangxiDad on January 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM
[somewhat stunned]
Good fences make good neighbors.
LibertyBoyNYC on January 21, 2009 at 4:31 PM
What a foreign concept.
Certainly. I recall one night at a party with a liberal friend, drunkenly explaining to her why we’re the party of limited government and seeing the wonder in her eyes as she seemed to let it sink in for the first time.
It was a good night, but apparently I did a crab walk later.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I’m a New Yorker. You’re wrong.
LibertyBoyNYC on January 21, 2009 at 4:32 PM
So do swingers with piles of coke
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I know Palin can, but I think this Jindal is another overhyped politician. The GOP can’t try to find their version of the “messiah”, they need to lead based on reality.
Go back to basics, GOP.
stefystef on January 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM
That ain’t how Obama did it. A great number of anti abortion minded people voted for the current Pres.
changingdumping on principle is not how to get in office.Speakup on January 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I have “fundamentals” Jiangix. Do you? I agree that there are libertarians in both the conservative and liberal camps. There are also fundamentalists in both camps. I usually enjoy your takes, but you’re trying to be too clever by half on this one.
dakine on January 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM
A. The astrology stuff wasn’t understood widely at the time. If memory serves, many people kind of shrugged it off as harmless looking at horoscopes. More details came out later in his presidency, or after he left office.
B. I’m not suggesting “Moral Majority- the sequel.” I think Falwell & others turned people off. IMO, it would be a fatal mistake for the Republican party to run too far in the other direction, alienating their base who has some sympathy for social conservative issues.
C. You’ve got to look at the context to understand the emphasis. Economic trouble, the U.S.S.R., Iranian hostage crisis, ineffective predecessor (Carter). People were looking for a strong, charismatic leader with solid values when Reagan was elected. We need a different person for a different time. I think we need somebody who’s a fiscal conservative, lives a socially conservative life in a compelling way without condemning others, who appeals to the middle class, and who exudes professionalism & competence. I hope that’s what the Republican candidate in 2012 looks like. We’ll see.
cs89 on January 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Really? I would rather live next to a cemetery. I prefer quiet neighbors.
LibertyBoyNYC on January 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM
47% voted against him. I believe the majority of Americans favor some sort of abortion right. How does that leave a great number of anti-abortion people who voted for Obama.
Or were you talking about Black and Hispanic people?
JiangxiDad on January 21, 2009 at 4:38 PM
That’s about as well as it can be said cs89.
dakine on January 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM
100% agree.
LibertyBoyNYC on January 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM
If you’ve got ‘em, don’t make it sound like a dirty word. The fundamentals are all important. It’s why we tinker around the edges, and are careful not to screw-around with the fundamentals.
JiangxiDad on January 21, 2009 at 4:40 PM
The nice thing about New York is that everyone lives in different worlds and saw Rudy in a different way. The Upper East Side and Wall Street crowd loved him. The rest of us were really for him to go.
No one was missing Rudy on September 10, 2001. By 9/12/01, he was the world mayor. And yet, he couldn’t win a Senate seat and ran one of the worst Presidential campaign in history.
Even Rudy held the New York Republicans at arms length. Rudy was never a true Republican, so taking advise from him is a futile act. Shame on those who do.
stefystef on January 21, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Rudy bowed out of the Senate campaign when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Wethal on January 21, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Utter crap. You are advocating that we use the brute force of government, our Constitution, and/or the law, to dictate the manner in which supposedly free people may lawfully represent themselves with the english language. You are robbing them of their freedom of conscience, their freedom to decide for themselves how they wish to communicate their betrothal to one another.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 4:24 PM
And as I said, you are a complete loon. No one is getting robbed of anything. Gays are free to do whatever they please. Whether there is a marriage amendment or not. Only someone who has bought into the idea that there is such a thing as “gay marriage” can suggest a law reiterating that there isn’t is brute force and dictatorship.
There is no right to an abortion explicitly stated in the Constitution. If an amendment was passed that said there is a lot of people might disagree with it. But no one would be suggesting it’s brute force and dictatorship.
Do you have a real argument or are we just going to wander the straw fields all day?
Rocks on January 21, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I agree that Giuliani did an outstanding job on 9/11. That being said, I disagree with him. I believe that social issues represent the foundation, of this country. RINOS, those who do not believe that social issues can elevate or erode the very greatness of this nation, have ignored the social issues affecting this nation for too many years.
Destroying the institution of marriage, permitting strangers to sexualize our children, permitting homosexual organizations, in our public schools, to teach our children that perversion is normal, glorifying public activities like the Dyke March in MA, the 2007 Folsom Street Fair public orgy and last weeks “Pig Sex” homosexual event in Washington DC have eroded American Standards and principles.
There is no doubt that we must address our economic situation (start by charging those responsible, starting with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) and we must build up our military and address other security issues. Social issues affecting this country are equally important. We can address all these issues at the same time.
sinsing on January 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I’m neither UES or Wall St. The Village People hate him still. In any case, quite obviously, you live in Manhattan. And you prefer a “stickier” Times Square.
NEWFLASH: You’re 1/5 of a big city.
LibertyBoyNYC on January 21, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Didn’t he, like, go down in flames in the primaries? Who’s he to be giving advice?
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on January 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM
In fact, Rudy is the UWS, Harlem’s, regentrified Brooklyn’s, and the Village’s collective BOOOOOOSH.
LibertyBoyNYC on January 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Nah. I couldn’t stand all the pasty white goth/emo kids shambling around in a vampiric homo-erotic daze.
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Obama was a young, fit quasi-black guy running against an old, sickly, pasty white guy. I’m surprised we did as well as we did.
Speedwagon82 on January 21, 2009 at 4:56 PM
WTF? “quasi-black”?
LimeyGeek on January 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM
McCain didn’t really have an approach. Seemed like they kinda winged it, ya know?
malan89 on January 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Some of the people posting here are exactly what’s wrong with our party today. Religion has no business being part of government, and being considered the “Christian Right” is NOT a good thing.
There are plenty of non-Christians who are Republicans because of our ideologies when it comes to fiscal conservatism and foreign policy. These are the two areas we all agree on the most. Why should abortion be the deal-breaker amongst Republicans? It makes no sense.
Its Tommy on January 21, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I think Rudy has it a bit wrong with the de-emphasizing piece. The problem wasn’t that the GOP was pro-life. The problem is that many social conservatives see their faith as being in tension with fiscal conservatism.
Guys like GWB and Huckabee think big government is great, so long as a Christian is at the helm. High taxes are fine, because tax & transfer programs are seen as discharging a Christian’s duty to give to the poor. Crushing environmental regulations and “green” policies are great, because after all, a Christian should take care of the Earth.
I think all of those views are mistaken. Christianity is focused on the individual; it is YOUR relationship with God that counts, and YOUR personal deeds which judge your character and faith. Small government and capitalism have contributed more to human freedom and dignity than any big government program. Christian conservatives should remember that and ignore the siren’s call of big government.
Outlander on January 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Why deemphasize social issues when the fastest growing demographic is Mexicans, who, as Republicans like Rudy have assured us repeatedly, are super-duper socially conservative?
Buddahpundit on January 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM
This really is a waste of time. People with moral convictions are not going to set them aside to vote for moderates just so that people like David Frum will be happy. We don’t respect these people and are not going to change our voting habits because of them. We choose who we vote for, we don’t allow others to do that for us. We are not going to vote against our own best interests.
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Rudi wants to make a Democrat-lite party. Libtard.
RINOs are already a group; and Rudi is already a member. What’s the news here?
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I think Rudy might have a point. The GOP is losing way too many people. The problem is most Americans are just not that conservative. They are not as liberal as Pelosi is by any means, but they are not as conservative as someone like Gingrich or Limbaugh.
I like Pence from Indiana. He is conservative and attractive, but he strikes me as a common sense sort of person. He does not come across as extreme or intolerant. That is what hurts Republicans, they idea that they lack tolerance. I do not agree with that assessment, but right now it seems most other Americans do.
Terrye on January 21, 2009 at 5:12 PM
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Every law we have on the books is a MORAL STATEMENT! Murder is wrong and thus it’s against the law.
The current moral code being shoved down our throats is that mother earth must not be messed with. The laws are following.
To suggest that to be pro life is merely a “social issue” is naive and ignorant.
If our government cannot protect innocent life and our basic, longheld, and sacred traditions from the social jihadists (who ARE trying to push their beliefs on the nation) then there is little else we need to fear. The end is near.
edgehead on January 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Rudy can say such a thing because Rudy is a fighter who gets conservative things done.
If you understand conservatism you know that social conservatism and small government (or the “tradition” and “liberty” wings of conservatism) are mutually dependent. We do not need to abandon anything. However, we must be smarter about it. Democrats can hold on to disparate constituencies. Why can´t we? Why can´t Republicans speak softly (when running for office) and carry a big stick when it counts, i.e. when in power?
I have no time for single-issue voters even if I agree with them. I have absolutely no time for the fundamentalists (oh yes, that´s what they are!) who would block our most efficient candidates because they may be less than 100 % pure in their selfish view.
These nitwits had a choice between the most successful conservative executive in two decades (Rudy) and a brilliant, experienced and decent man like Mitt Romney. Naturally, they spent months on a debate about the sincerity of their views on abortion. Some of them also attacked Mitt for being a Mormon. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Thruth is, Mitt or Rudy would not have appointed activist judges and beyond that their views don´t really matter.
Lest you think I am only blaming Christians here … both were forced by “the base” to get into an endless, damaging, pointless debate on immigration that made us look like heartless bastards when they clearly wanted to talk about something else. Everyone with a brain knew full well that they both are professionals who would have secured the border on grounds of national security alone. Which makes the issue temporarily irrelevant. But no, “the base” had to make the whole selection process about their pet issue … pure idiocy.
And then suddenly, we had a candidate and it was McCain. Who didn´t even want to win and couldn´t enunciate conservative principles if his life depended on it. How do you like them apples!
You single-issue nitwits are so principled, you helped to give the office to the most pro-life, anti-gun, socialist president imaginable.
(Yes, I realize that Rudy also ran a very bad campaign. Even so.)
el gordo on January 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM
$50 million for ONE delegate. Well played, Captain 9.11!!!
Vernon Hardapple on January 21, 2009 at 5:18 PM
PS. And when I say “temporarily irrelevant” I mean, secondary to WINNING.
el gordo on January 21, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Because almost all of them don’t vote primariliy on social issues. We have little chance with them anyway.
Speedwagon82 on January 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Rudy is far more conservative than McCain in every respect except for social issues. You will not see Rudy getting on the global warming train and, say, cutting off ANWR to drilling, or pushing for cap & trade. Nor would we find Rudy dreaming up McCain-Feingold or other convoluted restrictions of free speech. Finally, Rudy would not make it his life mission to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. He understands that they need to be defeated, not coddled and pandered to.
But in the end, I agree that social issues need to take a back seat to fiscal responsibility and foreign policy. We should not abandon it, just not make it the primary focus.
Buy Danish on January 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Palin/Giuliani 2012!
benny shakar on January 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM
At a federal level the GOP would build support by focusing on defending individuals’ liberties, strong defense/national security, and fiscal restraint. Conservatives value smaller, limited government and low taxes. They support an originalist judiciary.
Guiliani is correct in calling for a more moderate stance at the federal level on some social issues, for much such legislation is not really in the purview of the federal government. Fred Thompson made the same point.
I agree with aero on this issue. Much of this debate should be directed through local or state statutes, if at all. If social liberals imposed an anything-goes federal legislation on the nation, wouldn’t we conservatives chafe at the intrusion on our moral values?
The media play a large role in painting Republicans or conservatives as being only interested in social issues. Go back to any of the Republican debates, and note how social issues dominated the discussion.
The Constitution limits federal power. Conservatives should emphasize this Amendment X point over and over.
McCain lost the social and fiscal conservatives because of his spinelessness over illegal immigration. Besides the fact that he couldn’t coherently define an economic policy other than cutting earmarks, which is just a tiny portion of the bloated budget, he ignored the point that illegals have cut into the earning ability of our citizens, have stressed the budgets of local municipalities, have increased our tax burden, and have endangered the safety/security of our neighborhoods and nation.
On the campaign trail, Palin’s message was low taxes for wage earners and businesses, a bullish attitude toward responsible energy independence using our own resources, cutting wasteful fiscal practices, and eliminating corruption in politics. It was the media that painted her as an hysterical social conservative. The media was not going to let go of that narrative, for that is how they defeat our party.
Rudy was the first candidate to whom I gave campaign dollars because he is a law and order representative who would have chosen good Supreme Court judges, and he ran a fiscally responsible city.
Now we are stuck with President Government, who will be beaten into submission by Speaker of the House Government.
onlineanalyst on January 21, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “single issue nitwits”, but you are spot on about Rudy and Mitt and the tragic and self-defeating results their fundamental(ist) opposition to two very fine and capable men brought us.
Buy Danish on January 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I couldn’t agree with you more, but I’m afraid the ship has sailed on making Dodd and Frank pay for their crimes. It pulled out of the harbor on the day McCain suspended his campaign to deal with the financial crisis, then went on TV to blame it on nameless “Wall Street fat cats,” with an Easter Island of silent Republican senators standing behind him. Short of a violent revolution, no imaginable future government will do so much as censure Frank, Dodd, or Obama for what they’ve done. When McCain and the Republicans failed to call for their heads immediately, the moment was lost, and the near-term future of America with it. Nothing was more important than clearly identifying the people responsible for the Fannie Mae collapse, and when that wasn’t done, nothing else mattered much.
To complete its comeback, the GOP needs a coherent philosophy, clearly explained. I don’t think any of the old Senate hands can do the job, because they would never be able to answer the inevitable media demands to know why they didn’t speak up in 2008. It’s got to be someone from outside that system, someone who can say they have grown into their office waiting for the chance to right those wrongs.
One thing you’ve got to admire about liberal socialism is the utter simplicity and coherence of its message: everything is government’s responsibility, and government must be run by all-wise socialists, who will make all the decisions. All that is required of the voter is that he fall in love with the socialist and obey his orders. Liberties must be surrendered, but the middle-class voter is persuaded he is surrendering someone else’s liberties, and that seems like a pretty good deal. Even when liberal factions have their little internal squabbles, the answer is always more centralized power – nobody involved in the power struggle between feminists and racialists in the last Democrat primary thought the consequences of losing the struggle would mean a smaller government. The conservative sees his vote as the beginning of his civic duty, while the liberal sees it as the end of his.
To compete with the brutal simplicity of liberalism, the new conservatism needs a clear and coherent message, something that can be presented to the voters as a comprehensive strategy, not a piecemeal selection of decent little programs that will be flattened under the Obama 2012 steamroller. It’s hard to see how this can be done without including social issues – the moral argument against liberalism cannot be made persuasively without addressing both fiscal and social issues, because the modern U.S. government reaches deeply into both areas. The Democrat voter is told that all of his economic and moral needs are met by simply voting Obama and supporting him without question. You can’t expect to knock over that Cloverfield-sized donkey by kicking just one of its legs.
Doctor Zero on January 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Security Cons Assemble!!!
abobo on January 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM
It is simple.
Hang together, or hang separately
You can keep your ideological purity and have permanent minority status, or you can widen the tent and get a chance of at least some of your agenda (arguably the more important parts) implemented – security and fiscal.
tommylotto on January 21, 2009 at 5:40 PM
McCain got 46% of the vote running against Jesus! The GOP has it’s problem, but people tend to overstate them. Unpopular president, some corruption, and a media in the tank added up. It won’t always be that way.
therightwinger on January 21, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Doctor Zero,
To complete its comeback, the GOP needs a coherent philosophy, clearly explained.
Simple, in my opinion. Just transcribe Mark Levin´s magnificient rants and learn to repeat them in a slightly nicer tone. That should do the trick.
el gordo on January 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Bush got 44% of the Latino vote in 2004. McCain got 30% in the worst year for Republicans in forever. Assuming that the GOP doesn’t manage to create an impression that “the GOP hates Latinos,” we should be able to at least stay somewhat competitive with Latino voters.
Remember: Barry Goldwater’s principled objection to the 1964 Civil Rights act and Nixon’s 1968 “Southern Strategy” made blacks, who previously voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats, became a long-term 90% Democrat voting bloc seemingly overnight. This occurred not because blacks suddenly became super-liberal voters, but because blacks were left with the impression that Republicans just didn’t like them. This is a VERY dangerous phenomenon and one that we can’t afford to have repeated with Latino voters. Otherwise, we’ll never be a major national party again.
Outlander on January 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM
And of the 53% who voted for Obama a number of them are against abortion on demand and gay marriage but voted for him for the handouts and the historic nature of his candidacy.
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I believe Michael Steele made this argument a month or two ago. Personally, I would like to see the GOP get away from social issues as well. Be the party of fiscal responsibility, national security and defense, and foreign policy. In that order.
JAM on January 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I’m ok with not emphasizing the social issues. Let’s talk about the $Bajillion Dollars being spent annually. What? You mean that most of the $Bajillion is spent on social programs?
THEN HOW THE HELL CAN YOU DEPHASIZE SOCIAL ISSUES!
PappaMac on January 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM
It seems the SoCons have no use for small government and individualism, that was once the foundation of our party. Sorry, but its you big government types that want an overreaching federal government being involved in everything socially, that actually have more in common with the Democrats, since both of you are for big government when it suits you.
Its those of us who believe in small government, low taxes, common sense economics, and individualism, feel like we are just whistling in the wilderness, out by ourselves, while both the Left and a significant part of the Republicans, yearn for more government in their lives.
firepilot on January 21, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Who will protect pro-life physicians, nurses and hospitals from there right not to destroy life?
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 6:07 PM
And who will protect the right of parents to instill in their children that certain behavior is not acceptable?
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I mean “of their right” not to destroy life.
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM
The party in power runs the show. Checked Congress and the WH lately?
a capella on January 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM
I disagree. What the reason the GOP isn’t stronger is because way too many Republicans are Democrat-lite on most any issue. If more committed conservatives – socially, fiscally, otherwise – actually held public office there would be a resurgence of GOP popularity. The GOP is disconnected from it’s conservative base because it isn’t very conservative.
gwelf on January 21, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Rudy is the poster child for what’s wrong with the GOP/RNC, NO moral clarity and and NO testicles to fight for what’s right.
It’s past time for these idiots to be thrown out on the heads.
WHEN WILL REPUBLICANS LEARN? YOU CANNOT OUT-LEFT THE LEFT!
nelsonknows on January 21, 2009 at 6:17 PM
The biggest lesson we should have learned from this last election is that Republicans cannot win elections when they run as Democrats. McCain was supposed to be the answer to getting the moderates in and it failed because moderates are unreliable (that’s what makes them moderates). If we want to get and keep reliable voting blocs we need to nominate people who are all around conservatives in every election.
Loki on January 21, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Why is Rush Limbaugh still the number one talk show in the world??
Why is his audience larger than many of the mainstream media’s audiences combined???
Why?? If social issues are so dead,, Why???
Look,,, Rudy, god bless him,, lost me at the very beginning when he said the Republican party has had these narrow social views the past 10 years! What Republican party was that????? Was it the McCain Republican party???
This is the same old joke.
Good people need to stop caring about goodness and what is right,, and just do what it takes to win elections. Why even have a Republican party. I am ready to just get out of this party. There is barely any life at all left in it.
It is becoming a worthless party that cares only about enriching themselves at any cost.
The Democrats would trample the constitution,, undermine our wars, encourage our enemies, exploit natural disasters, and destroy innocent lives and bring our nation to complete ruin as long as they had power.
Republicans would watch, assist or look the other way as long as they received good press in the New York Times or nice things were said about them on CNN.
In some ways,, I respect the Democrats more than I do my own party’s leaders. They are an embarrassment.
JellyToast on January 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM
When Rudy can build a conservative coalition in NY, then he can dictate priorities. Conservatism is Conservatism. It doesn’t take adjectives. Its principles. You may emphasize one over the other, but they’ve all gotta be there to work. And Rudy’s not learning the lesson from Prop 8. Blacks and other minorities are more socially conservative than economically conservative. You’re not going to increase your base by emphasizing tax issues to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place. Conservatism isn’t just about governance and economics. Its about the values that inform those things. Governance and the economy do not exist in a moral vaccuum.
Now I love Rudy. He really cleaned up NYC, but he didn’t build the conservative movement. That’s why a lib like Nurse Bloomy could run unopposed on the Republican line.
I hope Rudy wins the governorship in NY. He’ll be much better than the morons running things now. But everything he does will be undone once he’s gone, unless he cultivates the generation behind him. Which to date he’s had no intention of doing, because he’s really not about principles, he’s just about “Rudy”.
Iblis on January 21, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Well said.
Harpazo on January 21, 2009 at 6:37 PM
So how is small government individualism somehow like Democrats or Democrat lite? That small government and individualism are about polar opposites of their platform.
Libertarians actually have more in common with small government Republicans than Democrats.
firepilot on January 21, 2009 at 6:43 PM
So, we’re talking about a Democrat-like party, but with small government? If I read the polls right, this election was about bigger government. You want to alienate the base of the party to offer something Democrat voters don’t want? And, independents who are okay with bigger government, a championing of abortion, pandering to gay rights, and the open borders lobby will then flock to the Republican party? Either I’m completely missing something or it must be more complicated than that. Wouldn’t it make more sense to aggressively court blacks, Hispanics, and blue-collar workers, all of whom are supposed to be socially conservative?
littleguy on January 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM
It would appear judging by Prop 8 in Calif, that the way to win elections is to be socially conservative but economically liberal. If we promised those democrats who voted yes on Prop 8 that we would give them more benefits and giveaways if they voted Republican than we would win.
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Rose,
“It would appear judging by Prop 8 in Calif, that the way to win elections is to be socially conservative but economically liberal.”
Notice something? That is how Bush won two terms and dragged the House GOP up between 2000 and 2006. Domestically he governed as a socially conservative third way politician.
We must NOT give up the idea of limited government, which is after all what the country is about. Sensible domestic policies that improve lives are not the same as handouts and benefits. It´s not all one or the other. That´s a false choice. But you must offer conservative solutions in areas where the government is involved anyway.
Bush´s ideas on social security and the ownership society made sense and they were based on individualism, not collectivism. The GOP just couldn´t sell it. You can have a better healthcare system but one that is based on free markets and competition. You can do something for conservative low-income voters – young families – and not sell out.
el gordo on January 21, 2009 at 7:54 PM
when i was a child in school (while they still actually taught something)
I was taugth about the platform of the party
and the planks they used to buld it..
Like
Social issues
Financial responsibility
But the republicans are in such a panic they wont do what is right and actually fix the planks,,
No they want to remove a few more..
when you do that do you morons know what you end up with
A big platform that cannot support anything
and just has 4 pillars with curtains over it
otherwise known as
A pit with a curtain surrounding it..
And this is Rudy?
man has our entire country lost it.
jcila on January 21, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Exactly. Principles are principles for a reason. The sooner the GOP embraces conservatism the better.
Iblis on January 21, 2009 at 7:58 PM
el gordo, I was being facetious. The point I was making is that if winning elections is the only goal of Republicans than giving a way more might work. My argument is that for a large percentage of us in the Republican party the social issues are equally important and we will not give them up just to win elections any more than we should give up the conservative economic issues.
Rose on January 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Rudy Guiliani:
Good on Terror.
Bad on everything else.
BKennedy on January 21, 2009 at 8:32 PM
So what ever happened to that older Republican ideal of getting government out of peoples lives? I thought that was one of the central ideas.
I am sorry, but the irony of some Big Government Republicans saying small government Republicans are really like Democrats, is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
firepilot on January 21, 2009 at 8:36 PM
This old bull shitagain. First of all, most social issues don’t even make it to voters top ten list of major concerns. It is the economy and national defense that matter. Second of all, there is broad support for the social platform of conservatives, the gay marriage issue being one. Third of all, we just got through running a moderate and we got stomped. Rudy was a great mayor and would make a great AG, that is where it ends.
echosyst on January 21, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Bravo!
onlineanalyst on January 21, 2009 at 9:06 PM
(Please excuse the apparent disjointed nature of this. It was spur of the moment)
I know I tread into a rather ‘lively’ discussion but I do so willingly. The overarching theme of this entire discussion is one that I have been pondering some time, cemented so after actually doing research on the Modern Conservative movement. I am sure my though processes may differ from some, but such is life.
First all I have a personal disdain for phrases such ‘I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative’ and the variation thereof. This is not meant in a personal attack against those who the terms. All will be made clear.
A person should(must) have Principles that help guide them in life.’Liberalism’ and ‘Conservatism’ (the modern incarnations of them) are principle based political philosophies. How one thinks, believes about an Issue is derived from their Principles. (Political, religious, etc)
It is entirely possible for two people to have similar Principles yet see the same issue in a perhaps slightly different light. There are no ‘Conservative issues’ just as there are not truly ‘Liberal issues’. There are however Issues that are looked at differently depending on your set of Principles.
Mention was made earlier noting how easy it was to be a liberal socialist (I think that was the term used). All you had to think was that the government was the solution to the problem and so. That is a very clear set of political Principles. Not ones I agree with but a set nonetheless.
It is my belief that Conservatism as a political school of thought will only survive if the Principles of Conservatism are rediscover and actually articulated. Again Principles not Issues.
Again I wish I was more prepared for this post but will do best I can. A perfect example of this is the concept of States Rights, which can only go hand in hand with limited scope of federal government. Many issues which are considered ‘social’ can and should be handled at State level. As it was intended.
I doubt this was made as clear as I intended but does give me a great start for my own blog post. Don’t want to clog up Hot Air with ramblings. Skewer or agree as you wish. :)
RuffledRaven on January 21, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Exactly.
We seem to have quite a few people on here with a new found trust of large government and government programs. Obviously they think government, especially Federal, knows better than the individual.
firepilot on January 21, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Thank you..
Is amazing what I learned after doing research. I read (trying recall name now) book on history of Modern Conservative movement. It was put out by Heritage Foundation I think. Also read Conscience of a Conservative.
I am definitely a Taft/Goldwater/Reagan Conservative. :)
RuffledRaven on January 21, 2009 at 9:47 PM
I’m sorry… did I miss a national election somewhere?
We’ve been running a lot of bible-thumping, crucifix-waving, abortion-clinic bombing candidates for POTUS recently? Was Jerry Falwell’s second term a problem with the nation? Or was Pat Robertson’s State of the Union where he forced everyone to kneel before a cross taken the wrong way?
I need someone to point out the hard-right religious zealots who have been running the country.
Bush 2? Really?
Put down the crack pipe, now. Thanks.
12thMonkey on January 21, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I’d also like to address Rudy’s first suggestion that we can’t go into elections “giving away” states like California, and New York, and Illinois and still expect to win.
He’s probably right, but what’s the solution? I’d argue that the problem with conservatives and these states has very little to do with social issues, and much, much more to do with fiscal issues. New York and California are the absolute definition of tax and spend, big government liberal hell.
Is Rudy really saying here that if only we’d dump the social cons–but remained fiscally conservative–we’d pick up California and New York?
Again… crack pipe. Down. Thanks.
12thMonkey on January 21, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Rudy is trying to reshape the playing field for 2012. He knows he doesn’t stand a chance on the social conservatism issues.
Nice try though. You might know that this was on Frum’s new website. BTW David Frum is a nitwit.
Captain America on January 21, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Motto of the Republican Party 2009
We’ve fallen and we can’t get up…
Mister Ghost on January 21, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Obama is beginning his program of slicing this country apart with his radical agenda and we come back with THIS?
This is our fighting spirit?
lizzee on January 21, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Outlander on January 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Bush did not get 44% of the Latino vote in 2004. It was more likely around 40%.
I argue that if we give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship and the right to vote, there will never be another fiscally conservative President or fiscally conservative federal policy.
Thresher on January 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM
We don’t have to abandon social conservatism, but it is not the time to focus on it. Our economy and national security are more important right now. This explains why Democrats are winning in the South and other conservative areas because they are focusing on the economy and not abortion, guns, etc.
Republicans must be able to win in New England, California, and New York if it is ever going to win back a majority of Congress and the White House….
And remember, just because Republicans do not stress social conservatism doesn’t mean that it will not be an issue that can be implemented. Just watch Obama talk about social conservatism and family while he promotes abortion rights and gay marriage…
We have to play to our strength: the economy and defense…
RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Various Problems and solutions:
The Republican Party ran only 3 fiscal conservatives: Romney, Rudy and Ron Paul. McCain was not a fiscal conservative and supported larger government through worthless economically crippling cap and trade (global warming regulation). Rudy says he believes in global warming but would not regulate it, Romney only might if India and China did (will never happen). Ron Paul just wouldn’t period. This issue is essential to all of our economy because it has to do with the control of energy. Only true fiscal conservatives understand how serious this issue is. Many ignore the issue because they think it is a pollution argument (it isn’t CO2 is not pollution) or believe they are themselves pro-environment which is irrelevant because we all are. Now this is just one of many fiscal issues but one I have been trying to bring to the attention of people due to the DIRECT impact it will have on people’s lives in the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, heating oil ect…). The other fiscal issues like smaller government are directly related and easier for people to understand. Al Gore’s propaganda however had a significant effect on this election and in 2006, something I think that needs to be brought up and discussed. This is another reason we got McCain, he was pro “Save the Earth” from imaginary disaster. Huckabee was too and Palin even supports Capping Carbon emissions. This tells me Social Conservatives are either economically illiterate or fiscally socialist, neither will ever work.
When Rudy was the front runner and social conservatives threatened the election unless someone else was chosen for the obvious issues (abortion, gay marriage and a mess of a personal life) fiscal conservatives reasonably backed down only to see the horror of Huckabee emerge with the abandonment of fiscal responsibility for populism. The fiscal conservative backlash was devastating and thankfully the Theocracy was stopped. The Rudy vs Huckabee debate is the most telling of what issues are important to the conservative factions:
Abortion:
Social conservatives continue to try to define conservative and the Republican party as the abortion only issue party. They can deny it but this is all they talk about and it is getting old. This does not mean I am pro-choice, I’m not, I’m pro-life but I am also pro-personal freedom this means LESS not more government. I also support abortion in terms of rape and incest – no you will never win a majority on this issue without this concession. Yes, yes I have heard all your arguments, they don’t sell to anyone but the hardcore faithful and never will. Women will never accept a law that allows a man to force them to have a baby by raping them, it is that simple. Regardless abortion will continue to be a debated issue in the GOP and the party needs to move away from this as a central issue as it is too divisive. Rudy is 100% right, I am sick of hearing about it.
Gay Marriage:
This has essentially been taken care of as a states rights issue. There is no need to even bring this up as a serious issue anymore. All those pushing for a federal ban should give it up, the battle has been won, it is banned in almost every state. You are not going to get much better than that. Not to mention enough Democrats oppose it as well, which is why California voted it down. Gay “rights” is an easy argument, all gays have the same rights as every other U.S. citizen and that includes heterosexual marriage. The main gripes are largely hospital visitation, which could be easily remedied with a simple law allowing a chosen “friend” visitation rights via a form.
These are by far the two largest social conservative issues. Abortion will continue to be a problem more than anything else and deemphasizing it is about all you can do at this point.
Second Amendment:
Rudy’s biggest problem by far is his stance on gun rights. McCain won all conservatives on this issue easily. Romney’s was passable. This is one that is not only explicitly in the Constitution, it is one that all conservatives (social and fiscal) completely agree on. Again though is the exception of city cons – conservatives who live in cities and do not own guns. They give lip service to the issue but do little to defend it and will concede it for other issues they find more important. Ironically city cons are usually largely pro-military, they just are not as big a fan of guns in their back yards. This issue more than any other is what tanked Rudy in favor of McCain. Thus the Second Amendment should be one of the major planks of the Republican Party. Democrats are even scared to bring it up and you had Obama campaigning as pro-gun. It is hard for anyone except the crazy left to argue against what is explicitly in the Constitution.
National Defense:
All conservatives favor a strong national defense but how that is defined varies widely. Disagreement exists on simply having a strong military vs. foreign intervention. Only neo-cons want to preempt war not all conservatives. True fiscal conservatives have a problem with funding and maintaining foreign bases, they have a problem with the ridiculous spending on weapons systems that may be unnecessary and they may feel the price to rebuild Iraq is not justified. However conservatives largely support capturing and killing terrorists regardless of the other disagreements. They also support Gitmo, which can be logically argued by anyone not brainwashed by leftist propaganda of imaginary torture.
The Republican party needs to focus simply on a strong national defense but this should not be on the neo-con model which lost independent voters. Whether you like him or not (I have a big problem with his social policies), it should be based on the Colin Powell model of national defense, when you attack an enemy you using OVERWHELMING force and kill them. You don’t send in a limited number of troops and have them patrol in unarmored Humvees, then make excuses for doing it. I would love to see how Iraq had turned out if we sent 400,000 troops in from the beginning.
All in all Rudy is right even if social conservatives will never accept it but the elections speak for themselves. Fiscal conservative issues are effectively libertarian which essentially means MORE freedom. The social conservatives who oppose libertarian principles AKA MORE freedom are really statists with single issues like Abortion. In many ways they want to control your lives just in other ways. This is not liberty but the imposition of Theocratic rule. It is hard to argue against the basic libertarian positions since by doing so it effectively means you do not trust people to make their own choices and believe you are incapable of persuading people to your ideals and instead want to force the state to impose them on others. Social Fascists are not better then Fiscal Socialists. Liberty is limited government and personal responsibility nothing more.
Poptech on January 22, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Question: Were republicans a majority party before social conservatives got involved? No.
Here is the record: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Moderates need to support us the way we have supported them the last 30 years.
sjramos on January 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Moderates and Libertarians fully support your right to practice whatever religious beliefs you wish. They also fully support religion having a place in society so long as it is by choice and not through enforcement by the federal government. However, if by support you mean accepting only your position on things they disagree with, well that will never happen. Especially if that means more government control over their lives.
Poptech on January 22, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I’m pretty sure social conservatives and libertarians can agree that stripping Planned Parenthood, child rapist enabling scum, of federal tax dollars is a noble goal.
Social Conservatives can support it because Planned Parenthood is a blight on the face of the earth, enabling evil to continue and engaging in it for profit.
Fiscal Conservatives can support it because it wastes less tax dollars on billion dollar “not-for-profit” enterprises.
BKennedy on January 22, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Of course, see this is how these issues need to be addressed. This is a simple solution that both factions can agree on.
Poptech on January 22, 2009 at 12:57 AM
There are. Well . . . three, at least.
SocCon/FiscCon = Republican
SocLib/FiscCon = Libertarian
SocLib/FiscLib = Democrat
SocCon/FiscLib = Totalitarian
eaglescout1998 on January 22, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Where Social Conservatives should focus their time and money regarding abortion. I saw program where a christian group had a bus that visited various abortion clinics and offered free counseling to mothers walking in, it turned out to be surprisingly effective and they were able to persuade many to keep their babies. These sort of programs should be emphasized as well as a push for abortion procedure videos to be shown in sex ed. You need to use the liberal’s positions against them. How can they be against showing the procedure they support? The approach to this issue needs to be rethought out instead of screaming at people they are murderers and baby killers.
Poptech on January 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Yawn. I would have thought that Rudy would have been smart enough not to trot out this nonsense, even though he’s not a social con himself, he’s not a tin-ear patrician like Christie Whitman, or someone like that.
The Rust Belt (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Upstate NY) is filled with social conservatives. But many vote for the Democrats because they feel that the Republicans don’t care about their economic issues, because they don’t trust what they see as an interventionist foreign policy, and because the Republicans have allowed themselves to be painted as anti-science, incompetent, and poor caretakers of the government. I don’t agree myself, but the perception is there.
Does anybody really think auto workers in Michigan vote for the Democrats because they think they’ll get legalized Gay marriage?
No matter what they do the Republicans will never win in NYC, Boston, or LA. Unless they run somebody like Bloomberg-and to call that sneering fraud a RINO is way, way too generous. But there are still huge swaths of the country that have become increasingly Democrat in recent years-and it’s not because of Social Cons.
The Republicans used to win elections in those places, but it’s getting tougher and tougher, even on the local level. And it ain’t because they think the Republican party is too anti-gay, or anti-abortion.
Dreadnought on January 22, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Poptech forgets one more wedge issue — immigration.
Once, the Republican party was the party of the immigrant, and only where immigrant citizens felt that their rights clashed with the rights of newly freed slaves (such as in competition for jobs) did the Democrats hold any sway. We have nearly lost the new immigrants of this era, because the word “illegal” is so easily dropped from the discussion — precisely because the laws preventing entry (and which make the immigrant illegal) seem so onerous. When Lincoln was in office, one paid their “landing fee” and walked off the boat ready to become a citizen. That’s the place to which we should return. We deny our roots and deny ourselves the immigrant vote if we fail to do so.
unclesmrgol on January 22, 2009 at 1:35 AM
These areas vote Democratic because they are filled with union workers. The unions are part of the problem they are losing their jobs. It has nothing to do with social issues. Government cannot save their jobs, which the free market has determined are over-payed. Sure government can socialize their jobs and thus reduce the standard of living for the rest of us. This is a problem of basic economics, “caring” has nothing to do with it. So long as people do not understand economics government will continue to grow larger, take more of our liberties and reduce our standard of living.
Poptech on January 22, 2009 at 2:36 AM
My two cents is that Social Conservatives did cost us this election actually. In the primaries the Huckabee supporters bashed Romney so much that we ended up with McCain. Someone that the majority of the base doesn’t even think is a member of our party.
Rush is right. The best thing for our party (if it’s even our party anymore) is the “three legged stool approach” where you can’t be too long or too short on each individual leg or the stool won’t stand. We must find candidates that represent each leg equally so as not to scare people off to the other side. We don’t need a preacher that’s itchin to blow someone up that can’t balance his checkbook. We don’t need an economist that thinks they’re the be all, end all and thinks cutting defense spending would be a good place to bring about fiscal reform.
We need someone that speaks TO people and can provide leadership fiscally and in the foreign policy arena without scaring the boogity out of everyone. I love Palin but I’m not certain she is the answer yet. She’s got 2 of the three legs down pat but she’s got a lot of work to do over the next few years to do in building her foreign policy chops. The left has destroyed the mainstream view of this woman so much that it could take awhile to repair the damage. If she’s up for the top job she’s got to get started immediately formulating her own ideals.
And before anyone accuses me of suffering from PDS: I’m not a Palin basher. I voted for McCain because of her otherwise I wouldn’t have voted, period. That’s no bull either! I’m an over the road truck driver. It would’ve been far easier to have not cast my absentee vote had McCain picked someone like Rudy or Grahamnesty.
I do think we should cool the “kick out the RINOs” rhetoric though. Everybody needs useful idiots from time to time. And when we find a candidate that fulfills each of the 3 legs we’re gonna need those idiots to convince the uninformed “middle of the road” types that these guys are okay. Keep em on our side but out of the foreground and in the background where they belong.
rmel80 on January 22, 2009 at 2:50 AM
rmel80 – You´re a wise man.
el gordo on January 22, 2009 at 4:22 AM
What will it take for these guys to GET IT !!!
Even after a stunning, catostrophic defeat, they continue down their merry little path to destruction.
stenwin77 on January 22, 2009 at 6:33 AM
The short answer to Rudy is “no,” we don’t abandon social issues in a misconceived effort to “expand” the GOP.
To expand the GOP, we need to engage in political education to the wisdom of a free economy, a strong military supporting a strong national defense and the values of the American nation, patriotism, and personal virtue. I don’t have the quotations handy, but a number of the Founding Fathers commented about how personal virtue is needed to sustain freedom and liberty in a republic.
Phil Byler on January 22, 2009 at 7:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »