The GOP’s agenda in a nostalgic age
That way forward is pretty straightforward — focus on strengthening families who will be there for each other tomorrow even if social security is not, focus on opposing corporatist policies that are out to strengthen big business at the expend of small businesses and individuals, and focus on the debt burden that makes parents fearful of the lives their children will live.
President Obama’s policies have benefited the biggest businesses. He has allied with businesses like Walmart to hurt small businesses. He has allied with big banks to hurt small banks. He has allied with unions to hurt business. And he has allied himself with the rise of singles, which makes children in families slaves to a social safety net their future income must necessarily support.
People want a renewed sense of community. The GOP should tap into that nostalgia, which directly connects with a time of strong families and main street businesses. Though the President’s rhetoric matches the age, the GOP is the only party whose policies truly can match the age.
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
Agenda? The GOP has an agenda?
katy on January 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Anyway the wind blows
Doesn’t really matter
To me
To meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ElectricPhase on January 19, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Who is this Erick, it is not the Erick of 2 years ago…
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM
This is, unfortunately, mostly bullschtick. This is only true for a smaller and smaller segment of society. The “gimme” segment is growing and Obama’s rhetoric truly does match that age.
Bitter Clinger on January 19, 2013 at 10:53 AM
At least he gets it. That right there is the entire root cause of the fall of western civilization. We stopped defending the family, and yes it did begin with abortion.
nobar on January 19, 2013 at 10:59 AM
1, sure, I like the idea of a flat tax. $3,600,000,000,000/ 240,000,000 adults = $15,000 per man woman and child. But I want more complexity, I want people to know what they are paying for… Say, every outlay has a bill sent to each adult in the nation. Say $3,400 for the military, $8,100 for the welfare state, $3,500 for the rest of government. Break those down even further.
2, not really. Single parents are part of the problem.
3, yes preferential treatment to two parent families, nothing for single parent households.
4, how?
5, just getting rid of regulations that make big better will make the large banks self break up, why should the government do it?
6, how?
7, yes!
8, the federal government needs to be out of the school business entirely.
9, I do not want opposition, I want results.
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Social Security broke families before abortion did. Abortion is just a way out for the people who no longer need children to have a secure future, people who can live off other peoples children’s labor.
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM
1, sure, I like the idea of a flat tax. $3,600,000,000,000/ 240,000,000 adults = $15,000 per man and woman
and child. But I want more complexity, I want people to know what they are paying for… Say, every outlay has a bill sent to each adult in the nation. Say $3,400 for the military, $8,100 for the welfare state, $3,500 for the rest of government. Break those down even further.2, not really. Single parents are part of the problem.
3, yes preferential treatment to two parent families, nothing for single parent households.
4, how?
5, just getting rid of regulations that make big better will make the large banks self break up, why should the government do it?
6, how?
7, yes!
8, the federal government needs to be out of the school business entirely.
9, I do not want opposition, I want results.
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 10:59 AM
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Wrong. It is abortion.
Abortion is a moral failure. SS is a policy failure.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
katy on January 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM
So, it is not a moral issue as to who pays for another person’s life?
Slavery in the early part of our nation’s history was not a moral issue?
Are you serious? Of course you are, like all immoral people, you are happy to attack other people’s moral choices, but when you are the one benefiting from the immorality, it is all hunky dory.
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 11:36 AM
We defeated slavery because we were a moral people. Abortion is still with us and yes, it is destroying the fabric of our society. Not sure what the personal attack on me is all about except that it generally means you’ve lost the argument.
katy on January 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM
First comment on Redstate nailed it. Erick’s head is stuffy. Only old coots like himself want to return to a pre-modern technology era. Like the poster says, we are looking for young MODERN conservatives to energize the economy & America — not geezers who wish to “squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube” like Erick.
ZachV on January 19, 2013 at 11:53 AM
You energize the economy by making people privately successful and self-sufficient. The best way to do that is for people to grow up in a functional two parent household. So I say he was being “modern” while espousing what is wrong with our culture and our economy.
melle1228 on January 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM
This is rich. Here Erikson is with a GOP platform which is almost identical to Rick Santorum’s during the primary and who Erickson excoriated at the time. Pathetic.
KickandSwimMom on January 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM
So Erick thinks the GOP should make “family” the centerpiece of its agenda.
No one is going to vote for a party whose message is that they want to mess with their families or define morality.
Enrique on January 19, 2013 at 12:42 PM
When one person has a claim on another person’s wealth, there are three options available as to why this is the case.
1, the person is owed for a loan or services rendered. My daughter has not borrowed anything nor been given any service from these people, so that is not the case.
2, the person owns the labor of the person, in other words, slavery. In this case they own 15.2% of the person, as they cannot earn so much as a dollar without owing this money. This seems to be the case. My children are slaves to older people for whom they truly owe NOTHING.
3, The person has a weapon and is threatening the health or life of the other in order to force them to give up their wealth. Here the weapon is the government. It is no different than a street gang in this respect.
I believe we need government, but the government we have today is not longer beneficial, but instead detrimental. So long as one group can use the government to steal from and enslave others, we will never have a MORAL nation. It is what it is.
Abortion is here because SOCIAL SECURITY has made children optional and thus DISPOSABLE.
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Abortion has hastened the demise of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
Without 50+ million people being aborted, there would be about 50 million more people paying into the fund and 50 million more people in need of the goods and services to fuel an economy. Not to mention 50 of those “one in a million” innovators in technology or medicine etc.
Mimzey on January 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Well, that is the thing about trying “new” things, like replacing family with government, as in Social Security. There are bound to be things that were totally “unintended” by the communist loving socialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It worked to destroy the family, hey isn’t that one of the goals of the Communist party? Why, yes, yes it is…
astonerii on January 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM
As was pointed out we have hit the tipping point in terms of people who would like to return to that era.
At least 50% of voters and probably more are not nostalgic for a 1950′s life because they’re welfare leeches who not only don’t want to work but would be useless if they did.
A good portion of the rest of society aren’t nostalgic because back in the day they had such things as sexual irresponsibility being shameful (*gasp!*). And actual enforced limits on the flow of sewage from Hollywierd. (*gasp!!!*) They even executed convicted murderers! (*GASP!!!*)
Even if those two problems could be negated, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you: are we as a society ready to do what it takes to go back to that time?
Are we ready to do things like dust off the Hayes code, put hard limits on welfare, quarantine people infected with lethal STDs, and lethally put down riots from the soap-deprived hippies and Democrat welfare voters when it becomes clear that their gravy train is ending?
Unfortunately it’s JUST hastened it…SS was as sustainable as a liberal budget. SS was not designed for anything but a constant growth of taxpaying young workers to doddering geezers in need of care. There was no provision at all for another war, another round of Spanish Flu, another depression, or follies like the Demoncrat welfare state.
MelonCollie on January 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM