Posted on 12/15/2006 2:22:25 PM PST by Coleus
Sports teams expect opponents to score against them. It is all part of the game. The important thing is to amass a steady string of victories to win the championship. The same logic that applies to sports does not seem to apply to politics. In the aftermath of the November elections, there has been much talk on both sides of the political spectrum about the decline of moral issues. Talk is rife about a social conservative consensus that is supposedly wearing thin. Moral values were edged out by the economy and jobs. The pro-life movement is beleaguered. The traditional agenda of opposition to abortion and same-sex “marriage” is all too narrow. Conservatives need to retreat from the moral issues and broaden to other more politically correct fields. Based on such commentary, one would have thought that moral issues had taken a real thrashing last November. Cultural conservatives were left to simply pick up the pieces and bewail their fate. However, that is not what happened. If anyone was keeping score, about the only thing that did not get thrashed was moral values.
State Marriage Amendments
Consider the State constitutional amendments against same-sex “marriage.” Cultural conservatives extended their winning streak to 27, count them, victories. This year, seven out of eight ballot issues won in a thrashing that should make the other side despair. Tennessee's amendment passed with a whopping 81 percent of the vote. In South Carolina, it was 78 percent. Some 63 percent refused marriage-redefinition attempts in Idaho. In the remaining states, the anti-amendment vote was closer. Meanwhile, only in Arizona did the amendment lose by a razor thin margin. Many attribute the loss to the fact that other side focused on the threat to existing unmarried couple benefits and not same-sex “marriage” issue itself. In sports, a 27-1 record gets a team in the playoffs. In liberal politics, the single defeat is spun as a thrashing.
Electing candidates
Some might argue that these moral issues did not get people elected. Here again, an adjustment needs to be made. There is a big difference from the moral issues themselves and the politicians who often pay lip service to them. Other major issues like Iraq, scandals and corruption also undeniably played a major role in the elections that cannot be ignored. However, the facts do not show that moral issues themselves were the cause of the defeat. If anyone was keeping score, they would see it is quite to the contrary. Robert Novak notes that EMILY’s List, a group that funds pro-abortion women, supported a slate of candidates that were effectively thrashed. Of the 19 truly competitive House races involving candidates funded and backed by EMILY's List, only two won. In a similar case, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America donated to the campaigns of five pro-abortion Republicans (including three incumbents). All lost their races.
Of the thirteen incoming House Republicans, none call themselves “pro-choice.” It was a disproportionate number of moderate Republicans soft on moral issues who lost and not the other way around. Consider also the fact that some Democrats broke ranks with the party line and ran and won on pro-life issues.
The South Dakota Debacle?
Liberals point to the defeat of the abortion ban “debacle” in South Dakota as a sign that the pro-life issue is in decline. Framed as dangerous and extreme measure, that ban was originally passed as a constitutional gamble to overturn Roe v. Wade. During the elections, the gamble lost by a ten percent margin. Even in this case, if anyone is keeping score, the victory was hardly an overwhelming thrashing of the pro-life cause in that state. Pro-life advocates have consistently pummeled pro-abortion radicals in South Dakota. The state has only one abortion clinic open a different day each week. Because of the stigma attached to the practice, no native doctor will do abortions. The sole clinic is serviced by an out-of-state doctor flown in weekly. Pro-lifers have succeeded in passing numerous restrictions on abortion. The state ranks 49th in both number and percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion. Pro-life governor Mike Rounds who signed the failed abortion ban into law handily thrashed his opponent in the 2006 elections.
The fact that an abortion ban could not win in one of the reddest of red states is hardly a sign there is no hope for such moral issues. The same argument is certainly not made for Massachusetts where lawmakers are stonewalling Gov. Mitt Romney’s request that they honor the 170,000 state residents who petitioned to put same-sex “marriage” on the ballot. If legislators fear putting same-sex “marriage” on the ballot in the bluest of all blue states, what hope is there for the pro-homosexual cause?
Moral Values Not Cause
All this services to highlight three points: first the 2006 elections did not signify a rejection of moral issues. It was more a non-ideological face-off between the two political parties, decided by Iraq, scandals and corruption. Second, the results served to underscore the polarized state of American politics. Both sides of the moral issues have sizable minorities that are contesting the future. Success will come to those who stick to their principles. If anyone is keeping score, they will see that moral values have an excellent record. Rather than diluting their values or broadening into more politically correct fields, cultural conservative should only strengthen their resolve and highlight their moral values. What worked in 2006 were moral values, it only makes sense to use that which worked.
A Cultural War
Finally, the battle for America is not a ball game. It is a cultural war where the rules of engagement are entirely different and those keeping score can and do break all the rules. It is a war of attrition where this polarization is primarily religious and moral. Each side is trying to outlast the other. On one side is the cultural left with its decade-old attachment to secularism, feminism and all types of sexual liberation. It won the election more by opposing than proposing. It is a movement long in crisis led by aged activists and academics of revolutions past. This side can count on the support of Hollywood stars, a liberal establishment and academia. With the constant help of liberal media, it can spin the worst defeat into victory.
And on the other side are the cultural pro-family conservatives, mugged by the terrible reality of the breakdown of society. With dogged determination, political savvy and prayer, these grassroots Americans have put together an impressive string of victories ignored by major media yet completely obvious for anyone who is keeping score. That is not to say that this side does not have its own trials and problems but it has weathered many storms. Over the years, its position has often been declared untenable and impossible by more “moderate” sectors that favor the politics of concession. But they have ignored such naysayers and fought on. Indeed, the odds are still against those who fight on. However, their strength is in something the other secular side does not understand. Faith sustains them as they trust in God – who is keeping score.
The exit polls made clear the number one issue that decided voters votes in November had nothing to do with abortion, the economy or Iraq.
It was corruption scandals.
There is no moral or ideological message to be extracted from the election. The country indicated a desire to move neither rightward nor leftward.
Run clean candidates in 2008, find dirt on Democrats to the extent that there are explicit indictments, and the situation will reverse. There is no need for ideological discussion about the election, because there was no ideological indication in the election.
I think the loss of the two parental notification referenda (in liberal CA and somewhat less liberal OR) and the apparent indifference of voters to the threat of "San Francisco values" made the election results less comforting than this article indicates. I also wonder whether Catholic voters are drifting back to the Dems. This time, I think they switched to Dems because of the war, but I'll bet the pro-faith noises from the New Religious Left had some effect.
You should read this analysis before making another "social conservatives drive voters away" argument.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Many Roman Catholics, that I know, are really more comfortable with the democrat platform. They are anti-death penalty, pro-amnesty for illegals, pro-universal healthcare and pro-welfare, considering these issues of "social justice". The only real hold the Republicans had on them was the anti-abortion platform. They believe that capital punishment is not compatible with a pro-life stance and should be abolished. They also believe that as Christians they are called to provide for others and they see no problem with allowing the government to be the means.
I did not say ALL Roman Catholics, but it is a large portion of the ones I know, even the traditional ones. I have had this debate more than a few times.
While they may vote for some local issues, they trashed the people who were championing some of them, like anti immigration, and stem cells.
The problem is that social conservatives you don't differentiate between issues that resonate negatively and those that are positive. To them, they are all the same. This makes them politically stupid as a rock.
As far as gay marriage for example, what you should have done is push for civil unions, and call their bluff. But with you guys, it's all or nothing. So now you have nothing. With stem cells, more lines were necessary, but you drew the line and you caused a backlash.
Enjoy......It's gonna be interesting to see how much of your social calendar will now be reversed, and how dismayed you will be when not one single issue of merit on the conservative side will pass Congress. This is not my doing, it's yours! The populist middle American voter saw you as a threat and not a solution and they put the republican name on the failures..
It's the all or nothing stupidity that I resent. That I will continue to resent, and for good reason, because it is idiocy politics.
It will take a number of years to put all this mess back together to make a run at the Dem's,, and it won't be done at all if there are not some fundamental changes made as to the political intelligence of the party base. I don't think at this point, that education will be enough.
In the long term, the problem will disappear on it's own, in any case. Social conservatives will leave for their new democrat masters because their issues are far more important to them, than party unity. The Dem's have the power and that is where they will go. The Dem's don't need party unity at present, as they have the votes. This is where the republicans made their mistake some ten years ago.
No, you see us a threat and you project your feelings for us onto the American voter. You don't have any data to support your premise, just opinions. That's why I've posted a link to the "Paranoia Isn't Patriotism" op-ed to you twice now. All sorts of folks like you were saying in '04 that "all or nothing" conservatives like me coming out to vote on gay marriage were the reason Dubya won, but the data said nothing of the sort. That's the case with this election. Go ahead: Show me empirical data that shows the electorate bounced this caucus because they wanted civil unions. Show me something that shows it about stem cells, or even just "social issues."
Heck, you know what, I'm such a nice guy I'll just give you the data that proves my point now and save you the useless digging: From this article:
The Iraq war and congressional scandals hurt Republican candidates in the midterm elections, as the GOP lost the advantage on their central issue of terrorism, exit polls found.Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, and they were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for the House. Iraq was important for just two-thirds, and they also leaned toward supporting Democrats.
[See any mention of gay marriage or stem cells so far? Don't worry, it gets even worse for you.]Most white evangelicals said corruption was very important in their vote and almost a third of them voted Democratic, according to a national exit poll of 11,798 voters conducted for AP and television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.
[White evangelicals? Bet they weren't voting for gay marriage and ESCR!]
Like I said, projection on your part.
As far as gay marriage for example, what you should have done is push for civil unions, and call their bluff. But with you guys, it's all or nothing.
Sure, call us all or nothing, and then tell us we're dumb because we didn't give them something that is everything (i.e., ALL) marriage is in the physical world. Like a lib, you call surrender by conservatives "smart politics." Sure, let's just live and let live like Canada where a guy can be liable for several tens of thousands of dollars because he didn't want to do a print job for a gay rights group and the government censors media content it deems unfriendly to the gay agenda, or like Sweden where a guy can get hauled to jail for preaching a sermon that has quotes from Romans 1 in it.
With stem cells, more lines were necessary, but you drew the line and you caused a backlash.
I'm sorry, do you think you're a libertarian? What's libertarian about expecting the government to spend money on research that private investors won't touch? Why don't we just have the government invest in every idea some tech company thinks might make them some money--perpetual motion machines, pyramid power, astral projection? I mean, given their success rate compared to adult stem cells, we have as much reason to put tax dollars into embryonic stem cells as we do perpetual motion.
Here's an idea: You want to fund embryonic stem cell research, try this. But keep your hands off my wallet.
In my family, the most religious members (Catholics mostly) tend to be Democratic, while those of us who are non-religious or lukewarmly religious are farther to the right. That goes against conventional wisdom, but that's how it is in my family.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
No, Bush was hoodwinked into not defending his position against our war against Radical Islam. He failed to define the issue as a greater threat than Hitler, which it is.
He let the democrats and the media define the debate instead of using the bully pulpit to correctly state that defeating our current enemy will define civilization for the next 1000 years.
He's a country club Republican like his father, who when push comes to shove, backs down. Like his father, he tried to buddy up to his enemies who repeatedly stabbed him in the back.
If he took the moral high ground and outlined the threat by radical Islam and warned how grave an error it would be to back down now, and promised to ESCALATE the fight to rid the world of these lunatics he would have carried the day.
Do you think by defining the debate that way we would have lost WORSE, no way. There is no downplaying the threat of lunatics with nuclear weapons, he missed the boat, led the party very weakly in the last election cycle and did a lot of damage. We are now facing the prospect of President Hillary Clinton and a total defeat in the war on terror and the eventual multiple nuclear detonations in American cities.
That was a strong factor, the media went full force with the manifest destiny of religious voters abondoning the GOP, weakening their vote.
They tried to turn off moral voters with the Mark Foley scandal and refused to report that the democrats had this information well in advance and that if they really wanted to "protect children" they would have exposed him immediately, instead of using it during an election cycle and leading the news with it for 2 weeks.
The public is easily manipulated and most people still formulate their "opinions" by what the dominant thought process is of the day.
Consider it a declaration!
I put my finger on the reason for defeat and for more defeats in the future.
The reason is simple for most people to understand, but it does require a modicum of understanding regarding the intricacies of political movements and party politics.
Essentially, we have a large segment of the base that cares not about unity on election day, and puts their own perceived or more specifically misperceived priorities ahead of the more important structural issues within any political party.
Like bulls in the proverbial china shop, they sacrificed foreign and domestic policy in favor of social litmus tests. They are doing it now, again, with pre-election cycle potential candidates on the right. They have now gone beyond any precedents, and launched a petition drive to get moderate candidates to call off their intentions to vie for the nomination. They are driving the wedge deeper and deeper, in spite of what happened in November.
It took me some time to decide who was actually doing the damage to the party. At first, like others, I pointed the finger at the Libertarians who are quite vocal, but I discovered that in spite of their vociferous nature, they understood the big picture, and most of them came together and voted smartly. Some voted for their party candidates, but the numbers were not indicative of their potential voting strength.
It was the social conservatives that split their tickets or did not vote at all. They have done this many times before. They are not interested in the big picture. They care not, unless their candidate is also a social conservative.
The RNC was depending of these folks, even though they are historically undependable.
What's worse is that over time, and the last 6-8 years, they have demanded and receive a great deal of power within the base. They have caused the RNC to put up social conservatives in areas that will not vote for them, and they have forced moderates to campaign to the right socially to get base votes when it is killing them with the balance of their constituency. This is why the moderates lost in the east and central parts of the country, and the 100% conservatives also went down to defeat.
This is called base politics and it loses every time it is tried, and you sir, do not see it, will not see it, but you will pay the price for your ignorance and hubris, as will the entire nation.
People like myself have been warning about his for at least three or more years now. We saw it coming.
Internal fighting during the primaries is a normal aspect of base politics, but when it spills over into the General Elections, and it spills over into threatening mail and petitions to the House and Senate, all the way thorough to the general election, it results in chaos.
This time it resulted in the lame duck status of GWB, a full three years before his term was over. This has damaged our foreign policy and given our enemies hope. It has resulted in what you see today with Senators usurping Administration power and talking to Syria. They claim the voters sent them a message to do so.
Call it the "Butterfly effect" or what ever you like, but the RNC is now officially FUBAR!
So now you sign petitions to intimidate moderates and get them to withdraw and get the hell out of your way as you pursue the goals that you have elevated to the top, over the welfare of the entire country and some say the world.
By 2014, the country will be desperate to change things again, but this time there is going to some changes made as to who gets invited to pull the Republican party wagon.
See you, or won't see you in 2014.
This chapter is over, except for the reality check for some of you who are so blind.
I cannot imagine greater hubris than what you're exhibiting here.
You see, I didn't just say, or "declare" what I asserted, I PROVED it. What could be more arrogant than to say "Just because what I believe was disproved with empirical data doesn't mean it's not true! It's real, I tell ya!" You reject reality and substitute your own. Gee, no hubris there.
What's strange is that you have so many "facts" in that last post, but you don't back any of them up. Why don't you pony up some evidence? Or would that mess with your head too much?
This has damaged our foreign policy and given our enemies hope. It has resulted in what you see today with Senators usurping Administration power and talking to Syria. They claim the voters sent them a message to do so.
Wow, a Democrat acted like a traitor and undermined the President, that's never happened before! When Kerry and Harkin went to kiss Ortega's ring in the Eighties, was that also the fault of we horrible social conservatives?
Give me a break...or some evidence. Or maybe you can let me know what performers will be appearing on your stem cell telethon. Or you could just shut ye olde pie hole and save yourself further embarassment.
I'll preface my response with the following:
I am the Bush 2004 ELECTOR for my district.
I have a bachelor's degree in Radio/TV/Film.
I have a second bachelor's degree in Advertising/Public Relations.
I have an MBA in Marketing.
I have been involved in politics for about 46 years.
I am EXTREMELY active in Republican Platform/conservative issues.
I have served on the Platform Committee for my Senatoral District for several years and have had input on the state level Platform.
I have served as a State Delegate for many years.
I have spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars and hours calling and faxing state and federal office holders (and several key Whitehouse offices) about various issues.
I speak with people about politics virtually every day.
I am not afraid to discuss and stand up for Republican Platform positions.
I live in a State and County in which Republican Platform-Supporting CONSERVATIVE candidates are not afraid to stand up for that Republican Platform---and CONSISTENTLY WIN!!!
Now, with that background in mind, here's my comment:
You are half right and half wrong. The RNC was depending on the conservative base. And the conservative base was depending on the RNC---to SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM and REPUBLICAN PLATFORM-SUPPORTING candidates!!! (Gee, what a novel idea!!!)
When the RNC does support REPUBLICAN PLATFORM-SUPPORTING candidates, the conservative base is historically dependable, not undependable!
The RNC *ABANDONED* the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM and STABBED the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM-SUPPORTING primary candidates in the back, twisted the knife, then pulled it in and out a few times!!! And THEN, they expected the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM-SUPPORTING BASE to support and work for the LEFT-WING RINOs????? What is the RNC smoking??? (I held my nose, even though we shouldn't have to.)
The RNC supported EXTREMELY LEFT-WING CHAFFEE and stabbed CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN PLATFORM-SUPPORTING Laffey in the back, twisted the knife and pulled it in and out a few times.
The RNC did the same thing to Minuteman Randy Graf in Arizona. They spent $250K ---in the PRIMARY---running attack ads on him to defeat him. Then, when he won in spite of their attacks on him, the RNC WITHDREW $1 MILLION in General Election advertising dollars for the nominee.
Had the RNC KEPT their noses OUT of the PRIMARY, let the *VOTERS* DECIDE who THEY wanted (what a novel idea again) and saved the money to support him in the General, Graf most likely would have won!
I'll end with two messages to the RNC:
(1)...KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES!!!!!!! The exception should be that the RNC should promote REPUBLICAN PLATFORM PRINCIPLES during the primaries, and run down RAT Platform Principles!
(2) (To partly borrow from the movie TOP GUN)
CONSERVATISM WINS!!!!---NEVER LEAVE YOUR WINGMAN!!!
CONSERVATISM WINS!!!!---NEVER LEAVE YOUR WINGMAN!!!
CONSERVATISM WINS!!!!---NEVER LEAVE YOUR BASE!!!
What you are basically saying is that the party was not conservative enough....
I can throw that "half right: comment back at you....:-)
If you look closely at all the finger pointing, and commentary such as Mr "silver" and others, including my arrogant self, you will see a rather confused picture.
There is no doubt that each segment of the RNC political base has a different perception. The reason is that the RNC was forced to chase it's own base, rather than concentrate on the enemy during the election cycle. Some base massaging is always necessary, but this time it was over the top. The most damaging base chasing was done to pacify the constantly pissed off social conservatives, and this in turn pissed off the libertines and secular moderates.
Let me try to summarize what I see going on.........
The Conservative vote comprises about 30% of the electorate. This segment is comprised of two camps, The social right, and the fiscal right, that in the past have worked together when it came time to vote, yet they do clash at times during the primary window of opportunity and that is fine! But this cycle the social conservative camp adopted a "all or nothing view" and continued to battle the rest of the party over numerous social issues.
This cannot happen with the expectation of winning the majority the center, which is absolutely required to win national elections. We start out in the hole to begin with, because the Dem's have more registered voters than we do. We have to appeal to that mushy middle, and we do this after the primaries.
But this year, the battles within the party continued to rage, all the way through to the general and now beyond.
I saw this coming, as did many in my section of the base. We are quite willing to negotiate with the social conservatives during the primary window of 6-10 months, provided there is something that can be negotiated, but this time the social conservatives refused, and they demanded more! Called us false conservatives and much worse.
The fiscal issues all fell by the wayside and battle after battle was fought within the base over one social issue after another. Worse than that, the president, who was attempting to guide the process was bowled over and lost all momentum. It was like getting in between two warring spouses and getting slapped repeatedly by both parties for the failed effort.
In view of the fact that the 30% conservative collective, and it's 10% moderate followers only amount to about40% of the electorate, no national election can be won without the swing voters and the Dem's have about a 7% edge, so the pick-ins are damn slim. We were prevented from getting those votes, and the trend is not in our favor because of the war and the fact that we had a raft of scandals. 2008 will not not be any different, and now we have democrats to beat who have the offices and the incumbency. The present configuration of the RNC base makes winning another national election improbable, and I personally believe impossible.
We did not have this much divisive infighting in the past, because political negotiations occurred within the party, and we then pulled together to fight the Dem's. Somewhere along the line, novice social conservatives began to ignore politics, in favor of power, and totally screwed the party pooch.
This why we are FUBAR and unlikely to hold on to what we have now. Politics is the art of compromise, and when there is no compromise possible, there is no politics. Without politics, you cannot win and will not win. Especially in the current voter climate where we are nearly equally divided, and the Dem's have the edge, as they have for over 40 years.
Now back to my arrogant self, when I say that the last election that I will ever vote another straight ticket was this past November. It was the last straw and the camel's back has broken. I don't make this decision lightly, but I am convinced that it is in the best long term interest of the party.
Organizations like political party's are required to maintain order or a sense of balanced support within. The balance has been lost, and the only way to get it back is to tear down the support foundation to it's basic building blocks and put it back together. The Democrats had to do this after 1994, and now it is our turn. But we have to do it better.
We have a unique opportunity to do this now, and have it done by 2014 when we can make a concerted run at congress, and the presidency in 2016. To do this the base has to be completely re-jiggered, and balance restored between the social right and the fiscal right. This balance began to tip when we lost the Bucannonites. Then the libertarians began to exit. The social right began it's attempt to purge the moderates, and we all saw the results.
We can fix this, or we can accept defeat.
It's really that simple IMO.
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.