"Since you are all about fairness, why not flip your question around? Is conservatism now only defined by fiscal, defense/law n' order issues, and we can safely chuck moral concerns when convenient?"
Certainly not. I'm speaking of pragmatism, and in this case, Conservatism is a political movement with several spearheads; social, economic, gov't mechanics, etc.
In terms of the current political climate, it is possible to advance conservatism quite easily on some fronts, and less easily on others. Conservatism can NEVER be implemented in one fell-swoop (despite what many think), in it's entirety, just as what the other side advocates cannot; if either party ever achieved their full agenda, this country would be in open revolt. Incrementalism is awlways the key to advancing any political agenda.
What I advocate is simply this: in those areas in which the movement can be advanced, then advance it. In areas in which the underlying social and political climate is less conducive, then you bide your time until the conditions are right for advance.
IMO, the current political soil will not accept the seed of a full-blown social conservative agenda. It may be trending that way, but the vital tipping point has not been reached, and so long as this is the case, social conservatives should adandon electoral politics in favor of a battleground where they can actually make headway: at the individual level in the communities at large, which is traditionally their natural element in any case. When they have done their job changing hearts and minds, only then will the political situation be more welcoming and accepting of the majority of their views, and only then are the changes they wish to see viable.
Until that time comes, resort to electoral politics to advance social change can only be minimally effective, and only then, only at the margins of American society. All of the great social movements (especially the ones social cons hate so much) ultimately had their roots in popular feeling which was then reflected in elected politics. In this regard, the social cons have it all backwards; they want an electoral victory in order to impose their will, regardless of whether or not there is any popular feeling in favor of it.
In the meantime, what is happening is that progress on some fronts is in danger of being stunted by obstinancy on others. The most notbale example of this is the extremely skewed nomination process, in which a minority within the GOP manages to punch above it's weight and unduly influence the available pool of candidates for general election
There's biding time and holding ground, and then there is advocating the opposing position. Rudy is advocating the opposing opinion on several hot button issues.
so long as this is the case, social conservatives should adandon electoral politics in favor of a battleground where they can actually make headway: at the individual level in the communities at large, which is traditionally their natural element in any case.
What a silly thing to advocate. Electoral politics sets the ground rules. To advocate abandoning using the franchise to influence the rules under which we live is to council subjugation to the players that remain in the game.
The ground is always under contention, and that which is not defended will be seized by the opposition. If the "values" conservatives are not fighting to define the rules our culture defines as moral, common and just, the ACLU's lawyers will be happy to do so for them, before judges appointed by electorally filled officials, using laws passed by them, administered by bureaucrats hired by them.
In the meantime, what is happening is that progress on some fronts is in danger of being stunted by obstinancy on others. The most notbale example of this is the extremely skewed nomination process, in which a minority within the GOP manages to punch above it's weight and unduly influence the available pool of candidates for general election
You're right. The moneyed "Rockefeller" pubbies do have far more influence than their numbers. But it balances out: the grassroots conservatives can't win without money and publicity; the anointed money candidates can't win without the masses in the base. Sounds like time for compromising in both directions, don't it?