Posted on 07/06/2008 5:29:48 PM PDT by Delacon
If you knew that a recent Zogby International survey found 59 percent of the respondents described themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," and if you were a head of a political party wanting to put together a winning platform, what would you do?
The question is not all that tough, but both Republican and Democrat leaders have yet to get it right. The Republicans, after losing three straight, off-year special congressional elections, are in a panic about what to do to renew their "brand." The Democrats naively think they are in great shape, even though they only have an 11 percent congressional approval rating.
"Most Americans believe the tax burden is too heavy and that the government does not spend their tax dollars wisely and carefully."
The Republicans destroyed their "brand" after they gained control of Congress in 1995 by moving from limiting government spending to becoming big spenders from 2000 on. The Bush administration further damaged the "brand" by incompetently managing the aftermath of the initial war in Iraq, promoting new entitlements (the prescription drug benefit) and such bad ideas as setting up an office in the White House to promote religion (which unnecessarily antagonized those traditional religious conservatives who firmly believe in separation of church and state as well as the Republican Party's libertarian wing).
At the same time, Democrats cannot seem to get it through their heads that most Americans do not want higher taxes and more nitpicking government regulations on how to run their lives. They are confusing voter disgust with Republican mismanagement as support for their left-wing agenda.
The Republicans only need to read two new books to know what to do. The first is by the exceptionally creative political thinker and activist, Grover Norquist, titled "Leave Us Alone." The second book, by libertarian scholar and activist David Boaz, is titled "The Politics of Freedom." The authors present opposite sides of the same political coin. They are both limited-government optimists, and both spend the bulk of their time using different strategies to promote their agendas.
The Boaz book is a collection of provocative policy-oriented commentaries and essays. The Norquist book is a political roadmap for achieving what most Americans say is their political ideal.
Most Americans want a government that provides for protection of person and property from both domestic and foreign enemies, and the necessary infrastructure for a civil society.
Most Americans believe the tax burden is too heavy and that the government does not spend their tax dollars wisely and carefully. They correctly believe government engages in excessive regulation, which destroys both their liberties and economic freedoms.
Grover Norquist has built a major political coalition outside of, but informally allied with, the Republicans, which he labels as the "Leave Us Alone Coalition." He understands that different voters have different priorities and that a governing majority coalition can be assembled by putting together different groups with the understanding they would not oppose each other's agenda, provided it would not take away someone else's property or freedom. Thus, each week he brings together leaders of anti-tax, gun-owner, homeschoolers, parents' rights, small-business and many other organizations to discuss their issues and seek common support for the broad "Leave Us Alone" ideal.
Mr. Norquist argues the Democrats have put together a less cohesive and more divisive "Takings Coalition," based on the promise to take from one group and give it to another group. The "Takings Coalition" includes government workers (other than law enforcement and the military), labor unions, trial lawyers, university professors and collective utopians.
For many years, Mr. Norquist, through his Americans for Tax Reform organization, has been asking political candidates to sign a "no tax increase pledge." Candidates who have signed and abided by the pledge tended to do well. Those candidates who make such pledges and then renege (such as the first President Bush) tend to do poorly.
In the coming weeks, elected Republican officials will be meeting to decide their agenda. Fortunately for them, Mr. Norquist and Mr. Boaz (even though the latter is not a Republican) have already done the mental heavy lifting, and the Republicans merely need to adopt the good sense from their books and others.
Here are a few no-brainers for the Republicans:
Every one of the above mentioned ideas has, or would have, more than majority popular support if properly explained.
As President Reagan demonstrated, Republicans win when they have a clear, sensible, and popular limited government agenda, and they lose when they become part of the Takings and liberty-reducing gang.
As usual, Zogby is full of ish.
Sounds like a winning combination to me.
Maybe Zogby likes Norquist because he married a so-called Palestinian, and Zogby might also appreciate Norquist's softness on Islamic terrorism (must keep the missus happy).
Republicans are not fiscally conservative. When Bush took office the National debt was 6 trillion and now it is 10 trillion. It only took the Republicans 6-7 years to almost double the national debt.
That listed is not a libertarian agenda. It is a small government conservative agenda. Its a fiscal conservative agenda. Its an agenda that all conservatives and many of those in the middle can get behind.
I hate shoot the messenger posts. They are idiotic when the left does them and they are idiot when the right does them.
When I got finished ROFLOL, I would figure these nitwits would fall for anything as long as it was shoveled properly, a la Obama, since they even lie to themselves as well as the pollsters. There is no such varmint as a social liberal who is fiscally conservative. All these respondents are saying is they want big gov't socialist programs and they want somebody else to pay for them.
“There is no such varmint as a social liberal who is fiscally conservative.”
You are so wrong. This varmit is called your average american. Its the guy who doesn’t give a damn what anyone else does so long as it doesn’t negatively effect him, his neighbor or his next of kin. Its the guy who doesn’t want to pay for anyone to do what they want to do and doesn’t expect anyone to pay for what he wants to do.
59% are fiscally conservative? Yet I wonder how many of those 59% also support all kinds of big government programs. Or how many are among the ones who believe government doesn’t spend enough on schools, health care, the elderly, etc etc.
You are so wrong. This varmit is called your average american. Its the guy who doesn’t give a damn what anyone else does so long as it doesn’t negatively effect him, his neighbor or his next of kin. Its the guy who doesn’t want to pay for anyone to do what they want to do and doesn’t expect anyone to pay for what he wants to do.
________________________________________________________
If what you are saying is true (or ever was true), then the Libertarian Party would control the House, Senate, and Oval Office. As it stands, the “average American” you described is either an incompetent voter, a non-participant in politics, or non-existent. Whatever the case may be, Republicans and Democrats can largely ignore your so-called “average American”.
You've described someone who is "fiscally conservative." These respondents WANT gigantic gov't providing social programs for everyone, but by saying they are "fiscally conservative," they are saying they, like you, don't want to foot the bill for the nanny state. They would like someone else ("the rich") to pick up the tab.
You may be confusing "socially liberal" with libertine.
“If what you are saying is true (or ever was true), then the Libertarian Party would control the House, Senate, and Oval Office. As it stands, the “average American” you described is either an incompetent voter, a non-participant in politics, or non-existent. Whatever the case may be, Republicans and Democrats can largely ignore your so-called “average American”.”
Nonsense. While libertarians may also support the tenets contained in this article, it does make it their own. A doe is a deer, but a deer isn’t necessarily a doe. These are commonsense conservative positions that most average americans would support. And I still assert that your average american is a “leave me alone” american or more accurately can be appealed to as such. This doesn’t make them libertarian. Just people who want to be free to do as they want, and not taxed to do as others want.
That's probably true. The average American wants all the big gov't giveaways that someone else's $ can buy for him.
Remember back in the '90's when everybody talked about balancing the budget? The politicians had those games that they played with their constituents at meetings where they had a big pie chart with all the percentages each gov't program took of the total revenue and the constituents were asked to decide what should be cut, by how much, in order to bring the budget into balance? Nobody could ever manage to do that because the bulk of the $ was SS, Medicare, programs that citizens want more of.
“Nonsense. While libertarians may also support the tenets contained in this article, it does make it their own. A doe is a deer, but a deer isn’t necessarily a doe. These are commonsense conservative positions that most average americans would support. And I still assert that your average american is a “leave me alone” american or more accurately can be appealed to as such. This doesn’t make them libertarian. Just people who want to be free to do as they want, and not taxed to do as others want.”
If the MSM were libertarian/fiscal conservatives, 85% of the country would be with them.
The U.S.A was pretty libertarian, up till about 1912 or so. The total national tax rate was about 3% of GDP, and most people were left alone most of the time.
Then we gave women the vote, changed the election of Senators to the popular vote, and reversed most of Supreme Court precedent under Roosevelt administration judges in the 1930’s and 40’s.
Do I think 59% of voters could go for a smaller, less intrusive government. Yes, if you could ever get an effective message out past the MSM!
No fault divorce and no strings attached sex sounds great and are classic liberal positions. Too bad many of our cultural problems and lots of government dollars are allocated to fixing these issues like poverty, crime, congestion, etc.
This is the winning issue, IMHO. Fix the family, make it sound, and reduce the size of government because less government will be needed.
schu
I truly understand that we cons feel embattled right now and makes many of us want to “shoot the messenger” but go back and look at the 7 actions proposed at the bottom of the article. Tell me which of any of them that you would deem anti-conservative. Tell me which would not appeal to a majority of the people. Yes, your “average” american wants to have his cake(prosperity) and eat it too(someone else pay for it). It is the job of conservatives to make the point that if you want the cake, big government aint the solution.
Who cares what you hate? I don't!
And how socially liberal are we really? My very liberal state voted rather overwhelmingly against gay marriage a couple years back. Is that the left's position?
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.