Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scapegoating the Social Right
National Review ^ | December 4, 2008 | RAMESH PONNURU

Posted on 12/04/2008 5:14:43 PM PST by yongin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 12/04/2008 5:14:43 PM PST by yongin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yongin

The wipe out was caused by the ECONOMY...stupid...


2 posted on 12/04/2008 5:17:49 PM PST by jessduntno (Barack - Kenyan for "High Wind, Big Thunder, No Rain")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin

The author could have added a clincher arguement using Prop 8 in CA showing how conservative social issues still win, even after the Repubs have moved left.


3 posted on 12/04/2008 5:20:06 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin
But they [single people] also tend to favor (and depend on) government programs more than married people

Why? I didn't depend on government for crap. All I remember when I came of age and jumped straight from poor black kid into the middle-class, what how stupid it was that the government took one-third of my paycheck.

4 posted on 12/04/2008 5:30:28 PM PST by Clock King (Radical Conservatives, arise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

BTW, Ponnuru mentions the Prop 8 vote in the 8th paragraph of this.

For one, I’m really tired (as many are) of Frum, Parker, and Whitman attacks on social conservative voters. They live in NYC, DC(area), and NJ respectively. They seem to have never worked in the trenches on a campaign nor do they understand the passionate people who tirelessly volunteer on behalf of GOP candidates or causes. Being a writer or a candidate from their circuits of influence is not enough to determine who gets to stay in the GOP. And I appreciate Ponnuru factually driving the point that their assumptions are false and void of facts.


5 posted on 12/04/2008 5:36:17 PM PST by AmericanGirlRising (The cow is in the ditch. We know how it got there. Now help me get it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yongin
"There is no question that social conservatism repels some voters.."

Wrong.

Social conservatism is part and parcel of the Republican base.
What repels some voters, including conservatives, is the evangelical drum beat that accompanies it.

HINT: Non-evangelicals do not want to see religious freedoms infringed upon, they do not support abortion, and they will act to support the Ten Commandments. Non-evangelicals, however, just might not like having someone's bible interpretation shoved up their face any more than they like having someones "sexual orientation" shoved up their face.

Conservatism must retain, well, the conservative part, it cannot become identified solely by the religiosity of only one of it's constituents.

6 posted on 12/04/2008 5:37:21 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton

I agree. As a fairly intense bible believer, I believe that when I am talking to you about your SOUL, I should be emphatic that the narrow way is NARROW.

When I am talking to you about your VOTE, then I want to be as broad as possible.

It is weird to me that such common sense seems like the language of betrayal to other Christians some time. Maybe it is because we have been sold out so many times, but I don’t see why that is such a shocker to them. Sometimes I wonder if Christians bother to read the bible anymore to get their philosophy of human nature. It does sort of tell us what to expect.


7 posted on 12/04/2008 5:44:52 PM PST by slnk_rules (http://mises.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yongin

I thought that after the 2004 election moral and religious values were a deciding factor and all of the ‘Rats subsequently tried to get on the ‘social conservative’ bandwagon.What happened to that deal?


8 posted on 12/04/2008 5:46:26 PM PST by Carl LaFong (I'm Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yongin
Conservatism is defined by a set of moral absolutes. Junk them and you're no longer a conservative.

"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 Palelologus

9 posted on 12/04/2008 5:48:11 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton

100% agree. Good post.


10 posted on 12/04/2008 5:50:01 PM PST by AmericanGirlRising (The cow is in the ditch. We know how it got there. Now help me get it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yongin
As a social conservative who won't vote for any liberal, I am proud to take the blame when liberals lose - Especially If they bear a republican banner. I voted Keyes, and I wouldn't have voted for Romney or Giuliani either.
11 posted on 12/04/2008 5:51:05 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Exactly

Social conservatism had nothing to do with this

Unemployment and inflation rising every month this year to their highest levels in decades, the economy being in its worst recession in decades, the market slumping the worst since the Depression, 90% thinking we’re on the wrong track, Bush having the wost approval ratings in US history the entire year of the election, the GOP being the party of a war that even after the success of the Surge 65% of voters still opposed on election day, an increase in the black/hispanic vote to its highest level ever while the white vote simultaneously shrank to its lowest level ever, the historical diificulties of winning a 3rd term even under good circumstances(see Al Gore), and last but not least being outspent by an unprecedented 300 million dollars ALL had way more to do with what happened that opposition to abortion or gay marriage(which, btw, Obama also strongly opposed).

Flip those #s above to what they were in 2004, or even slightly worse and McCain wins, just like Bush did. When they’re as bad as they were, he really had no shot.

If they’re that bad for Obama and the dems in 2012 will all the pundits talk about a resurgence of social issue when the GOP wins?

They’re the same folks who said the dems had to abandon their social liberalism to win after 2004 and being pro choice hurt them. Guess what? They didn’t have to change anything. They just needed the economy to go in the tank and the war to get really unpopular.

Just like the GOP did after 1976 although substitute the Iran hostage crisis for the war.

I


12 posted on 12/04/2008 5:53:06 PM PST by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norton

Well said.

Huckabee was the perfect example of that. A liberal by any definition... but supported by evangelicals because he talked bible to the Republican electorate.


13 posted on 12/04/2008 5:55:29 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yongin

People (The Cocktail Republicans mainly) talk like social conservatives are whackos and on the fringe. Let’s think about arguably the two biggest issues..
(1) Against the killing of innocent babies- Oh yeah that’s just totally irrational. /s
They cut the limbs of babies in the womb or suck their brains out. Yet we’re the crazy ones for objecting to it.
(2)Against having to recognize the marriage of Adam and Steve- well, seems the majority of the citizens of CALIFORNIA are against that.

I think abortion should have been talken about MORE during the election, especially considering Obama’s support of infanticide. Abortion was probably mentioned about twice in the entire campaign by the pres. candidates. The media didn’t touch it.


14 posted on 12/04/2008 5:57:35 PM PST by SMCC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25

The GOP ticket had a bad card hand and the party played it poorly. Still considering the deck was stacked against us, McCain (or shall I say Palin) received 59 million votes. That more than what Reagan received. So we’re not dead yet. We do have to realize we aren’t in Kansas anymore. We have utilize new technology fot GOTV efforts, and better relate to surburban independents.


15 posted on 12/04/2008 6:00:05 PM PST by yongin (Converting people to Mormonism makes the world more conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
All I remember when I came of age and jumped straight from poor black kid into the middle-class, what how stupid it was that the government took one-third of my paycheck.

Hey, whaddaya doing keeping 2/3 of the government's money???

/ONLY kidding!

16 posted on 12/04/2008 6:12:32 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carl LaFong

It was overtaken by Feminists.


17 posted on 12/04/2008 6:16:07 PM PST by donna (Sarah Palin: A Feminist, not a Conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
I'd just gotten out of the Army and was on my own far from family in DC. There I was, a GS-9 (entry level white collar employee), and I found out the Speaker of the House paid less taxes than I did.

I could barely pay the rent and eat, to say nothing of buy a new suit, and Sam Rayburn had ranches, cattle, chauffered limousine, a government salary 5 times my own, and he paid less taxes than me.

What a ripoff.

18 posted on 12/04/2008 6:19:08 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norton
Conservatism must retain, well, the conservative part, it cannot become identified solely by the religiosity of only one of it's constituents.

But see, the problem is that the social conservatism (anti-abortion, pro-religious freedom, Ten Commandments, etc.) IS what non-evangelicals think constituted the "shoving our faces in religion". I'm sorry, but evangelicals aren't running around the country at Party meetings and regional conventions sticking a Bible in everybody's faces and demanding they convert. I realise that this is a meme that exists among the non-religious, but it's a false meme - it simply isn't the case. When non-religious types complain about "forcing religion", the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-religious liberty agenda is what they have in mind - it's sort of a code word, if you will. You can't have social conservatism without having non-religious types whining about "people shoving religion down their throats". So, the choice is either hold onto social conservatism, even though it ticks off the non-religious libertarian types, or else give social conservatism the ol' heave-ho, and condemn the GOP to permanent minority status as some sort of Libertarian Party with a few more votes.

19 posted on 12/04/2008 6:43:11 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I might add that non-religious liberals who complain about the Religious Right have no problem with Catholic Priests promoting Amnesty for illegals or black pastors urging sending increases for public schools. “Forcing religion” is okay as long as you agree with the agenda.


20 posted on 12/04/2008 6:48:34 PM PST by yongin (Converting people to Mormonism makes the world more conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson