As demographics keep changing and as this country gives up on religion, which IS happening, you're going to be pushed into more and more of a minority position where you get nothing.
The biggest problem with your argument is that the premise is wrong. The general reason the GOP ticket lost this time and the biggest albatross around their neck for decades has been the perception that they're "for the rich." The voters said they thought Obama related to the middle class more. There is no issue more precious to the GOP yet more unpopular with the public, as proven by the polls, than their refusal to raise income taxes on higher earners.
So why don't we forget about abortion and moderate our stance on the tax issue? Let's tell our candidates to dodge the tax question when it comes up. Let's tell them to say that the issue is settled and the rich are just going to have to pay higher taxes. Then maybe after 40 years of keeping quiet on the issue and refusing to argue the case, the public will magically wake up and change their minds. THEN we can finally lower taxes on the wealthy once the public comes around and it won't risk costing us any votes.
As for me, I support a flat tax. But don't you think we should consider the country's changing demographics and evolving opinions and for the sake of the survival of the party, agree to raise taxes on the wealthy? If you truly believe your argument on abortion, then you HAVE to agree with this, because the GOP's tax plank is far more unpopular with voters than their abortion position.
Please note I'm playing devil's advocate above. I don't agree with moderating our fiscal OR social policy. Although I do think the tax issue and general perception of being "for the rich" IS by far the party's biggest hurdle to getting votes.
Not to mention, if all we're going to do as a party is put our finger in the wind and push for whatever the polls say is most popular, why do we even need two or more parties? One party can handle that. Not to mention it's an extremely gutless, spineless and soulless attitude.
You are spot-on there. But while we are looking at rebooting a Party, we need to be examining all things up and down the chain.
Right now, we can't get enough votes to win a national election. Gerrymandering districts will only keep us the House for so long. The clock is ticking. We have until 2020 at the latest to have something rolling or as I see it, we're done for.
I'm happy to cave on the tax issue and moderate the effect on Small Business by reworking the tax code so that S Corps and other business entities are separate from personal income tax. That will take care of everything right there.
Never mind that there aren't enough rich people to soak. That's a fact, but nobody cares. We cave on that but correct the tax code so that Small Business isn't destroyed. Its "in the works" anyhow as part of the debt deal. We can slide that through and call it The Grand Compromise.
For Abortion, nowhere will I ever say to compromise your principles on it. I am going to suggest toning down the rhetoric a bit. There is a world of difference between the two.
The reasons for that are not as anyone might surmise; its to get the media off our backs. They have been using that as a bludgeon for years and I want this weapon of theirs disarmed. In short, I'm calling for getting smart about it. Polls show that (slowly, very slowly) the country is coming around to a pro-life stance.
More time is needed to get it to 60% or better. That time needs to be bought somehow. If the grand change to finally deal with Roe is to be done, the politicians have to already be in place when the tipping point is reached and it is a viable thing to do.
Its about being smart. It can't be done now. It can be done later. We need to ask ourselves a simple question - do we want it or not? If we do, then there is a road to get there. If we don't, we can keep doing what we have been which has had zero success so far.
Play it like chess, not checkers. Arrange the pieces on the board before starting your attack.
There are a ton of pro-choice groups out there beating us up left and right. They have a lot of money. If the rhetoric tones down, the money starts coming out of those groups and weakens them in the long-term.
Like I said, chess. Set your opponent up and lay a trap. If the rhetoric is out in the open, they can say, "See? Now we need another load of cash to fend this off." Without anything they can point to, how do they raise money? How can they run attack ads when there is nothing to attack? How can the media use this as a weapon when there are no silly soundbites to go viral?
All of these ideas will evolve, of course, as all of us scramble around and try to find a workable plan.
At the same time, we also need to identify targets that can be weakened.
Its going to take a while to work this out. It will not happen overnight, but we need to leave no stone unturned. Just going by the polls isn't going to be enough. We need to identify entities on the other side and target them to be weakened and reduced. A lot of that can be done with a simple change in rhetoric. No real principles ever need be sacrificed -- except perhaps adding another bracket for the ultra-wealthy. Fortunately, that has a blissful side-effect in that the Michael Moores and Susan Sarandons of the world get to pay. That idea makes me very happy. I'll cave on that if the S Corps can be set free.