Posted on 11/10/2012 3:32:51 PM PST by neverdem
With the loss of the 2012 election, there is much talk of how the Republican Party must do some soul-searching. How will the GOP wage successful campaigns when demographic and cultural changes favor the opposition? Increasingly, the answer is that the party's party is over, that it must move into the future or be relegated to the past. "Dispense with the social issues!" we're counseled. "Don't trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters."
Yet this appeal is the result of critics expressing what makes them uncomfortable, as opposed to actually observing the facts on the ground. How do I know? It's simple: the minority voters everyone is so desperate to woo are more socially conservative than are whites.
--snip--
Of course, some assume that traditionalist social positions are the problem because the GOP's touting them hasn't won over minorities. After all, such matters involve deeply held principle, right?
But this gets at the problem: the people in question find fiscal liberalism -- otherwise known as getting free stuff -- even more compelling (a few different kinds of prejudice factor into their preferences as well).
So you want to keep the GOP relevant? Here's a proposition. Let's woo that sought-after Hispanic voting block by offering the whole loaf: social conservatism and quasi-socialist policies...
--snip--
This America would be browner and bluer, but also likely less accepting of homosexuality and abortion. It would be too poor to finance the big social programs you want; however, while Big Brother might have to recede, he could be replaced by Big Daddy: society may well be more patriarchal. And if there's a huge influx of Muslims? Ha!.
Oh, you feminists will wail and gnash your teeth -- insofar as you're still around. But few of you will remain, given...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
There is no fiscal conservatism without values. The two go hand in hand. Any fiscal conservative who tells you values do not matter is lying. I do not care what your persuasion: Christain, secular, Buddhist or anything in between. If you work hard, pay your bills, educate and love your children then you live by personal values. Those values are pretty much the same for most of. There is not a lot of room for variation.
Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.
If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.
The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…
Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that the only that 20% are the real pro-lifers.
Be careful reading too deep into what people self-describe as. Many claim themselves “conservative” or “liberal” yet may have wildly different ideas as to what these labels mean… some of this is due to the fact that conservative/liberal are such semantically mutilated and confused terms in the context of American politics.
If you go back through history not too far, and look at the philosophies underpinning the founding of the United States, it began as a liberal country—when at the time liberal meant an ethos of individual liberty, self-determination, and minimal government. Or what is now termed Libertarian.
The Progressives/Socialists misappropriated “liberal” for themselves at some point; and defenders of classical liberalism proper or libertarianism, became the “conservatives”, a word which usually implied “reactionary and traditionalist”… and it gets even more convoluted from there…
Oh, and as another example of why it’s good idea to be skeptical of what people self-describe as—I read a Gallup poll yesterday which says that 53% of Americans self-describe as pro-life, yet only 20% of Americans say they want abortion banned. And many here would say then that only this 20% are the real pro-lifers.
Perhaps, as a practical matter, someone should spend a year's worth of campaign funds pointing out to them that mega trillions of debt and a noncontributing populace will put an end to any means of paying for all those goodies within the decade.
Oh, and when that happens, it'll be my .308 versus your .223 and I don't think the feds are handing those out to US residents.
Not yet anyway.
OK. So what is going to be the name of your new third U.S. political party?
It’s over if we allow the Dem’s to rig the election, the lesson we should learn
LOL! And you’re showing our ages. Ugh.
You are right on with your choice of caliber.
“And why should they be? It was fiscal conservatism that lead to the 2010 election sweep, and the GOP failed to deliver on what they were primarily voted in for.”
How could they? We have the biggest spending in human history in the White House!
The latest is that Romney will beat McLame’s totals and equal Bush 43’s 2004 totals. Uncounted votes. Still 1/2 million in AZ alone.
You are either a RINO or a Libertarian. Romney was more progressive leftist than McCain was.
I do not want Democrats out of office -I want leftists out of office EVEN GOP leftists!
As this excerpt articulates well 2014 the Demorats Pyrrhic 2012 win will consume them.
“...But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.
Nationalized healthcare will only be fully implemented in 2014. Americans will only begin watching old men and women die because the federal government denied them lifesaving, but expensive treatments a year from now. They will only lose their doctors due to dwindling Medicare reimbursements in a year.
College students who got out the vote for Obama will only find themselves doomed to low-paying jobs and a life of indebtedness as they fail year in and year out to pay off their college loans, in a year or two. And by the time they realize what it means to be saddled with a national debt of $16 trillion, they will be locked into a government-controlled economy that requires them to keep their silence or lose their livelihoods...”
Full article: http://www.israpundit.com/archives/50569
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.
