Replies

“Shouldn’t social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?”

I think so. The greatest common denominator would be going back to the original intent. Real federalism, with regional and state differences, and a small, focused and limited national government.

That model died generations ago. Whether it can come back before the Beast on the Potomac implodes under its own weight is unknown.

Real federalism, with regional and state differences, and a small, focused and limited national government.

I think so too. Perhaps we call it "The Federalist Party" with all social issues out. Seems to me, with these things totally off the platform, would have a very wide appeal. In fact, it could bring the country together again.

Well, if the courts would stay out of it, and let the people decide, that would work fine with me.

If you don’t like it in State A, you could move to state NY, and vice versa.

The battle must be first against big Government.

I am a social conservative, but I see that Progressives above all promote their social and cultural agenda through the power and money of the Federal Gov’t.

When the Central Gov’t is all-powerful, change can be forced on society from above, from a small clique. Government becomes greater than society.

When power is diffuse, and States and local governments are the Government that contacts most people’s daily lives, then society is greater than Government, and society will organize itself easily within the Natural Law.

Shouldn’t social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?

I don't remember "social issues" even being discussed when I first became a "conservative Republican."

I liked it that way!

I understand your intent here and have considered this in the past. My belief is that the social debate will not be won by either side, conservative or liberal. The arguments by social conservatives have the same vigor as arguments by social liberals, because both sides believe they are correct they will not compromise. You are correct to recognize that this is the wedge that maintains the two party status quo and prevents change. As long as it is intact gridlock will continue as we approach insolvency. If one side attempts to drop social issues from their platform it will tip the balance, this is already happening.
Personally I have put more emphasis on fiscal issues lately because 1) This is not debatable as social issues are and is capable of drawing support across the political spectrum and 2) I believe that a large part of social liberalism is dependent on funding that cannot exist if the fiscal side wins.
In summary I have little faith that things will change, and virtually none that the gop-e can be brought to the right enough for this to happen. I think we should reconsider cloward-piven: Insolvency is a mathematical certainty, what happens next is the tricky part of the theory.