Posted on 11/24/2012 4:19:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Win, lose or draw, we're always supposedly hitting a tipping point where social issues just no longer work for the Republican Party. At first glance, this would appear to be a rather puzzling sentiment. After all, in 2010, despite the fact that the GOP was just as socially conservative as we were this year, the Republican Party had its best year in half a century. Furthermore, in 2008 and 2012, the GOP lost despite running moderate candidates who were soft on social issues and who barely brought them up at all. If anything, you'd think that seeing two non-social conservatives like McCain and Romney go down in flames should start to make Republicans wonder if we're not pushing social issues enough instead of the reverse, but if people were thinking about it logically in the first place, everyone would realize that it is a terrible idea to dump social issues right off the bat.
1) How would we replace all the votes we lose? It's highly ironic that you hear people claim that social conservatives aren't fiscally conservative, right before they urge us to purge them from the party. After all, if that were true (More on that in a moment) and the GOP abandons social issues, wouldn't those tens of millions of voters migrate over to the Democrats since we'd no longer have anything to offer them? Then, whom would we replace them with? There's already a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party called the Libertarians and they usually collect about 1% of the vote. Telling tens of millions of Christian conservatives that they can drop dead as far you're concerned to try to appeal to a few million wishy-washy independents who change sides based on the last commercial they saw and a million Libertarians who still probably won't vote Republican unless we agree to legalize crack, support open borders and close all of our overseas military bases doesn't seem like such a good deal.
2) Social conservatism is part of the Republican Party’s core: Social conservatism is not some fringe issue that's on the margins of the GOP. To the contrary, as Ronald Reagan used to say, the Republican Party is like a three legged stool comprised of a strong defense, free market policies, and social conservatism. You rip one of those legs off -- as the GOP found out during the Bush years when it started to move towards big government -- and there's a heavy price to be paid. Furthermore, if you think abandoning social conservatism would just mean that Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Tony Perkins and Brent Bozell would be hacked off, you should think again. If you're talking about Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Walter Williams, Laura Ingraham or most of the other big name conservatives in the party, you're talking about people who are pro-life, favor God's definition of marriage and are generally friendly to social conservatism. People get into politics because they want to see their values reflected in the government and if you think are going to shrug their shoulders and do nothing while issues that are near and dear to their heart are tossed into the trash like an old sneaker, you have another think coming.
3) Social conservatism can be a winning issue: The words "can be" are in there because they're certainly not always winning issues. If a candidate comes off as looking down on people who disagree with him or blunders around like Godzilla through Tokyo on a sensitive issue like rape and abortion as Todd Akin did, it can be a killer. Of course, bad messaging can kill you on a lot of issues. That's how Mitt Romney got portrayed as an uncaring, rich jerk even though he's the kind of man who rakes leaves for the elderly and anonymously buys milk for hundreds of needy veterans.
Much has been made of the fact that gay marriage finally won for the first time at the ballot box in Maryland, Maine and Washington. Of course, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage have passed in 30 states including swing states like Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Virginia. Do we really want to turn off voters in those swing states to make ourselves more appealing in a handful of blue states? The GOP did get pummeled on abortion in the 2012 election cycle and most people are blaming it on Todd Akin, but Mitt Romney deserves a lot of the blame, too. Barack Obama made attacking him on social issues a core part of his strategy and Mitt responded with the same tactic George W. Bush used in his second term: letting his opponents hit him in the face as much as they wanted and hoping that their arms got tired. It didn't work for W, it didn't work for Mitt and it won't work if we try it again. If you're up against a man who loves partial birth abortion and voted three times in favor of killing babies born after attempted abortions and you get beaten into the ground on abortion, it isn’t the issue, it’s that you stink as a politician.
4) What about minority outreach? "Keep in mind that just over 78% of Americans are Christians and that number swells to roughly 85% of black and Hispanic voters." When you consider those numbers and the fact that black and Hispanic voters are still on board with Obama after the economic beating they've taken in his first term, it suggests that the GOP has a better opportunity to reach them on social issues than we do on economic issues. If Republican consultants claim we can't sell Christian values to demographic groups we need to improve with that are 85% Christian, then maybe they should get out of politics and go sell shoes.
When they dump social issues make sure they also include themselves in that dump
Basically, get your own side whooping it up, and lead the other side to be down in the mouth about it all.
Romney, and before him McCain, and Daddy Bush, Nixon once, Ford, Dewey, Willkie, and some others got the idea you could win over the other side ~
So they left their own peeps stranded on the beach.
Republicans win when they draw out their Socons, Fiscons, Right to Lifers, Traditionalists, TEAPartiers, Defense, and Neocons. They lose when they abandon all the issues those core consituencies wanted acted on.
The GOP establishment has been trying to dump social conservatism for some time now. Unfortunately, it won’t matter if the books balance if you live in a sewer- which social liberalism is reducing us to.
I read recently that there are several million evangelicals who are not even registered to vote. If this is true, no wonder we lost the election. A bit of outreach to them would not come amiss. The Democrats don’t hesitate to launch vigorous voter registration drives, but we tend not to because we assume that Republican voters are so responsible and energized that they’re all registered. Not true!
When Christians believe that taxes are charity, they have traded God for Satan.
Telling this to the GOPe is comparable to lecturing Bill Clinton on the tremendous benefits of marital fidelity. He may smile at you and shake his head in agreement, but why would you ever believe he would ever actually do anything about it?
http://www.aprealrepublicans.com/what-is-a-real-republican.html
When you consider those numbers [85% percentage of Christians among blacks and Hispanics] and the fact that black and Hispanic voters are still on board with Obama after the economic beating they've taken in his first term, it suggests that the GOP has a better opportunity to reach them on social issues than we do on economic issues.
This is very true. Unfortunately, GOP officialdom won't let candidates, even good ones, focus on these isssues with any group, but it could be very persuasive if they did. People at the bottom of the economic heap don't really understand economic policies and the effect they have on their lives, so they're very nervous about any suggestion of changes to those policies, bad as they are. But they all know about their personal and family lives and how they'd like to live them and the environment in which they'd like to live, so this could be an attractive message.
Of course, the GOP made NO effort to reach either blacks or Hispanics. Romney would not let Paul Ryan go to the urban areas (mostly black) and talk to them, even though Ryan had a plan for doing this. And it might have been convincing, if not enough to win this time, at least to get them thinking for next time.
As for Hispanic voters, I read one column by a Hispanic GOP member who said that the Obama workers trolled his neighborhood constantly, had events and appearances...and when he called the GOP to ask about the schedule for GOP activities, he found out there wasn't one. The GOP seems to have limited itself to sending out a round of campaign flyers from national headquarters and did nothing to get out and contact people. And people won't vote for you if they never see you or feel you don't even care enough to tell them about yourself.
Romney's whole strategy depended on writing off large portions of the electorate in the belief that this would convince some mythical white moderate group to vote for him, so he wrote off blacks, Hispanics and white conservatives.
The way for a conservative party to win...is to stop nominating liberals as their standard bearer.
Why do we allow the major networks to continue to pick our candidates???
Why????
McCains numbers skyrocketed after announcing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Why? Because she is a real fiscal AND social conservative.
Romney should’ve run away with this election but many stayed home because they really didn’t know what he was on any issue.
When we do that we end up buying into their special view that the world has two classes ~
(1) Themselves ~ and their money, and
(2) The broad masses ~ against whom they need to be protected ~ which leads directly to their belief that the broad masses should be kept happy with bribes by the government.
It's an anti-democratic sort of attitude, but there it is. You heard snippets of it oozing out of the Romney campaign, and from the lips of guys currently wealthy ~ O'Reilly for example, then there was Hannity, some wealthy book writers, investors, and, I'm sure in his private moments with his candidates, the guy with the casinos ~ not that he has such attitudes, but that's what you get from folks brought up by rich Democrats.
I don't advocate doing a French townsmen sort of thing when they'd face an English army at the gates in the Hundred Years war ~ (they'd round up the richest 20 men or so and send them out to the English to be punished), but we really do have to be clear in dealing with the rich that WE DO NOT GIVE UP OUR PRINCIPLES so don't even try it. The campaign will proceed with or without them, but it's gotta' be our campaign ~ not theirs. They want advantageous tax policies, they've gotta' go along to get along, or it's back to the Democrat scullies.
Blacks vote race over policy. They are programmed to for for Democrats to get handouts and that’s what they do. The effort in having black speakers or even black Republicsn candidates produced a 93% Obama voting bloc. What’s the point?
Hispanics are voting for amnesty. Amnesty gives Democrats another non-white 70%+ group of voters. First generation works but after that they are on welfare in same rates as blacks. Generically they are Indian (not Latin-o) and are prone to alcoholism in high rates.
Romney lost even with that because of women voters. Women swung the election his way and the stupid “war on women / legitimate rape” propaganda and gaffes that fed into the propaganda caused it.
Look at the size of the State and social spending since women were given the vote. 65%+ of single women voted for Obama. The “lady parts” etc worked wth them.
Demographics also show socialconservatives getting older and dying off.
As for Republicsns not targeting evangelicals, if Obama wasn’t motivation for them to get out and vote then nothing will be. Romney was blasted as “extreme.” A true social conservative would have had it worse and gotten less votes. i
I have been charged, not totally unfairly, of being anti-socon on this website. Let me clarify what exactly I believe.
I believe America would be a better place if social conservatives were in charge. I also believe that unless a basic version of the socon belief system replaces secular humanism as our dominant public philosophy, America will be destroyed.
BUT
Since we cannot change idiots voting as the system by which governments come to power here, I want socons to adopt the secular humanist approach to politics, which is to never lose an election by scaring the idiots who vote.
At this last skill, socons are seriously defective.
Abortion could be seriously restricted, RIGHT NOW, but the rape and abortion exception will never be ended by the voters we have now. On this issue, socons are like libertarians who would legalize heroin.
I argued here with the Todd Akin supporters, simply over the obvious fact that as of late August he had become unelectable (and I have yet to hear one say that this was correct). The two basic strains of pro-Akin argument - 1) The Democrats stand by their men and 2) it doesn’t matter if McCaskill gets six more years, it matters what happens at judgement both DECREASE the probability that we will ever come to power (until Jesus comes).
If socons feel called to be Jeremiah, that’s fine. We sure need prophets.
But they should then stop pretending that by participating in elections that they expect to make things better.
The GOP doesn't represent the working nor poverty class...The GOP represents, big business, big money and it's a toss up with small business...
They are at a loss as to know how to deal with people like me since they don't represent me...I know that...They know that...
The only bond I once had with the GOP is that they appeared (Reagan) to be pro America, pro American...I was blindsided...
I don't know why we see all the talk about how to improve the GOP...I don't believe we'll ever see another Republican President...
What's funny is that after all the bickering and insults and condescension, most of us could have voted 3rd Party and Romney would not have been any further or closer to winning the election...All second place means is that you are the first place loser...
McCains numbers skyrocketed after announcing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Why? Because she is a real fiscal AND social conservative.
Romney should’ve run away with this election but many stayed home because they really didn’t know what he was on any issue.
Everyone "knows" that the Republicans are angry, untrustworthy old white men who want to make you shower with your clothes on so that you never see or touch your own naked body, force you to work in retail for the rest of your life for $3 an hour so they can eat champagne and caviar three meals a day, and replace the music on your iPod with multiple copies of "Onward Christian Soldiers".
Everyone "knows" that because the Democrats and their propaganda ministers repeat it every minute of every day. We all know that's not true. In fact Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, although there is some overlap) want true liberty, not the kind that allows you to sit naked in a restaurant in front of families with small children.
I don't have that answer yet, but somehow we've got to do a better job of marketing the conservative message, and ultimately the Republican party, since we are joined together in a sometimes bad marriage. I do know that their marketing campaign has been constant for the last 40 years. Our marketing is of individual candidates at election time for 3 weeks. No wonder we're not getting our message through and building that brand in the voters' minds.
We need to look at perhaps how the oil or even tobacco companies have marketed their product. They do it in spite of waves of negativity and hate coming from liberals and the media, being immediately attacked and subjected to intense criticism and hateful rhetoric, yet they still succeed.
And admit it - you had a negative gut reaction when I mentioned the oil and tobacco companies, didn't you? That's what we've got to over come.
Again - preliminary thoughts.
4 reasons they already have
1. Willard Mitt Romney, Liberal
2. Willard Mitt Romney, Liberal
3. Willard Mitt Romney, Liberal
4. Willard Mitt Romney, Liberal
Actually, in my opinion, the GOP need not worry their empty heads with this. I foresee the “social issues” segment leaving the GOP in herd step. Although the Tea Party’s platform centers around fiscal issues perhaps it may expand its care abouts to include social issues as well. If not, we could see a fourth party emerge. Personally, I would prefer to see the TP expand its agenda and platform to include social issues as I think by splitting the electorate three ways the TP could come in 2nd behind the Dem’s but ahead of the GOP. This would force the GOP to make some hard decisions concerning who to caucas with, etc. at any rate I foresee the 2016 election as the beginning of a new era for the political scene. Anyway, stay tune things are going to get interesting ......
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.