To Attract Millennials, GOP Must Dial Back the Social Conservatism

National Journal ^ | December 9, 2013 | Charlie Cook

[cripplecreek]

Take the message to the voters and explain WHY these views are the right ones and put all the issues in perspective.

One thing I've been doing is pointing to the chamber of commerce attack on the tea party. It shows that the tea party really is for the little guy and we support a level playing field for everyone be it JP Morgan, or the little cafe on main street. We oppose crony capitalism.

[GeronL]

The Mandela editorial was the last straw for me, but this is apparently National Journal. This could be satire too, maybe.

lol

[GeronL]

Propaganda and brainwashing work

wait until they live in the real world for a while

[Cementjungle]

Conceed to Taxpayer Funded Abortions.

Conceed to Amnesty.

Conceed to Homosexual Marriage.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. Conceed to "taxing the rich" even more to support a socialist state. Conceed to continuing to grow the government which stomps on our constitutional rights, and conceed to the destruction of our once great nation.

[RginTN]

What silliness.

Dial back on Social Conservativism and you get more Big government. See the baker ordered to bake for gays.

[GeronL]

exactly how many moderate/liberal Presidential candidates have we tried?? far too many.

[HoosierWordsmith]

I think the path to success is to have a strongly balanced conservative candidate focus on the economic issues and play down the social agenda. So, when someone like George Clintonopholous asks a conservative POTUS candidate about abortion or birth control in a live debate, the candidate should simply state that they are pro-life and immediately pivot to why Obamacare or other disastrous Dim policies are hurting women or millennials. Don’t let the media define the debate....rather, conservatives need to drive the debate....Mitch Daniels said as much about having a “truce” (not the best choice of words) on the social issues with a focus on the growing debt and he got roasted in the process. But, me thinks he was right! Success will come with a conservative leader driving the discussion, not following the Dim narrative...viva La Cruz!

[JediJones]

It’s not our choice what to “emphasize.” As you can see in a Democrat fundraising e-mail, or their contraception nonsense last year, they will bring up whatever issue they want to emphasize and attach us to it. And the issue will come up in the debates. You have to be prepared to defend your beliefs on the stage, unless you abandon them completely. Nobody’s ever suggested running a campaign that talks more about social issues than the debt or taxes. The Tea Party talks about debt and taxes more than anything else.

[kobald]

True. Ultimately, social conservatives need to recognized that social goals must be achieved through social means (i.e. persuasion) rather than political means (i.e. coercion).

[C. Edmund Wright]

No, that’s what happens when you dial back on liberty……

[tentmaker]

willing to throw away limited government and economic conservatism

That is the problem. There is a difference between believing in morality and virtue and wanting the government to get involved in mandating what it is and how we must do it.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Nobody’s ever suggested running a campaign that talks more about social issues than the debt or taxes. The Tea Party talks about debt and taxes more than anything else

BULL!! There are Freepers every single day who insist we run campaigns emphasizing social issues….even if it means giving away the farm on liberty and property……and there are a number of so-called tea party groups who have become social conservative groups almost exclusively. But I do agree, you need to be able to defend social conservatism when challenged…..

[C. Edmund Wright]

There is a difference between believing in morality and virtue and wanting the government to get involved in mandating what it is and how we must do it.

So correct I thought it was worth re posting!!

[LuvFreeRepublic]

True. Ultimately, social conservatives need to recognized that social goals must be achieved through social means (i.e. persuasion) rather than political means (i.e. coercion).

Agree.

[mrsmel]

Once we concede the social conservatism, we have conceded the fiscal conservatism. Because then all the "inequalities" must be "addressed" (funded), government must be expanded (and funded) with new beuracracies, and new programs to hype "tolerance and acceptance" must be begun (and funded). Why is this connection so hard for people to see-or is this merely their backdoor way of destroying what little true conservatism is left? Real conservatism has always included social issues, or what are we conserving? How do we keep government small without conserving the principle that people must pay for their own "alternative" lifestyles, etc? How do we keep government small and taxes low when the products of fatherless homes will have to be supported through the productivity of those who don't have the choice to have large families (for which they would pay themselves if every other nickel they earn wasn't being confiscated to pay for the non-stop "baby mama" amd multiple "baby daddy" breeding?

[ilovesarah2012]

Remove any semblance of Christianity from the public square.

[Trailerpark Badass]

You can't have "economic" or "fiscal" conservatism without "social" conservatism.

Perhaps rather than indulge youthful ignorance in those unlucky enough to be raised since the divorce of education and virtue, we should try harder to explain how the character traits advanced by social conservatism make economic conservatism even possible.

[cripplecreek]

It’s to reach out to them on issues where there is common ground to form coalitions in order to win elections, then flip them from libertarian-leaners to Conservatives through logical and reasonable persuasion.

Rand Paul gave a great speech at the Detroit economic club earlier this week. Economically it was bare bones conservatism. Socially it was a mix of conservatism and libertarianism with things like doing away with things like federal sentencing guidelines. Returning power to the states and local governments etc.

I personally am not a fan of marijuana legalization but its not an end all issue for me. I just don't want to hear the whining about the resulting expansion of laws and taxes that are a natural result of legalization.

[mrsmel]

They’ve been dead to me since the Derbyshire fiasco. I saw one excerpt from and article here today at FR regarding the left’s “disinformation” campaign. Coming from NR, that’s “Rich” (as in Lowry).

[Night Hides Not]

Did I miss anything?

Ummm, you misspelled "concede" three times.

Sorry, couldn't resist.