Social Conservatives as Scapegoats

The American Spectator ^ | November 17, 2008 | G. Tracy Mehan III

[St. Louis Conservative]

To listen to some Republicans, not to mention, the braying of media outlets such as MSNBC, and even, here and there, a few economic libertarians, you would think that traditional conservatives, the defenders of the unborn and the integrity of marriage as a venerable and ancient institution, were responsible for two wars gone sour, over-spending at a level to embarrass Lyndon Johnson, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society, numerous cases of GOP corruption and betrayal of the public trust centering around earmarks and political favors and the miserable results in the presidential and congressional elections just passed.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, not this writer's first choice for the job of vice president, has now become the target for patronizing comments by the chattering classes who can't tell a moose hunt from an Easter egg hunt. For some of these enlightened minds, Governor Palin's loving acceptance of her new baby with special needs and her stand-up support for her teenage daughter seem to count for nothing at best or even a big negative. They view her selflessness as trailer park behavior rather than a loving parent's defense of life and love in her family.

"To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections," said Edmund Burke.

Listening to these outcries, one might believe that the global economic meltdown, the single biggest reason for Senator McCain's defeat, was the result of a worldwide conspiracy of the Right to Life movement, pro-marriage activists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Mass-attending Catholics, oh yes, and the NRA.

[DManA]

He did not campaign on those position. A president doesn’t have infinite power. The position requires compromise. But Reagan always compromised from a position of principle.

[brushcop]

We are on the same page on immigration as well as your other points. I believe that Sarah has shown great strength of character in spades and I don’t think that her silence was acquiesing to amnesty as much as she needs to really think it out then I’m sure she would come to “our” side on that issue, it’s the only logical conclusion a reasonable person can come to. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren’t and it’s looking like we may not be...

After I posted to you, I see we were on the same wave-length in thinking that Alaska is so far removed from the amnesty issue and some others and really blessed by being removed from the lower 48 as far as that goes!

I think folks conveniently forget about Pres. Reagan’s amnesty as well as the other liberal appeasements.

Answer? Right now, there ain’t none! It’s regroup, rethink, readjust, gain strength, get on track and continue to do right because it’s right and our Lord will demand an accounting regardless. Seems like there are many Chamberlain’s waving little worthless pieces of paper lately.

[sam_paine]

But Reagan always compromised from a position of principle.

ROFL! Ironic quote of the Month! =)

[Just mythoughts]

A ‘social liberal’ is not a conservative. This bunch despises ‘social conservatives’ and (I am not talking about the Huckabee conservatives) with the same passion as full blood liberals. When a person socially plays somebody has to pay. Just a fact of life. And ‘social liberals’ do NOT mind enlarging government to pick the pockets of all Americans to pay for their social playtime.

Social conservatives should be the most fiscally people upon the planet, yet even some of them demand more government.

All this bashing of Sarah for that claimed ‘right’ to choose exposes the corrupt and high minded minds that have so watered down and divided the Republican party that many got swept away from the flood of lies spewed out of the mouth of red lying liberals.

The need to remake ‘conservatives’ as now compassionate conservative was a signal as to how the majority of people in this nation view conservatives. Crazy thing about this is the majority of ‘conservatives’ I know are NOT the replica of what the left has successfully painted Republicans to be the Ken Lays of the world.

[Condor51]

Without 'Social Conservatives' McCain would have lost in a landslide of Mondale proportions. The fact of the matter is John Sidney McCain III was the WORST Republican presidential candidate since... sliced bread was invented. (as in, forever)

When McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination there was an article that IMO 'pegged it'. It said McCain's sole goal was to get the nomination, it was his revenge on the GOP for 2000. If he then went on to win the Presidency - fine. If not, that was fine too, he still had his job as senator.

And the way he ran his camapign backs that up. Completely inept from day one. No criticizing Barry on this, no criticizing on that. The idiot acted as if he was on the senate floor carrying out a debate with 'his friends across the aisle' on a Funding Bill for a new Post Office. Meanwhile Barry was promising that everyone would get a Free Pony.

[goldstategop]

The conservative movement has always been broad. The last thing on earth we should do is shrink it. And if we do that, we will have no one but ourselves to blame when we find ourselves being a permanent minority. A political coalition's vitality is only as good as the people who join it, despite disagreements on specific issues, know they stand together in common on core principles. On that all conservatives are in agreement. Its time to expand the movement and strengthen it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[sauropod]

Yes it is.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"To listen to some Republicans, not to mention, the braying of media outlets such as MSNBC, and even, here and there, a few economic libertarians, you would think that traditional conservatives, the defenders of the unborn and the integrity of marriage as a venerable and ancient institution, were responsible for two wars gone sour, over-spending at a level to embarrass Lyndon Johnson, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society, numerous cases of GOP corruption and betrayal of the public trust centering around earmarks and political favors and the miserable results in the presidential and congressional elections just passed. "

That's because of the caricature of Bush-Cheney and Palin. The media managed to tag Palin with this and it has been the liberal media's caricature of Palin (and Tina Fey's) rather than the real Palin which is guiding these discussions about social conservatives. Conservatives lost this year because they did not have a compelling and credible leader. Obama's connection with his followers was FAR more enthusiastic than McCain's. This shouldn't stay stuck on Palin or the media's Palin memes because she was never the leader of the conservative movement. A more constructive direction would be a debate between Steele and Gingrich on the direction the GOP should take. Obama and Biden are going to generate enough controversy and enough eocnomic mess to revive an interest in conservatism. But this has to move beyond defending Bush and Palin who were never leaders of the conservative movement.

[calex59]

Here are my thoughts on the war in Iraq. I think we should have went in there, but with a lot more troops, we should have devastated Iraq, destroyed their army and killed Sadam. When we caught that dirtbag we should have pulled out and left the country as it was. No rebuilding etc. The war would not have been unpopular because it would have been over with very few casualties, we would have taught the terrorists that if you mess with the states you get a boot up your a** and then we could have sent more troops into Afghanistan, cleaned house there and left(yes, we would have had a bunch of crap from the media about leaving the country in a mess, but they left ours in a mess didn’t they?). Dubya was a big coward in lots of ways. Sure, he is compassionate, he is a gentleman and overall a nice person, but he was not tough enough in the long run and he listened to the wrong people. Not fighting your opponents is not compassionate, it is cowardly.

[calex59]

Meanwhile Barry was promising that everyone would get a Free Pony.

Wow, I didn't catch the pony part, if I had known about the pony I might voted for him! Seriously, I agree with your assessment of the situation. McCain's only strong act was picking Palin for VP and then he hamstrung her after she came on board.

[ZULU]

I agree with you 1000% on every single point you made.
I have been saying the same thing for years here.

But I think Bush’s problem is he is a one-worlder and really believes the trype he spouts about Muslims and third world people think the same was western Europeans and Americans do about government and Democracy.

Clearly, history was not his strong point.

[af_vet_rr]

The conservative movement has always been broad. The last thing on earth we should do is shrink it.

There is one area we need to shrink it - the pro-amnesty types, like McCain, Bush, and Palin. I've heard people say Palin was just lying to Univision to help win votes for McCain and she doesn't really believe it. It doesn't matter whether she believes it or not, what matters is if she would publicly renounce her support for amnesty, and I don't see her doing that.

I would love to be proven wrong and see Palin publicly renounce amnesty, but until she does, she has to be held accountable for what she told Univision.

If we don't get all of the pro-amnesty types out of this party, we're finished.

McCain lost by 200 electoral votes. If amnesty gets pushed through, we'll be lucky if the GOP only loses by 250 or so.

[Luke21]

“When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them.”

A precise and truthful comment about our limp wristed party.

[Gondring]

Indeed, conservative, paleo-conservative and simple plain-vanilla conservatives have real differences [...]

Translation: "Indeed, Nanny-State Neocon, Conservative, and Center-Right have real differences [...]"

Trying to portray paleo-conservative as anything other than "conservative" is to distort conservatism.

[Gondring]

Wow...do you really believe that?!?!

If so, good. :-)

[Gondring]

The pro-life proponents have been willing to take incremental steps (ban late term abortions etc.)

The problem with trying to fit contemporary "Social Conservatives" into the conservative tent is that many are at odds with the principles of America and conservatism. It may sound odd, but I find them the least trustworthy of conservative allies (as flat-out Liberals, neocons don't count).

For decades after Roe v. Wade, how many of us gave countless hours of pushing for this issue to go to the states, where it belongs? Because, as we know, we can either fight it on that Constitutional objection or just trash the Constitution.

But along came Saint Terri, a woman everyone felt licensed to address by first name and describe as if she were their best friend since childhood... Admittedly, not much harm done in that...but what followed was devastating in the fight against abortion. These same Pro-Lifers who had been insisting for decades that these issues were STATES RIGHTS issues suddenly tried to get the FEDERAL government involved, invalidating the prime legal objection to the current abortion structure.

The Pro-Life movement was doing well, and maybe Randall Terry felt he had to sabotage it so he could still have a schtick, but it revealed the blatant hypocrisy of those who followed. These so-called "Social Conservatives" had no concern for individuals or the Constitution--they wanted control from any source, and looked upon individuals as a mass of "lives."

In other words, these "Social Conservatives" were rather anti-social (backstabbers) and anti-Conservative. (Of course, not all are...I am not saying that...but I am explaining why many feel that partnering with "Social Conservatives" is like handling snakes--you never know what might happen.

[Gondring]

Social Conservative issues are fine to champion, as long as they don’t contradict conservatism and American values, such as individual liberty, etc.

And it’s sad that social conservatives have tried to push politics before winning hearts and minds. If hearts and minds are won, then the political wins follow. Pushing politics just turns off people.

[PapaBear3625]

From where I stand, I'm a libertarian/conservative. What this means is that I'm in favor of reduced government, reduced regulation, reduced welfare state, reduced taxes. I really don't care much about abortion one way or the other, but I'm willing to back pro-life candidates because they generally agree with me on the issues that I care about.

What bothers me about some social conservatives is that I get the impression that, in a contest between a pro-life anti-gun socialist and a fiscal conservative who was less than militant about abolishing abortion, they would pick the socialist.

[wmfights]

I am unwilling to support policies that essentially say, "do this and THEN you can kill babies."

I don't want to do that either, but now that we've lost the opportunity to change the SCOTUS, and Congress won't send an amendment to the states, the best we can do is fight a holding action and appeal to the emotionalism of the mushy moderates. IOW, push safety issues as a means to making it harder to get an abortion and much more expensive for abortionists to be in business. Also, we should be pushing to protect hospitals and doctors from being forced to perform abortions.