Excellent points.
Thisa is exactly right. We should be talking smaller government, low taxes, and balanced budgets. The next time any Republican should mention abortion or gay rights should be December 2012, when we're discussing potential Supreme Court picks by the new Republican president.
GO SARAH!!
bookmark
I fundamentally agree with this.
Ronald Reagan's best trait was the fact that he honored the ordinary people of this nation.
Reagan didn’t talk about social issues. That’s odd. I remember him doing just that.
Hunter/DeMint 2012. Real Reaganites.
>>>Republicans can win big in 2010 and 2012 by talking less about social issues and more about economic liberty and federalism.....<<<
No, Republicans can win big in 2010 and 2012 by talking MORE about social issues AND more about economic liberty and federalsim, not to mention more about national security through strength, rather than bowing.
Without social conservatism, the GOP is effectively a 3rd party, with ZERO shot at the White House.
“economic liberty and federalism”
The key.
eco-cons sound like environmentalists. The should call them e-cons.
State Rights don’t exist at this time to the extent necessary to really practice federalism. For starters we’ve got to get some strict limits established on the application of the commerce clause. Until this federal encroahment is rolled back it’s going to be impossible to address many of these issues on the state level. The states have been hamstrung in the ability to run their affairs and some have gone as far as talk of secession in order to be freed from this entanglement. This very issue has come up recently wrt RKBA, gay marriage, and health care just to name a few.
THere’s no doubt in my mind that if states could decide on these issues we would overall have a much more conservative political climate in most of the country outside of a few liberal strongholds. When conservatives start to talk about state’s rights the elitists in DC and the northeast go nuts.
I’m all for states rights if we had any remaining.
I want CONSERVATIVES to win.
If that means a gun loving, abortion hating Democrat, well, so be it.
We run into big trouble when we conflate CONSERVATIVES with Republicans. (See, e.g., McCain-Feingold, GW Bush's No Child Left Behind abomination, perpetual war for abstract concepts, etc.).
The two ain't necessarily the same.
“We need an election that’s based on strengthening the private sector, creating jobs and opportunities there, creating wealth, empowering the individual, protecting the family, protecting future generations. Liberty versus tyranny is the message. It needs to be oriented around liberty and freedom: Restoring America to its greatness, protecting it, saving it. Believe me, that would resonate.” - Rush Limbaugh, Dec. 15, ‘09
Context is everything. Reagan wouldn't have done well in 2008. It was a Democrat year, and there was a reaction against Bush. Obama wouldn't have done well in the Eighties either -- too much like Jimmy Carter.
I deny the alleged dichotomy between “social conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives.” The same fundamental principles, the same understanding of the proper purpose and role of government, underlie both. If you are only one or the other, you are not really a conservative at all, just a would-be tyrant who happens to want to control different things than other tyrants do.
Anyway, I generally agree with the article, in that emphasizing federalism (and the limits of government) is a good approach on social issues and emphasizing personal freedom (property rights, etc.) is a good approach on economic ones.