Well thank you…I appreciate that.
I will also now return the thread to regular schedule and hope some additional conservatives are lured in to give their thoughts.
So, you feel they should continue a business as usual approach following whatever comes in the national election and the next round of house and senate elections? Regardless of the outcome of those elections?
-XT
Demographics are moving away from them, as the country becomes less white. As long as the core of the party is anti-immigration, they are going to have a hard time picking up the Hispanic vote. I’m sure McCain’s flip flop on this has hurt him. I actually think Bush gets this, but most Republicans don’t.
People give the president a lot of credit for making things even slightly better. FDR get reelected with no problems despite the fact the Depression was still going on. I think the public knows who to blame.
No. I meant what I said, not this other thing that you wrote that bears no resemblance to my post.
That is kind of an odd position to take. Speaking as someone who lives on the left, I wanted the Republican party to nominate the person whom I believed was least likely to win the election. McCain was not that candidate. You nominated McCain as a great moderate because, well, most of his possible constituents are moderate. I didn’t vote for him in the primary.
Apologies then…didn’t mean to offend or to mis-represent your position. I was asking for you to amplify on your point. When I said ‘business as usual’ I didn’t mean to imply that McCain is doing so…I mean the Republicans standard planks. What do you feel should be the Republicans true ‘conservative ideals’ that they need to get back too? How do you feel they have deviated from this ideal with McCain (and presumably with Bush also)? What should the do to move back towards this…’ keep their own counsel’ is pretty vague. Who’s ‘counsel’ should they listen too? The Republican party is fairly diverse after all with various factions under one tent. Should they listen more to the economic conservative side? Social? The moderates? The new Green Republican faction?
-XT
I’m not a conservative (I think conservative/liberal are not much more than a badge/epithet anyway), but I am Republican, so I hope you don’t mind me contributing.
I think where the Republican party went wrong was it adopted the method of the Democratic party: an activist government. From social engineering (policies on gay marriage, abortion, war on drugs, regressive tax cuts), to financial short-sightedness (pork worse than the excesses of the Tip O’Neil Congress, catering to business rather than the market), to international relations (war-mongering like LBJ, nation-building instead of focused mission, unilateralism over multi-nationalism). It’s like we forgot how to be Republicans and instead became anti-Democrats; behaving just like the Democratic party at its worst, but in the opposite direction.
Despite all the focus on the President, the real power is in the US Congress. And the Republican record there is a short flash in the pan compared to the majorities the Democrats held for most of the 20th century. Catering to the religious right may have gained us a short-term advantage, but enacting their demands would be political suicide. So absent action, Republican politicians have had to satisfy them with increasingly strident rhetoric. That couldn’t, and won’t work in the long run.
To build an actual lasting majority, the Republicans need to appeal to an ideology that the majority of Americans are comfortable supporting. That doesn’t mean always winning, but it does mean apply pressure to the Democratic parties weak points. Catering to the religious right is a long-term loser. Here is what I would prefer seeing:
Financially responsible government. This means reducing the federal debt (the way government accounting is done, the yearly deficit number is fiscally worthless). There are two ways to do this: reduce spending and raise taxes. Do both. Pushing debt into the future works to some degree, but we’ve long passed that point.
Small government. The federal is government is best at dealing with national issues, like defense, international trade, the environment, personal freedoms/rights. Let the states deal with local problems, like schools, welfare, roads, drug abuse. The states are more responsive to local concerns, easier to for people to hold accountable, and more importantly, will find solutions acceptable to the locals. Trying to mandate national solutions to local problems is both wasteful and certain to be unpopular. If some states need help, give simple block grants.
Limited government. On a social level, let people live their own lives. Regulating private life is a trait of authoritarians. On a business level, stop catering to business and stomping unions. Enact enough regulations to keep the markets transparent and open. Prevent fraud, market barriers, and other forms of coercion. Don’t favor particular corporations, industries, or technologies. Let people easily organize into unions and let corporations fire employees easily.
I believe adhering to these governing principles, and not just talking to it, could pull of large chunks of the Democratic vote. Yes, we might lose some of the religious right, but I think many others would be drawn to it. That might be mine own biases, though.
Within reason, the R’s need to get back to the conservative fiscal policies that once defined them. Things were good in the 90’s as a result of sound fiscal policy and good old fashioned gridlock. Once the R’s owned congress and the executive branch, all thougths of conservatism flew out the window and they began to spend like drunken sailors on payday.
A new breed of Republicans from the state ranks need to rise up and take over the party. Candidates who are not beholden to the religious right (RR), and who have a proven track record of the old school conservative brand of economics, not what has passed for same over the last 8 years. It will be very hard to break from the RR as they are extremely well organized and deeply entrenched in the local politics in most states.
If they are able to do these things, I think that a lot of the middle of the US will come back to them as well.
Not only do I not mind, but I thank you for an excellent post. This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping to see. Of course, the fact that it says (better) what I was trying to get at earlier probably biases me to be more receptive…though actually I would welcome any conservatives thoughts on where their party is going or should be going.
Thanks again!
-XT
For what it’s worth I’m a Republican too and have been all my life. But I’m one of the forgotten moderates of the party. I don’t consider John McCain to be a moderate Republican - as far as I’m concerned he’s another Conservative who’s living off on the right edge. Barack Obama is closer to where I think the political center should be.
I think we’re heading for a big argument over the divide between two major factions of the Republican Party. The “less government” Republicans who don’t feel the government (any government - federal, state, or local) should be telling citizens how to live their lives if they’re not hurting other people. And the “family values” Republicans who think it’s the government’s job to enforce a set of moral standards on how people live their lives. The two concepts are in obvious conflict and it’s becoming difficult to paper over the differences. At some point, the Republican Party is going to have to pick one side or the other.
Some people have argued that the Republicans are only losing this year because of the economy and/or the war. Well, duh. But acting like these are something that came out of the blue is the kind of avoidance I spoke of in my previous post. The Wall Street collapse and the Iraq debacle didn’t just happen. They were both the result of policies which Conservatives gave support to - not single-handedly, but it’s dishonest for Conservatives to fail to acknowledge the large share of responsibility they own for these problems.
I agree completely with xtisme on his views about government spending. The two sides should be “less taxes and less government service” or “more taxes and more government service”. There are rational arguments to be made for either (along with details about what should be taxed and what services should be provided). But the idea of “less taxes but more government services anyway” while popular in the short term is financially irresponsible.
Perhaps he was viewed as moving to the right? Examples: Palin, support of the Bush tax cut when he formerly opposed it, dropping support of his own immigration bill. Even before the nastiness started, he turned his back on most of the things that made him appealing in 2000.
If you don’t mind, xt, I’d like to answer this question; I’m not a conservative, but I believe that the country is far better off when there are two strong national parties that can keep an eye on each other. Some politicians can be trusted not to do anything while nobody’s looking, but I don’t think we can rely on the great mass of them to do the same constantly, consistently.
First of all, you need to strike a balance between being conservative and being moderate. There’s no point in running for office if you’re trying to be just like the other guy: people will either vote for the guy who’s consistent or get turned off by the guy who’s kind of close to their beliefs, but not really close enough to hold their nose and vote for him. On the other hand, there’s also no point in running if you’re so extreme that most people honestly don’t agree with you.
Second, compromise is not a dirty word. Compromise doesn’t mean the other guy wins, it means that instead of a deadlock, or a bill passed narrowly that doesn’t reflect the views of the body as a whole (and as an (arguable) extension, the electorate), the end result is a piece of legislation that reflects some ideas from one side and some from the other, that reasonable people can think is good enough.
Third, hi Opal!
Please don’t take this as concern trolling. I’d rather have 250 liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats and 180 liberal, moderate, and conservative Republicans in the House than 300 liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats and 130 conservative Republicans.
And yes, I do think that there is such a thing as a liberal Republican who serves the party well: look at Snowe and Collins.
I am a fiscal conservative, but Republicans lost me with the social sillyness. You can probably tell where I stand on the issues, but I’ll put those aside.
There are two very serious and very obvious areas that the Republican Party must address or risk sliding into obscurity - age and minorities. The Republican party is old and white. The under 30 demographic identifies as Democratic by 20 points more than Republicans. Despite the common belief that people get more conservative as they get older, it’s not true. Most people stay with the same party they were with at age 20.
Republicans cannot win in the future if they alienate minorities as they are currently doing. The country is becoming less white every year. The overwhelmingly Catholic and largely conservative Hispanic population should be ripe for Republican picking but for a variety of reasons they are not getting any traction there.
You can argue the issues all you want, but it is demography that determines destiny.
I don’t think so. He’s an old leftover from 2000 who wasn’t very exciting back then, and isn’t now.
Doesn’t make him the worst, just not the best.
Smaller government, fiscal conservatism, strong anti-abortion, Personal responsibility and freedom that goes with it. Fewer entitlements, more freedoms. I think we need to get serious and be on the right side of this argument. Back in Goldwater’s day conservatives were at the forefront of civil rights and equality. We need to be there, now. A person may personally decide that being gay is wrong, and there should be no gay marriage, but the freedoms that allow that person to choose that viewpoint should also compel them to accept that others have the right to make their own choices and be treated equally. Gay marriage should be a conservative cause. They should be treated equally in the military. Gay rights were a cause to Goldwater. They should be a cause today to all conservatives. I don’t like the hypocrisy of espousing personal freedoms and responsibility… but only when you agree with them.
The left is just as bad on this issue.
McCain is more of moderate. Compromise is nice, I guess, but people aren’t motivated by compromise. Take a stand and be true to your conservative ideals. Bush is wrong on his big government spending (as is Mccain.) He’s wrong on civil rights. I love his foreign policy.
Traditional Goldwater conservatives. Big personal freedom advocates, big civil rights advocates. Big personal responsibility advocates. Smaller government. Cut back social programs and societal engineering, fiscal conservatism, ban abortions except for medical necessity after the first trimester (I think they are wrong altogether, but I can’t prove to my own satisfaction scientifically that there is a human mind before this point (and then some with a built in safety margin.)
I think if we have a candidate that stands on the principles, he will be inspirational and respected even to those who disagree with him.
I think the whole idea of trying to compromise is just wrong. You present a compromise candidate like MCCain, and he gets lauded by the left… until he gets the nomination.
I disagree with a lot of what Obama advocates. He still has my respect. I agree with a lot of what McCain stands for, but he doesn’t have my respect. He compromises, including his principles.
Scylla, these comments are mostly intended for you. The McCain of 2000 if running now would have a lot more appeal to voters the Pubs would do well to court, now and future.
But after Rove dipped him in shit then, and with a headline grabbing vocal idiot portion of the base still holding their nose, McCain has castrated himself trying to appease to a party that rejected him in the first place.
IMO, were it McCain vs. Hillary at this point, there would be no talk of wilderness but rather what champagne to order. He’s simply being outdone, apparently, by a more strategic contender, one McCain had no contingency plan for. Please notice “apparently”. Ain’t over yet.
**Scylla **(or any others that feel this way), how do you resolve the excellent ideas put forth in the last few sentences above with being the party of “strong anti-abortion” sentiment? I’m seeing a disconnect, but it’s probably because I’m more of a liberal. Could you explain this further?
This thread is fascinating, and I’m learning a ton. Thanks so much, everyone, for all of your thoughtful, well-reasoned posts. The Republican party would have a lot more to offer me if it were headed by all y’all.
Snickers:
I believe that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore murder. I don’t condone murder. I think that trumps woman’s rights to determine what happens in their own bodies.
That’s what I believe. What I can demonstrate and what I would legislate are somewhat different. I don’t think it’s murder to turn off life support on a brain dear individual. When we are talking about protecting a human being, what are really talking about is a human mind capable of human thought. This doesn’t generally develop until the fifth or sixth month of gestation at a minimum. At three months it is still so undeveloped that I think one is very safe in saying that it’s not a human mind.
While I believe there is a big difference in terminating a brain dead individual and a developing human mind I cannot quantity the distinction rationally and scientifically. It is simply a matter of personal belief and conviction.
As a conservative who believes in freedom I cannot then force my personal convictions on others. Therefore, I don’t think one should legally prevent a woman from getting an abortion in the first trimester. The woman’s personal beliefs and convictions supercede my own.
After that point I would argue that the developing human mind of the fetus has rights of it’s own that supercede the woman’s beliefs and convictions.
Excellent - thanks for the explanation! I appreciate it, and it makes sense to me.
Welcome to conservatism. Here’s your jackboots.