# CPAC - The fall of Social Conservatism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164 "2011-02-12T21:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/41 "2011-02-14T15:53:19Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > **furt:** Fair enough. There’s no doubt that most of these candidates pay lip service to the hot button social issues like abortion and gay marriage. But there’s a difference between paying lip service and being a culture warrior. Which I acknowledged. But again, you’re moving the goalposts. The thread is titled “CPAC - The fall of Social Conservatism” and the OP asked whether this marks “a fundamental change in Republican politics.” Now you’re reducing it to “there’s a new bloc of fairly young Republicans who trend libertarian and socially moderate, and they’re not letting the social conservatives push them around.” While it may be a sign of change that people have stopped giving Rand Paul swirleys in the men’s room because he favors defense cuts, that does not amount to “a fundamental change in Republican politics.” Yes, social conservatives are in retreat. They have been for twenty years. But they are still a force to be reckoned with; there are still lots hard-core SoCons entrenched in office, in conservative media, and in the political grassroots. If you want to say the CPAC poll represents some marker of a long, slow evolution, _that_ is plausible. “The fall of Social Conservatism?” Not hardly. > [@](#): > > So far, both groups are working together because the fiscal situation is the common interest. Once that need for cooperation lessens, we might just see a big rift in the Republican party. Do you think that fiscal issues are going to be _less_ pressing three years from now? Ten? Twenty? I don’t. I think it’s exactly the fact that we’re on the path to fiscal meltdown that will lead to the slowly-increasing marginalization of social issues. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/42 "2011-02-14T16:17:45Z")
That’s a good point. And no, I don’t. I think fiscal pressures are going to get substantially worse. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/43 "2011-02-14T16:24:40Z")
The economy is starting to recover, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/44 "2011-02-14T16:36:10Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Yes, social conservatives are in retreat. They have been for twenty years. But they are still a force to be reckoned with; there are still lots hard-core SoCons entrenched in office, in conservative media, and in the political grassroots. If you want to say the CPAC poll represents some marker of a long, slow evolution, _that_ is plausible. “The fall of Social Conservatism?” Not hardly. It’s worth remembering that the causes which galvanized the social right - gay rights, abortion, religion in public life - are inexorably slipping away from them, which makes it easier and easier to keep people angry and donating. The causes which galvanize fiscal conservatives are cyclical. Nobody was complaining about the national debt when their homes were worth more than their mortgages. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/45 "2011-02-14T16:58:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s worth remembering that the causes which galvanized the social right - gay rights, abortion, religion in public life - are inexorably slipping away from them, which makes it easier and easier to keep people angry and donating. Winding up on the wrong side of history is the generic fate of social conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/46 "2011-02-14T17:25:24Z")
Well, not always. If we accept the general political continuum of fascism on the far right and comminism on the far left then the Cold War was a win for conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/47 "2011-02-14T17:30:38Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > fiscal conservatism does not equal fiscally conservative. Took me a while to catch on as I’m the latter and not the former. Can you explain the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/48 "2011-02-14T17:33:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, not always. If we accept the general political continuum of fascism on the far right and comminism on the far left then the Cold War was a win for conservatives. You’re mixing scales. Communism is on the economic spectrum, opposite of Capitalism, not Fascism. ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/49 "2011-02-14T17:34:13Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I see no value in libertarianism at all. I do regret the sexual revolution. Seconded. I would also add that if the socially conservative were to be snubbed by the Republican party and seek refuge with the Democrats, we might indeed have a new crop of “New Deal Democrats”. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/50 "2011-02-14T18:38:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The causes which galvanize fiscal conservatives are cyclical. Nobody was complaining about the national debt when their homes were worth more than their mortgages. Baloney. The national debt was an issue when I was a kid in the 1980s. It was one of Ross Perot’s main issues in 1992. It gets more traction in tough economic times, sure. And it’s gotten more traction in the last couple of years because the deficit has gotten bigger, and because some people, for political reasons, were reluctant to point out Bush’s spending. But it’s never been the case that “nobody was complaining.” ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/51 "2011-02-14T18:45:36Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Baloney. The national debt was an issue when I was a kid in the 1980s. It was one of Ross Perot’s main issues in 1992. > > It gets more traction in tough economic times, sure. And it’s gotten more traction in the last couple of years because the deficit has gotten bigger, and because some people, for political reasons, were reluctant to point out Bush’s spending. But it’s never been the case that “nobody was complaining.” I think he’s talking about ~2003 to ~2008, and I think he’s right. I remember all kinds of debt panic during the Clinton years. I even seem to recall an electronic billboard (or maybe it was mechanical back then) somewhere that showed the debt in realtime. I didn’t hear a peep about it during the W era. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/52 "2011-02-14T19:01:35Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Can you explain the difference? **Sam Stone** can do a better job but in a nutshell: fiscally conservative wants the government to live within it’s means (on a long term basis), don’t enact new spending unless it can be paid for somehow via tax increases/cutting other spending, etc. Eg, government does \*not \*need to be smaller but must be funded responsibly. Fiscal conservatism wants a smaller government, lower spending & taxes driven by the believe that the market is always more efficient. Eg, Government needs to be smaller ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/53 "2011-02-14T19:17:32Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > **Sam Stone** can do a better job but in a nutshell: > > fiscally conservative wants the government to live within it’s means (on a long term basis), don’t enact new spending unless it can be paid for somehow via tax increases/cutting other spending, etc. Eg, government does \*not \*need to be smaller but must be funded responsibly. > > Fiscal conservatism wants a smaller government, lower spending & taxes driven by the believe that the market is always more efficient. Eg, Government needs to be smaller The second one exists and the first one is a fantasy that is maintained in order to serve the needs of the second. And while that first one may be the wet dream of most Republicans, I believe Democrats have a slightly better record on trying to make it a reality. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/54 "2011-02-14T19:17:36Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I think he’s talking about ~2003 to ~2008, and I think he’s right. I remember all kinds of debt panic during the Clinton years. I even seem to recall an electronic billboard (or maybe it was mechanical back then) somewhere that showed the debt in realtime. I didn’t hear a peep about it during the W era. Ten minutes on google, leaving out the blog posts and message boards, and looking for diverse ideologies: > **[Is rising US public debt sustainable?](https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0314/p01s02-uspo.html)** > > At $8.3 trillion, it breaks the legal limit, fueling a fiscal debate in Congress. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/08/opinion/main686839.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/08/opinion/main686839.shtml) [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218193/our-i-i-books-fiscal-problem/phil-kerpen](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218193/our-i-i-books-fiscal-problem/phil-kerpen) > **[Bush the Budget Buster](https://reason.com/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster/)** > > When it comes to spending, George W. Bush is no Reagan. Hell, he's not even > **[National debt grows $1 million a minute](https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1933951/posts)** > **[What Could Go Wrong in 2005](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/01/what-could-go-wrong-2005/)** > > By Marshall Auerback > Landmarks to future economic catastrophe we should keep in sight over the next eleven months. It’s certainly true that some fiscal conservatives who are Republicans kept quiet for political reasons (just as some Democrats who criticized Bush for deficits are quiet now). But if you didn’t hear a peep, you weren’t listening. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/55 "2011-02-14T19:22:20Z")
Sorry, no. Only my wife regards me as a fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/56 "2011-02-14T19:23:38Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Sorry, no. Only my wife regards me as a fantasy. Are you a politician? Have you enacted any of these policies? Everybody _wants_ those things; nobody puts them into practice. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/57 "2011-02-14T19:27:52Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ten minutes on google, leaving out the blog posts and message boards, and looking for diverse ideologies: > [Is rising US public debt sustainable? - CSMonitor.com](http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0314/p01s02-uspo.html) > [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/08/opinion/main686839.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/08/opinion/main686839.shtml) > [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218193/our-i-i-books-fiscal-problem/phil-kerpen](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218193/our-i-i-books-fiscal-problem/phil-kerpen) > [Bush the Budget Buster - Reason.com](http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster) > [National debt grows $1 million a minute](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1933951/posts) > [What Could Go Wrong in 2005 – Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/01/what-could-go-wrong-2005) > It’s certainly true that some fiscal conservatives who are Republicans kept quiet for political reasons (just as some Democrats who criticized Bush for deficits are quiet now). But if you didn’t hear a peep, you weren’t listening. You probably should have spent 20 minutes and actually read the articles. The first few I clicked on were talking about how debt is no longer an issue, but _maybe_ it should be discussed again. That’s just a nip different than “it’s time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.” ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/58 "2011-02-14T19:32:41Z")
From one of your links, **furt** : > [@](#): > > When one considers how deficit concerns dominated the politics of the 1990s, it is remarkable how sanguine we are faced with the current situation. Remember that giant sucking sound? It has fallen quiet. Pretty much the opposite of the point you’re trying to make. I’m sure there is plenty more, but if you can’t be bothered to thoroughly read them, then I can’t either. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/59 "2011-02-14T19:32:57Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Are you a politician? Have you enacted any of these policies? Do I need to win office to have an opinion? > [@](#): > > Everybody _wants_ those things; nobody puts them into practice. Not at all; lots of people think the government should be bigger and do more. We have several sincere communists on the SDMB. And yes, there are some politicians and governments that do in fact attempt, and occasionally succeed at, shrinking government and closing deficits. Some states do it now; Canada has done a pretty great job at getting their house in order over the last decade. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/60 "2011-02-14T19:36:04Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Do I need to win office to have an opinion? Certainly not, but I am entitled to call that opinion a fantasy. > [@furt](#): > > Not at all; lots of people think the government should be bigger and do more. We have several sincere communists on the SDMB. Have you had your coffee? Even communists would hope to run a balanced budget; they’d raise taxes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164.md?page=4)