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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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
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.”
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.