Conservatism Without "Cliques"

[Whitehorse (Robin Ray)]

We need to be conservative Republicans, not segregating ourselves into little High-School type cliques. We have the winning strategy for elections & governance:

Strong National Defense
Fiscal Responsibility
Limited Government
Conservative Social Values

Standing alone, these are winning issues. Together, they are almost invincible. We have the watershed victories of 1980 & 1994 as evidence of what happens when Republicans run as total conservatives, expousing all conservative principles in bold, unafraid colors. We also have the negative watershed elections of 2006 & 2008 which show that Republicans lose when the party does not hold fast to all planks in the conservative Republican platform. Far too many of our elected leaders abandoned fiscal responsibility - they spent money & acted exactly as the Democrats they replaced. They grew government outside of what was needed for national security. Because of that they lost control of congress & the White House.

IMHO, absolutely nothing in the conservative Republican platform needs to be watered down. This country is not Puritanical, however it's not left of center by any stretch. Economic & national security issues must be in the forefront, especially given they are the major concerns of the day. Conservative social values undergird everything else. We cannot legislate morality, however we can stand for what is right. Voters usually like those who stand for what is right.

Concluding, we must communicate respectfully, politely, but also firmly with our elected leaders the critical need to reclaim fiscal responsibility & limited government conservatism without watering down or fading the colors of any other part of the conservative Republican platform. We win as a party of all bold colors.

[Whitehorse (Robin Ray)]

Again, also, we don't need to be "____-Conservatives," we need to be all-round conservatives & need our leaders to also be all-round conservatives. We don't have to agree lock-step on all issues, because conservatism empowers the individual & individuals have differing views & differing degrees of conservatism. We do need to focus on what brings us together while at the same time not taking our ball & going home because we may disagree on some part of an issue.

[Whitehorse (Robin Ray)]

From what I'm reading from some here, a reader unfamiliar with the last 3-4 years would think that the Repblicans have tried to encode a draconian, Sharia law type social system. Sorry, however that is not the case - let's work from reality, shall we? Social conservative principles are not the problem. I am personally not under 30, however I do know & work with many who are. They have no problem with things like "Under GOD" in the pledge.

The problem, plainly, has been Republicans spending too much & growing government. This is what's broken & must be fixed in a tangible & dramatic way. We don't need to break something that works in order to fix what's broken.

[Artemio Temo Muniz]

WHoaaaa, no need to crucify the moralists I think many Americans are fed up with all types of tyranny, from empty rheoteric from the pulpit to empty promises from the congressional floor. I really think "limited" translates to many uneducated people as narrowminded, we should be push for responsible government. The church as a social institution for too long has taken 10% and only shamed the masses into submission, and the payback is devastating. This is why we need to focus on "American" principles which includes church speak, the constitution and all of the above-- this is what the new Republican party should be

[Joe]

social conservative values aren't the problem - these are not repelling voters.

Look at the data from the younger voters this election, or, heck, even just go around and ask anyone under 30 how they feel about SSM, or the drug war, or creationism, or saying "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.
Now ask the same question to people over 60.
People don't just flip their moral outlook because they get older...kids today are growing up in a more open and accepting environment and their stances on social issues are reflecting that.
Personally I was repelled this election by many of the "moral right" issues because I dont need anyone telling me how I should live my life.

the social conservative view won overwhelmingly more than lost, & won by large margins

I'm not so sure about this...sure SSM bans won out in 3 states (however unconstitutional they may be), however there were a host of other measures (mainly drug measures) that were passed accross the country that are more socially liberal.

[Empedocles]

Sure. I guess God destroyed the passenger pigeon, the great auk, the dodo, and all the other species that have been driven to extinction by man.

[Stephen Willis]

Whitehouse

This party MUST stand for limited government. I mean LIMITED. The reason the auto industry is dead is simply too much regulation at every level of government. Regulation KILLED textiles, furniture, air craft manufacturing AND it will kill off the coal industry in this country. If you want to grow this economy, end GOVERNMENT REGULATION. This will cause
Employment to increase, real wages will increase and the cost of living will decrease.

Coleman

Moderates are liberals, who lack the guts to admit, they are socialist. Environmentalism will cost America her place in the world. Environmentalists are the most arrogance people in the history of the world. They think men can destroy what GOD HAS CREATED, only GOD can destroy what He has created.

[Whitehorse (Robin Ray)]

Thanks for the commentary! Joe, social conservative values aren't the problem - these are not repelling voters. Not just the SSM question, look at the number of social issues that were on ballots in 08 - the social conservative view won overwhelmingly more than lost, & won by large margins. The problem is the lack of fiscal responsibility and limted government (localization H/T to Empedocles) shown by Republican leaders when last in power - Congress & White House. We do not need to fade our social values - we need to reclaim fiscal responsibility & limited government/localization as a platform plank & keep all our colors bold.

[Drew Ullman]

You're right about the cliquishness of the factions of the GOP. No part of the party should have any more influence than the other. The defense conservatives and the economic conservatives shouldn't have more power than the social conservatives and vice versa.

[Empedocles]

Instead of limited government I would change the phrase to "localization." And instead of attacking Dems for being in favor of big government, attack them for being in favor of "centralized power." There is a localization movement among some who probably consider themselves as part of the left without realizing that localization is a conservative principle. Then let the localities decide the appropriate size of government for themselves (conservatives being in favor of smaller government). Localizing school administration for example would leave no role for the Federal department of education for example.

[William Lang]

I want to say I love this debate, it mirrors one that I have with several friends and with similar results. I think if you read my blog you will find some interesting observations about the electorate from Ronald Reagan's pollster and strategist, but to summarize them, your message has to be real for the voter, not some abstract set of ideals. We need to adapt to the voters of the 21st century and craft a message that resonates with those voters. We can no longer rely on messages like "we are going to lower taxes" or "we are anti-abortion." In theory the people like those ideas but when it comes time to pull the lever for a candidate, they are going to vote for a candidate that connects to their everyday life.