The challenge for the GOP

social conservatives that it forgets its libertarian side. If they have a problem in this regard it is the big tent problem. There is no big tent. Social conservatives can't seem to be able to work with social libertarians, and in fact marginalize them. We had this problem in the California GOP for several decades where the moderate pro-choice republicans were all but shut out. This happened on the national scale as well. I will note that the latest GOP convention was the whitest I've seen in decades. It was a sad commentary on what was the party of Lincoln. The characterization recently by Gary Kamiiya in Salon describes the current GOP to a T as
the demagogues of reaction and resentment, the Christian rightists, the "values" voters, the anti-tax, anti-government zealots, the nativists, anti-rationalists and anti-secularists.
In fact that's what is carrying most of the entire tone of the current McCain campaign. That's what America hears. If you scream "beware the poor" all the media is going to do is tell everyone what you did and said. See Pete Wilson and how he destroyed the GOP connection to Mexican American voters several decades ago with his rhetoric. The California state GOP is still paying a heavy political price for that. So don't blame the messenger for what comes out of your mouth.

But that is not the whole narrative as you claim. The problem with Republicans is that they seldom act Republican. The iconic Ronald Reagan raised massive amounts of taxes when he was governor of California. As president he raised them as well for middle income Americans (remember the days when you could deduct consumer debt?), expanded government and increased the national debt. The man who was the myth was a myth to be trotted out before the masses.
The current problem has to do with this Baal-like god of the free market despite all the warning of the past 100 years, including similar circumstances that led to the Great Depression. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy, allowed corporate interests to run the economy unfettered and deregulated everything he could. He put corporate interests in charge of various departments of government and that led to disasters in coal mines, in FDA etc. etc. etc. They promoted incompetents to higher positions. Add to that the disrespect for Constitutional process. Utter contempt actually. The GOP also embraced the very un old-school Republican "unitary executive doctrine" which ladled out unlimited amounts of executive power to utter incompetents. Which is why we DON'T ladle out unlimited power. But a lax GOP congress let Bush have his way and now we end up with something that came close to being a dictatorship as far as I am concerned, beholden and accountable to no one. Perhaps this is the reason for such desperate measures by the GOP these past few weeks - they fear accountability. Yet all they have to do is repudiate the mistakes of the past 10 years. They haven't and I don't think they will because the GOP is too mired in its current ideology.

As Christopher Buckley put it before the tsunami of a conservative fatwa removed him from NR:
"I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case."
(that removal BTW proves my point - there's no room for dissent, no big tent)

You can't blame this "Titanic" failure of conservatism on the media or the Democrats or messaging. The GOP had the shovel, dug its grave, shot itself in the back of the head, and as it fell in pulled the string that opened up the bag of dirt overhead to cover its body.

The House and Senate Republicans didn't stick to small government because politics is corrupt and power makes you fat and lazy, not because they were too moderate.

And NO! to Marcus' comment below this one. I'm so tired of hearing the social conservatives being scapegoated for the corruption of the supposedly fiscal conservative GOP.

Of course there are some instances of socons driving the agenda, but it's ridiculous to blame them for the abdication of any real conservatism from those who were elected as fiscal conservatives.

I also see the flight of people like Chris Buckley (who you might recall, Marcus, offered his resignation from NR after a brief stint there, he wasn't forced to do so) is indicative of the attitude of such conservatives toward the big tent. They want to complain that the big tent has collapsed, while they are running out and knocking over the tent poles. I definitely get the feeling that a lot of paleocons are simply embarrassed to be associated with certain other inhabitants of what was the GOP for the past couple of decades.

No worries Brian. I'd bet the house that the GOP won't excise social conservatives.

It's also one thing to attack crazy fundamentalists--it's another thing to try to marginalize social conservative views as if they were illegitimate. They're certainly no more illegitimate than social liberal views, and most people are still in the center, not the left. Most Americans don't have a problem with faith-based programs, parental notification on abortions, and most Americans still don't like the courts making decisions on marriage for them.

As long as the GOP maintains their current level of devotion to folks who support federal funding of programs that include a religious component, and devotion to those who oppose full gay rights, they'll struggle to ever get my support. I am very sure I am not alone. For me, the former is a constitutional issue related to an ideal (government secularism) that has served us well and whose absence regularly appears as a flaw in other countries.

Despite the efforts of some conservative legal theorists, I don't really see the issue of gay marriage/unions first and foremost as a process issue. I see it first a civil rights issue.

I'll cheerfully acknowledge the possibility that these two views may currently place me in the minority. My point in mentioning them is to emphasize that if the GOP comes shopping for my vote after their jaunt in the wilderness, they'll be wasting their time if all they have to sell is the same stuff with a shiny new marketing campaign.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

I think Pat makes an obvious point. For all the blather from Bush, he did not cut a check for the Christian Right to administer welfare. In general, the SOCONS got little of their agenda into play. That is a fact. Conservative defeated Miers. The racist characterizations and the bash EVERYTHING GOP is silly whether it is effective or not. In fact, it is dangerous, but this cycle, Democrats believe the end justifies the means. Axelrod?s the new Rove?LOL.

For all the REFORM of Bush strategy Democrats cried for in 2004, I guess the Democrats want to show they can elect a person that hides ideology in slogans, runs on an anti campaign and doesn't like tough questions. Dems are using fear and personal attacks as though they want the mantle of Rove instead of a "different" politics. By change, they mean not Bush.

I will be waiting to remind Brian and others why their assumptions about Obama steering center were unfounded. I will watch as the new administration melts down and the boneheaded political tactics used by the Dems fire up a huge counter punch come 2010. Yes. Obamabots have often called Bush, Hitler, and Cheney the Devil. They called Patraeus a traitor and sided with our adversaries more than Bush. Rice has called the world's problems, Bush's fault and Dems have already talked about a 25% reduction in the defense budget. They laugh at effigies of Palin hanging from a noose being called a hate crime and have the balls to bitch about rabid GOP supporters when their rallies have been soiled with garbage far worse.

For all the blasts against the conservative side, only media really boosts Obama above a dead heat. This, after eight years of Bush....LOL.

Bush did not destroy our Constitution. He was not responsible for the poor administration of deregulated mortgages nor the price of oil. He did not advise suing OPEC or sitting down with Khomeini. Now I'm not defending the litany of Bush blunders nor think unfair some retribution, but the scope of the Democrats charges and thrust is foolish. It lays the groundwork for the counter punch. Obama?s pivot to center is not supported in deed and I can understand why his camp is upset with the new audio tape of his Constitutional views (note that he calls himself a LAW PROFESSOR). He advocates getting judges on SCOTUS to make the redistribution of wealth, law. As more of the truth comes out, it won't take much for Obama to start matching the astounding Congressional favorability ratings. I don?t see much concern of the Liberal counter to social conservative. Should a journalist bring that up, Obama might try to yank the station's license.

And yes, when the Fairness Doctrine, attacks on free speech, more ?nationalizing? of America and "redistributing" of wealth heads us into a far larger assault on our Constitution, I will simply ask, what idiot bought the Liberal line this time around despite the obvious lies, personal attacks and weak policies coming from the Left Side.

Wait until Zbig outlines the New American foreign policy in the NYT.

I apologize if I really peeved the Ficons out there. I understand where they are coming from, but blaming Socons everytime the Reps mess up is just wrong.

Rachel

I brew the beer I drink

And made a point to invite Muslim leaders to the White House immediately after 9/11, urging tolerance at a time when many US citizens would have taken vengeance on fellow Americans who were of Middle Eastern descent or practicing the Islamic religion.

And committed massive amounts of aid to Africa.

And appointed the most racially diverse cabinet, including the first African American Sec of State, succeeded by the second African American Sec of State.

But yeah, other than that, the man's a frickin' bigot.

And I suppose an Obama AG will investigate Dodd and Franks, ACORN or the possible quid pro quo that went on in Chicago. A 2001 audio tape surfaced that shows the hidden litmus tests for SCOTUS and the meat behind the tough question poorly lobbed at Biden in Florida. It reveals Obama?s views on SCOTUS and the Constitution.

How true that corruption sticks to both Parties. Clearly, Obama has mocked the "change" McCain calls for and advocates "change" as a rejection of Bush, conservatism, past foreign policy and even a centrist take on the Constitution.

Ayers for the Department of Education? Wright swearing in Obama? Khalidi as special envoy to Israel? Powel as Secretary of Defense? SNL could have a good time with that. In the race to defeat one Party's recent history of incompetence, corruption and arrogance, the voter is asked to elect another version of vetless fiction while disregarding the real policies differences between Obama and McCain.

Brian has indicated in the past that policy is not important. Obama will just ask his advisors. As far as corruption, I will wait and see how much total Democratic power investigates voter registration, the economic meltdown (Dodd, Cox and Franks), leaks that damage security, quid pro quo of Obama and Pelosi or the on line donations to the DNC. I have a suspicion we'll be investigating Cheney for years to come while total power for Democrats smother objective review or even the accurate reporting of ground situations coming out of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Caracas, Columbia, Georgia, Eastern Europe, NK and Asia.

Whose is going to clean up the media mess? Obama?

IN short, I agree with CS above. The counter punches coming could not be telegraphed any clearer by Obama....LOL While the GOP is handicapped by Bush, the Democrats and their wonderful Congressional record have dug such a deep hole, even some Republicans prefer Obama swim in it. How they will enjoy attacking for a change in the next blame game. Clinton can play an interesting role later on. Yep, this will get ugly and in part because of the logic of "cleaning house".

What goes around, I guess, comes around fast enough.

It probably doesn't Chris. Except maybe insofar as one buys the term-limits rationale that periodically kicking out some of the folks in charge acts as a sort of sanitizing shock treatment that temporarily beats back the bacteria to an acceptable level.

But for the most part I have no expectation that a change in the ideology of the ruling cohort will have any lasting effect on the amount of corruption.

A more defensible argument, at least to me, is that the reason to periodically change the ideological slant of the ruling cohort is to prevent one ideology from taking things too far. I realize that many conservatives feel that things were not taken far enough, and that those entrusted with implementing the ideology lost their way as they strove to preserve their power. This makes perfect sense from the conservative vantage point.

But since I'm not a conservative myself, the way I look at it is that a conservative political tide has crested, and right or wrong, the tide is going out. If you're a moderate or an independent of long time viewing, you tend to see a political pendulum. I like to think of myself that way, and tend to often look at what various partisans want and think is right in contrast to what the general public seems to want just because it's what they want, not for reasons of politial or philosophical ideology.

Large segments of the general public don't feel that they had substantial participation in the economic growth that America experienced in the post-Reagan years. One can debate whether they are right to think so, but I think the pending outcome of this election suggests pretty accurately how they feel.

So if you are a conservative, I think you really DO have to decide to try harder to connect with these folks in a tangible way. That means connecting with more than rhetoric about how we must have a freer market and more growth policies, and that it's not desirable to protect, let's say, domestic unskilled labor from lower cost foreign competition. Leaving aside whether this rhetoric reflects some sort of underlying reality, the concurrent reality is that large masses of unskilled Americans won't vote for politicians who suggest that they need to work harder and be better trained and largely accept job losses to nations with lower cost labor.

If you use the pyramidal structure of domestic incomes as a model, conservatives must be ready to temper their free market ideology when the pyramid starts to get too tall and the middle begins to crumble. And while economists would have us believe that judgements on this matter ought to be based on hard data, the political reality is that such judgements must be based on the subjective impression of the people who vote. At least if you want to win, and govern.

The more strongly ideologically based one's political views are, the more one wishes to change things by being optimistic about getting lots of folks to see things their way, instead of seeing them the way that they already do. IMO, the path back to ruling power begins with a strong and accurate assessment about what regular folks already really do believe.

One thing that they do IMO believe is that every reasonably hard-working honest American deserves to be compensated at a level that allows them to if not thrive, then to survive without epic struggle or ever-increasing difficulty. Right now, today, Americans want leaders who will survive to protect the American way of life that they feel the deserve. I'll happily concede that the basis for such a belief is little more than the sum of the romantic notions about what people deserve. Nevertheless, it really needs to be a starting point for anyone who hopes to govern.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Pols tend to parasitism. They all eat away at the economic substance of our nation. You choose the ones that befoul the rest of our substance the least.

(This is the "Lesser of Two Weevils" theory of electoral government.)

Nope. I agree that both sides practice it to varying degrees. I find the conservative approach more objectionable because my long-standing impression is that they've supported more policies that threaten the constitutional prohibition upon religious establishment and more policies that threaten the alleged constitutional right to privacy (as construed vaguely and broadly, not as it related to abortion in particular).

I'll cheerfully agree with you that the left has nearly as many moments. Top of the list IMO would be a congenital inability to grasp the meaning of the first amendment. Even there though, while some members of the right have a decent appreciation, substantial portions of the right practice the same opaqueness as the left.

You might be interested to note that I've just spent some time over at Donklephant challenging someone else's contention that the right is more committed to "social order" than the left. I agree, It's not a partisan thing. However, I think the GOP's brand is a stinkier fart.
_________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Good points Chris. I would add that energy and Free Trade were also issues the Republicans didn't anticipate. Lazy isn?t the word. Of course the single most obvious failure of the GOP was to assume there wouldn't be blow back for GOP corruption, incompetence and the amazing communication abilities of Bush. Rovian logic drove the discourse as exemplified by Obama?s now claiming in his infomercial Republicans will be part of his cabinet. I don't understand how Parties work, but frankly, with conservatism as their hallmark, how did the Republicans plan to stay in office? From a historical perspective it seems Rove asked whether Republicans should change what they're selling or vilify the Democrats. Unfortunately, the administration took a secretive, we-don't-give-a-crap-attitude and used fear to drive elections. They picked the latter option. Now the Democrats are doing that. You guys didn't see that coming? I've been predicting this since posting here. Blow back. Ain?t she a bitch?

As I said, I don't have much sympathy, but that won't stop me from blasting the Democrats.

Sorry to say that social conservatism on steroids won't work either. I think Palin knows that. From what I've learned here, economic growth requires some conservative AND liberal approaches. Bush isn't much better than Pelosi. On the domestic front, Republicans have to get back to their Lincoln roots, sport opportunity, and economic emancipation. They must explain how that does not mean court driven mandates and new Constitutional Rights. Like they have on human rights issues and internationalism, they must remind America of personal liberty. The results might be more positive than invading Iraq..LOL. They must lead the fight for better education (help for students). They must champion States Rights and explain the Liberal side in the equation Liberal Democracy does not mean the NEW Liberal many of the Left espouse.. They must change from conversion to respect on issues of religion. On abortion, guns, stem cells, etc. they must either affirm to abide by the will of the majority or stress local and States rights. You know Pelosi will try to legislate around SCOTUS on guns as the mayor tried in DC.

On environment, energy policy, coherent plans and global participation must be stressed.

If you had these goal posts and kept the socons in the background, the appeal to the youth would be enhanced.

Of course, security must become the hallmark. You guys have won the right to carry the Jeffersonian zeal. You still have good poll ratings on security and defense. That will be one of your major cards given the threat map. Franks is calling for a 25% reduction in defense spending and I left a link on recent threads on what is at stake in defense spending. Strategically I am surprised how good the Republicans look. Get a face lift, chill your socon zealots, fashion a Reaganesque platform and let Obama hand you a mess....LOL

Red will become vogue again and perhaps this time the GOP won't forget the young, their vision and the image of smart, honest patriots who believe in the market place, liberty and America's needed leadership in a multipolar world. When you play a lousy game it produces an even lousier response. Bush has begotten Obama/Pelosi and the GOP has much blame to share. He couldn't do it without you. I think Simon might concur....

battles aren't always started by the socons. Various activists on the other side, especially on th issue of gay marriage have gone too far in certain cases, and raised the concerns of those who aren't bigots, but simply are concerned about the definition of marriage. Both sides overreach, but I do think as you said, it's often an issue of priorities.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33