Two parties of Secular Hedonists. Ill pass.

But my opinion is that the Republican Party was successful during the Reagan era precisely because under the leadership of Reagan the party offered political principles to the voters instead of cultural issues.

The voters of those days took a look at the 2 parties, one of which offered a cultural-based set of principles and the other which offered a set of principles based on issues of governance and mainly chose the latter.

But after Reagan the social conservatives took the Progressive bait and engaged in a cultural war on Progressive terms under Progressive rules. The social conservatives allowed the enemy to dictate the rules of engagement and wars are never won by those who let the enemy dictate the rules of combat.

It’s especially sad because by abandoning issues of governance and using the Republican Party as a weapon in a cultural war, a use for which political parties are ill-suited, the social conservatives have guaranteed that those who have the most influence on our daily life, our elected politicians, will have the least sympathy for those very issues of morality so dear to the social conservatives.

Escape’s last line illustrates the fallacy: “Two parties of Secular Hedonists. I’ll pass.”

If the phrase was “two parties of big spenders,” or “two parties of a weak national defense,” or “two parties of income redistribution. I’ll pass,” then it would make sense but the word, “secular,” takes it out of the domain of politics into the realm of religion, which our constitution, our history and our cultural consciousness decided long ago to be a matter for each individual to privately decide for themselves.

The social conservatives have fought a war on terms dictated by the enemy for decades now. It is a war that they are losing. We now have a government comprised almost entirely of Progressives. The executive and legislative branches belong to the enemy. The only part of field not dominated by the Progressives is the judicial branch: the Supreme Court. But if Obama wins a second term that last bit of territory is likely to be overrun.

The culture war is a creation of the Left, dont be mad when the Christian Conservatives put up a fight.

If you would like the Culture War to stop, then it behooves you to chastize the group pushing relentlessly the culture war, the Left….dont blame the reactionaries.

Unless you are with the Left on those issues. Then dont be surprised when the base rejects you as RINOs and kicks you to the curb.

Good Luck in the Democrat Party, I hope you can run the Socialists out of the Party. Then we can have 2 parties that advocate sane economic policy and squabble over social and moral issues.

Id be all for that.

Two parties of Secular Hedonists. Ill pass.

Seriously? There’s a decent case to be made that our national security was weakened by a focus on social issues …

Methinks the commentor misread my comment. My basic thesis: The social conservatives’ focusing of the Republican Party on social issues(“national security” is NOT a social issue) in the post-Reagan era in lieu of issues of governance, namely, limited government, a strong national defense(which would obviously include “national security”) and a free market economy, is not attracting enough voters.

If only it were true … then McCain/Palin might have had a better showing. The problem that the Republican Party has now: What if in the next Presidential election a candidate of whom Limbaugh, Coulter and Malkin don’t approve wins the nomination?

I don’t think so … at least, not until they actually start talking nice about some Dems (a sure sign of Rino-dom). And the social conservatives right now are the most venomous opponents of Dems – the ones sending around chain e-mails talking about Obama the antichrist and Pelosi and Reid as haters of America.

I am saying that many social conservatives would align with the Dems on purely economic and labor issues if they weren’t committed to the Republican Party as an agent of reactionary social change. I think that atheist Karl Rove agrees, which is why he pushes the God buttons so hard in any campaign he’s involved in.

But there are almost certainly independents who would vote Republican more consistently if it wasn’t for the value voters agenda. John Cole who was a staunch defender of Bush for years says he “flipped” over the Terri Schaivo case, for example.

I think the party right now is weighing the two – a fanatical group of social conservatives who are guaranteed to show up and not only vote Republican, but work their asses off for Republican candidates year in and year out … or those independents and some fiscal Dems who may or may not support a Republican candidate in any given election, depending on how he compares to the Dem candidate who’s running.

And the Republican leadership is opting for the “bird in the hand” over the “two in the bush”.

Hmmm, are you saying they are actually Rhino’s?

Consider the gamble, 1/3 of the GOP(non base) + Independents + some fiscal Dems = a winning majority. Had it been Rudy, 1/3 of GOP + Indpendents + some fiscal Dems + 99% Italian American’s = winner 2008. The party just wasn’t forward thinking, it was hijacked.

Seriously? There’s a decent case to be made that our national security was weakened by a focus on social issues – Bush famously spend August 2001 on his ranch meeting with experts to form a policy on stem cell research, ignoring a certain “Bin Laden Determined to Strike” memo … but there’s little evidence that the GOP was ever concerned with fiscal issues under Bush past (a) cutting taxes, (b) raising military spending, and (c) spreading money around on things like the Medicare drug bill to increase Bush’s chance of re-election in 2004.

The risk that the Republican Party has, of course, is that if Social Conservatives get the message that the Republicans do not want to use the power of government to impose a “value voters” agenda … that some significant portion of them might not have any reason to vote Republican.

Carter won because Ford pardoned Nixon, not because Ford was a moderate. The pardon made it seem that Ford was part of quid pro quo transaction with Nixon. And Jimmy smiled that smile, looked the voters in the eye and said, “I’ll never lie to you.”

Actually, Reagan held his own against Ford during the 1976 primaries, only losing to Ford at the last minute during the Republican National Convention. It was a close primary race and the nomination was still undecided going into the GOP Convention.

Reagan won the Democrats that were tired of the incompetence of their leadership and furthermore were driven out of the party by the New Left Radicals.

I would put it another way: Reagan won many of the moderates that might have voted Democrat. In Presidential elections it is the centrist voters that usually decide the election. Everyone knows how the Rightwing and Leftwing voters will vote, or at least they used to know how the Rightwing would vote, the big question is nearly always how the center of the political spectrum will vote.

Now you might not like Social Conservatism….but they are big part of the base of the party and their concerns should be addressed in policy….when the GOP holds the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I have nothing against the personal viewpoints of social conservatives. I am personally sympathetic to many of those viewpoints. My concern is that the social conservatives want to use a political party to further their personal beliefs to the detriment of issues of governance. Church and home are the proper places to decide religious issues – not campaigns for political office.

Much has been written about government spending that drove up the national debt during the 8 years of Bush’s Presidency and the GOP’s domination of Congress. And why did this happen? One answer may be that the GOP was too much concerned with social issues and too little concerned with fiscal issues.

I know you think that Social Cons should sit down and shut up. But you aren’t going to have a viable party without them.

I don’t want social conservatives to shut up; I want them to start talking about issues of governance. I want them to take more interest in real political issues instead of all the morality malarkey. What I don’t want is for the social conservatives to continue to drag the political debate away from political issues into the inappropriate realm of their personal belief system.

And there’s the question of loyalty. After the GOP nominee is decided in the next Presidential election I am confident about how I will vote and how GOP moderates will vote but I am unsure whether the social conservatives will show up. Social conservatives are always talking about loyalty but they displayed very little loyalty the last time around.

You’re having a definitional problem. A fundamentalist who believes that gays have the right to live … and not be stoned for their sins … already considers themself a moderate. A fundamentalist who believes that abortion clinics should be abolished … but not that women who get abortions should be tried for murder … already considers themself a moderate.

Thus, those who believe in more rights for gays, or any freedom of choice for women anywhere in America … are by that definition liberal.

FWIW, a lot of the labelling of the MSM as “liberal” stems purely from the social side. In economic matters, the MSM is extremely pro-corporate and for the most part anti-socialist, except for limited amounts of socialism which are useful at promoting business and corporate culture. In geopolitical matters, the MSM is often quite hawkish – they were front and center in promoting the “need” for invading Iraq, for example, while largely silencing and ignoring voices against war.

Consider the case of Scott Ridder – in 1998 when he was complaining about lack of America access to Iraq’s weapons sites, and was being used as a justification for Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, he was all over the media. In 2003, when he was declaring that our inspectors were being granted full access, and that there was no evidence to support the WMD claims against Iraq at that time, he was persona non grata on the MSM.