re: casual voters’ perceptions about engineering ‘fairness’, and why they believe they should receive unlimited benefits – Even more fundamental than explaining to voters the benefits of conservatism, citizens really need a better grounding in basic economics.

Most of the electorate has virtually no idea where money come from. They realize that they pay taxes, true, but the prevailing wisdom seems to be that wealth is created, hoarded and doled out to the favored by government itself. When I was an undergrad being inculcated with leftist philosophy, that meant doled out to wealthy patrons and corporations and lobbyists already flush with buckets-full of cash. Anyone but people like us, which meme survives today in soundbites as heard on inner city giveaway queues, such as ‘Where does Obama get his money?’ – “I don’t know. His stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from but he’s giving it to us, to help us. We love him. That’s why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!” These folks never realize that benefit dollars come straight out of the cash register of the nice neighbor lady down the street, who worked long hours at two jobs while raising her kids, before she was able to set up her little tailoring shop last year.

Maybe those who have arrived from kleptocracies within a couple of generations will be harder wired with the government as Mr Moneybags concept, but even the older US generation, well-educated Sandra Flukes seem to be pretty much imbued with this primary process thinking. They have no clue that the money trail begins and ends with their own personal pocketbooks, and that government dictatorship over their careers, educations, religion, health care options, diets, and lifestyle choices starts there too.

I hear what you say, streiff, and don’t disagree.

But I believe more fundamentally conservatives need to agree on core principles and agree that other principles are optional.

Case in point: Had lunch with my ex here in Connecticut yesterday. We both voted for Reagan. She dated one Vietnam vet, a Navy nurse (now a good friend); and married another (me). She’s big on guns and anti-abortion.

Topic 1 for lunch discussion: How the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage. She supports it; I don’t; we both have and have had lots of gay friends.

Point is, if a core principle of conservatives is gay-bashing, we’ll lose my ex; needlessly.

She’ll buy into smaller government; repeal of Social Security; lower taxes.

She’s what is called a fi-con. There are lots of them in the N.E. They go along with right-to-life. They don’t go along with men meddling in the uterus — as it’s presented.

You’re stereotyping fiscal conservatives as closet liberals, which isn’t any more fair than what liberals stereotype social conservatives as. Fiscal conservatives are who founded the Tea Party. If you want to argue that the Tea Party is all Rockefeller Republicans, well, good luck with that.

There’s a difference between teaching people something and imparting wisdom. To borrow D&D terminology, Krugman may have a high INT but his WIS score is low.

This isn’t the first time I have seen that quote from Henning Webb Prentis, Jr. It really makes sense. While, I think there are a lot of fabulous activists on the right. For the most part we are either apathetic or dependent as a nation and I don’t see given the current climate how we break that cycle. As a parent of young kids, I very much want to.
We have had 4 years to learn how to refine our message and it clearly hasn’t resonated. I just don’t see anything on the horizon to change that.

Reagan made the GOP by bringing his fellow pro-lifers into the party. Listen to the Evil Empire speech and you will hear Reagan at his far right best on ALL social issues. It is not “gay-bashing” to support keeping marriage as only one-man, one-woman and anyone that votes Democrat on social issues but claims to be a fiscal conservative worthy of the name is fooling themselves.

::sigh:: then certainly if more effective, proceed with clear practical examples featuring conservatism’s benefits, without the ECO 101…. (I guess I’m a dreamer, eh?)

At our present pace and direction, the federal government isn’t just harming individual responsibility and civil society, it is bankrupting the entire safety net and important services. When the Democrats reject limited and responsible government, they are ironically putting us on the path to almost no government, except the taxes and regulations.

Big government means bankruptcy and no money at all in the end. Take Medicare- if we don’t structurally reform the program to expand market forces and patients’ choice, it means deep cuts to services and benefits anyway, as Obamacare has begun. Same for all the other popular programs, even defense. Another example- Obama talks a lot about infrastructure, but with his splurging on pet projects and corporate cronies, and his refusal to reform most inefficient and unnecessary government programs, it means no money left for “building roads and bridges” in the end, but still lots of taxes.

Well, I’m one, but it’s not like I have any influence or anything.

TWO Finrods??!

I’m sure you vote.

Maybe the education can come later, along with re-establishment of morals, by which I mean really basic stuff – don’t lie, don’t steal others’ stuff, stop envying and take responsibility for yourself. I can’t even hope for any higher personal morals anytime soon.
Interesting how the Dems encourage people to disobey every one of the Ten Commandments. No wonder they wanted them out of the public eye. A society which honors these is quite likely to be a free and prosperous society.

Elected Finrods! But even that probably isn’t enough for any real fix w/i the next 4 years much less 4 weeks. The only real fix is for the progeny of gamecocks and finrods.

I did, and it doesn’t address anything I said. Whether the people in the Tea Party had social conservative values or not, the purpose of the Tea party isn’t and never was to address social conservative issues, and people who say it does or did, or try to push it in that direction, are misguided at best and trying to hijack it for their own ends at worst. His statement that my ‘description of the Tea Party is just wrong’ is completely bogus. streiff also fails to recognize that there are many Tea Partiers that are very much not social conservatives of any stripe. Saying that ‘survey data showed they were also social conservatives’ is as relevant as saying that survey data showed that they were Pittsburgh Steelers fans.

history has shown that fiscal conservatives aren’t conservative on
fiscal issues. Once you start selling out values for money, selling out
money becomes easy.

This statement is insulting to every fiscal conservative in existence, streiff. You’re denying the very existence of fiscal conservatism. Is that where you really want to go?

While some of your points have some validity, others are completely wrong (for starters, only Democrats care about race). Worse, you are exhibiting the same kind of attitude that you’re criticizing Republicans for having. Worst, you are posting this not in a liberal or a neutral forum, but in a conservative and Republican forum. I would strongly suggest that you moderate your tone or I anticipate your stay here will be prematurely shortened.

Opposing Collectivism, it is not that hard to say don’t take candy from a stranger however, if you are trying to defend the Party guilty of handing out the candy it is useless. In opposition to our selling Individualism is Alinsky Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this… Selling Conservatism has many other problems but this one may be the hardest to overcome given the history, how do we overcome this problem?

What I mean is that those that think like Finrod (and GCs and other tea partier/real conservatives) and that managed to get elected have to be willing to speak truth to power, much as Sen Coburn did today on one of those Sunday Shows. By “piss off Boehner” I mean that conservatives in DC must demand an end to the status quo there and to avoiding the fact that to save ourselves will require that ALL Americans, even those that are over 65, will have to share the sacrifice.

Tom Coburn is one of the few people in our party who would retain substantial credibility even if he agrees to tax hikes, like Nixon going to China.

Gamecock, I respect you, but social conservatives are the one of the worst political factions I know of when it comes to playing the political game strategically in order to obtain their goals. (Libertarians, most notably, are worse.) If we want the GOP to be a major political party, preferably the majority political party, then the various factions of conservatism are going to have to work together to achieve common goals. When all people heard this past election cycle when it came to social issues were liberals thundering that those evil Republicans were going to take away abortion rights and keep gays down, and Akin and Mourdock putting their respective feet into their stomach, it’s no wonder many of them were frightened into voting Democrat or (more likely) not voting at all, no matter how worried they were about fiscal issues. Fiscal issues are more abstract and harder to motivate people on by its very nature– how many voters could even tell you how much a trillion is?

The point is, to quote Ben Franklin, if we don’t all hang together, we will most certainly hang separately, and dissing other types of conservatives that aren’t your type is a sure way to get that second outcome.

” We probably agree that every voter should ultimately vote in his or her
best interest and that this will mostly work out for the best in the
end”.

One problem is that way too many voters vote their short term interest vs. their long term interest. The other problem is that too many voters vote a very narrow interest vs. their broader interests. So, the problem for us seems to be how to help voters understand both their broad and their long term interests, and the educate them on the need to vote that way. And, it is easier to define these problems than it is to cure them, or even to understand how to cure them.

My second point is that you make two mistakes. Lower taxes does not mean lower benefits. It means CERTAIN benefits or types of benefits are lowered. Other benefits are enhanced, such as liberty, and personal choice, and personal choice is the key, because what you may see as a benefit I may see as a liability. Your second mistake is to believe tax cuts are the causes of huge deficits. They are not. The cause is that for every new tax dollar we take in spending increases by several dollars. The real problem is spending. Lowering taxes improves people’s personal income, and they spend that, and the economy grows, and so does government revenue. But, then the politicians still spend more than they took in. Increasing taxes reduces personal income, and thus spending, and the economy shrinks, and to “end the suffering” the politicians increase the government’s spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue. If we stopped spending more than we take in, the deficit is zero. If we further cut spending, then the debt begins to dwindle. But, raising taxes takes fuel out of the economy, making it even that much harder to reduce either the deficit or the debt. So, cut spending, and then cut spending some more.

Finrod, what would a Republican party look like that would get your approval?

And how many votes would that party gain in next elections? Why?
I am surprised the liberal issues of abortion on demand and gay marriage as a national guarantee have such a priority with the electorate in chaos over loss of jobs and a slow recovery.

To make a case for lower taxes we must have taxpayer to address. To make a case for jobs we need address workers who see themselves as such. The same applies to mothers, fathers, teachers and preachers, even reporters. Our foe is government as provider and decider instead of ourselves and institutions we control ourselves 100%.

The ones draining the government grants are youth in the best of health. Entitlement group think is beyond the poor, sick and elderly and has a lure that is disarming.

But, of course anyone who wants the government on any level to take over their lives and that of their kids is a drain and a burden on us all. We must throw the ball into their court and have them make a case why they are entitled to other people’s money. Cab fare, child care, college, free rent, food stamps, long unemployment, disabilty insurance for a 30 year old, it all adds up to tens of thouands of dollars often for life.

By what authority are such entitlements given and taken from whom?

Libertarians.

Which is why every time he surfaces here with this same tired line, you should just put on the ignore filter.

As a Democrat would you be willing to make a case for the entitlemtent socety so many conservatives disdain? Who raises children in America?

Marriage is a state issue and where i live a bipartisan issues. Large numbers of Democrats voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as state laws says between a man and woman 2006. That joins other provisions— no close blood relative, age of consent and married to on one else.

There is a lawsuit pending in Utah I think is it Bob Green and his five wives who also want to marry. They can not get a valid marriage license over the ‘married to no one else’ provision. And Green may have one wife. Utah says she is the only wife he can have. Standoff.

Are we all bigots alnd all that for denying multiple partners in a marriage?

An excellent reply to a post that mnimizes life and is dismissive of the conservative stand for life.

Bush did some things well. He signed the ban on partian biirth abortion 2003 with a huge bipartisan audience. And that national law an Act was upheld when Judge Oconnerl eft the court and was replaced by Alito. Alito agreed with Judge Kennedy, unlike OConner, that partial birth abortion was infanticide in the Nebraska case. Alito made a difference and upheld the Ct that banned aprtial birth aboortion. A vidtory for life and states that had such bans. The states that had banned a partial birth abortion had been overturned until the 2003 law.

I do not seek the vote of abortionists and see it as murder of the innocent. But then I could not compromise with a slave friendly party eiher in 1854 and would have left the Whigs.

btwThis sonogram check Democrats complain about is nothing especially compared to warming a mother to the life of her unborn.

I’m thinking more voters were “frightened” at the prospect of less food stamps and Obamaphones than of Akin or Mourdock. The problem with is with an ignorant electorate and that they have to be tricked into voting correctly. When they re-hire such an abject failure as Obama, its hard to blame it on supposed social cons not “playing the game strategically”, whatever that means. Maybe too many Libertarians are blind to how the Dems are in their wallets and every room of their house including the bedroom; but that they crave abortions and pot so much they only “see” Republicans in the latter?

Ronald Reagan: “That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20 percent traitor.”

We’re going to need conservatives of all types and others that mostly agree with us to unify to defeat the liberals and Democrats; SoCons, FisCons, DefCons, libertarians, moderates that are tired of being sold a bill of goods by the liberals, you name it. Otherwise we’re just going to end up ceding power to the liberal Democrats permanently.

My references were to that groups insults at CPAC a year ago. I will not repeat them but recall they were insulting to social conservatives and drove a wedge between many members and CPAC.

Do you put words in everyone’s mouth, Bill, or just mine?

The tone and style is not the problem as much as the substance and mindset of entitlement.

I was trying to be helpful, since I figured the tone would get him banned pretty quickly (turns out I was right). Can’t have a conversation with a ghost, after all; if he had stuck around there would have been plenty of time to get into all his other misconceptions.

How about tyranny by corporations? Or tyranny by wealth? Is it a legitimate role of government to protect not only from the power of the club but also from the power of wealth?

The ones elected in 2010 were social conservatives as far as I can see. Rand Paul KY got Dr Dobson’s backing. Lee Utah is social conservative. I can not think of any who were not as the Republican party is also social conservative.

To focus on debt and massive expansion of federal power we can not pay for is not to say tea party activists in their world view and voting selections are single issues fiscal hawks much less social liberals.

Opposing Obamacare is a tea party single issue that focuses on cost and federal take over of health care. Rallies against O care yelled NO and built public opposition upon that issue alone in protest.

No matter if a voter likes Rand Paul or Mike Lee on any issues, great. VOTE
If not move on.

Not everyone is going to be able be reached. After all, forty percent of the country voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, and he ran on promising to raise taxes.

The bigger problem, I see, is illegals voting in our elections. This is why we need strong voter ID laws.

Unfortunately I agree with you, Marcus. Too many conservatives have lost their way and become big-government conservatives, whether they’re nominally FisCons, DefCons, or SoCons. Fiscal conservatives that only seek to slow down government spending, or direct it to causes that they prefer (I’m looking at you, every Republican that votes for farm subsidies); Defense conservatives– well, the Iraq War dragging on as long as it did took the wind out of their sails so they’re pretty quiet about big government nowadays; Social conservatives that want to fight every fight at a national level instead of pushing them down to the state level where we can win more of them– they all need to realize that federalism isn’t just a good idea, it’s in the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment, and if we don’t stand up for it, no one will.

If elected Republicans can’t stand up for lower taxes and smaller government, they don’t deserve to remain elected Republicans, period, and it’s up to us to evict them in primaries before they lose to Democrats who are much better at promising freebies and always will be.

littlehouse, I surely agree. Anyone who has followed my posts here has known for years that I am a major fan of The Ten Commandments. One of the Lord’s greatest gifts to humankind was that short list of simple ancient rules which, when broken, cannot fail to cause waves of pain which disrupt self, families and communities for decades.

The removal of that code from society – of God and His Nature’s immutable laws, woven into the very fabric of reality, is the first step to tearing down bedrock constructs of secure, prosperous, healthy people and societies. The second step would be to engineer our moral, psychological and even physiological structures into an image which the far left believes more just, equable and pleasing to themselves. No matter how well the twists and perversions on the tree of life are improvised, eventually the branch must snap back in to its natural position, hitting all of us in the face with appropriate, perfectly balanced (if disastrous) consequences.

Actually, you are incorrect. Most college students *do* take economics…but are taught by socialists and communists. Long times ago when I went to college at a relatively conservative state university, I took Macroeconomics and Microeconomics both. My Macroeconomics teacher stated, first day, “My economic belief system is communism.” That was 30+ years ago. It’s only gotten worse. They learn economics *wrong*; worse than being ignorant, they’re pridefully mis-educated.

most students do not take economics. Not saying that what they do take isn’t taught from a left leaning perspective but economics is not a required course for most majors.

Interesting question for me given that my ancestors were polygamists. So I always viewed polygamy as a freedom of religion issue.

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that polygamy is in general horrible for both women and children (and ultimately men). If interested I just read an intriguing novel (see http://www.19thwife.com/) on the subject.

However, I believe that polygamy is better than adultery (which as far as I know is legal). In general I suffer a confusion about my political orientation; I guess you can put me down as Libertarian on this issue, i.e., my religion shouldn’t interfere with your religion.

Liked the article. First off…where is a copy of the Republican Platform and what it stands for? Really…how many people have seen it…if it exists. If it does, it is interpreted by the MSM. First mistake by the Republicans.

We’ve gotten into pop sayings like top down…bottom up and nobody know what the heck it means…by that I mean everyday people. Secondly, we have too many chiefs and not enough indians. Really…one day it is Krauthammer and the next Bill Krystol, etc. No unified message. I liked the TPM’s “Taxed Enough Already”….people got that…and they will be getting that more in 2013.

Streiff…our media…including regular TV shows…emphasize the wrong ideals. Stuff….and if it is not stuff…then it is about immorality of body soul and mind. Really…it’s OK to be 40 lbs overweight. No it isn’t…it costs us money in insurance premiums. But…MSM…puts that out there and heaven forbid that we don’t idolize someone who suffers from gluttony. I’m getting off track here but when are the Republicans going to speak with a unified voice?

When are we going to have people explain to their electorate what this phrase and that one means? I am sick of platitudes. It’s like this: Folks…if we spend too much money, we have to borrow it. You know what it is like to borrow on your credit card? No one likes to pay 21%…why at X amount of money owed @ 21% you would be paying this much more____. We need term limits because anyone with a blank check for years is never held accountable. If I don’t do the job I said within two terms…I am gone…and if I don’t do it in one term…primary me…I care about the USA…that is why I am in public office. The Department of Education needs to be eradicated because, like any other government agency…the closer the people are to the governing criteria…the more power they have..i.e., the more say so. Do you have power over what the DOE does now? If the answer is no…then it needs to go. The country is for the people…not the government. The government is a facilitator for the people…not lobbyists and special interests. We, the Republican Party believe in stronger state’s rights because as with the DOE stated previously…you have more say so.

Foreign Affairs. We do not have the right to dictate to any country how they should live unless that country threatens the security of the USA. If threatened, we will not engage in a long drawn out war to enrich the government and its suppliers, we will eradicate the enemy or at the very least leave it impotent….meaning they have no power.

We are for COMPLETE energy independence within the USA using all methods of energy. We do not believe in corporate cronyism wherein the government and PRIVATE corporations benefit at the expense of the taxpayer. If a car company fails, it goes through the process of bankruptcy. The United States is not the arbitrator of union negotiations. This is a private matter between companies and their employees. Each state has the right to allow abortion, gay marriage and right to work. However, that state, nor the Federal government cannot require another state to abide by the same rules.

We believe in freedom of all religions. However, if any religion demonstrates an anti-American bias, then that religion will be put on a watch list for the security of the peoples of the USA. We believe in immigration. However, we believe in LEGAL immigration. If you have entered this country illegally and have a job, you will be required to get a work permit for a period of time and after that expires, you may apply for citizenship at the end of the line. Any children born here during your work period must return to your native country. We believe in a helping hand up NOT A HAND OUT. Again…we have INTEREST to pay on the credit card and a balance to pay off.
We will repatriate companies that are now holding off going over seas.

We will revisit the regulations of the EPA. We will abolish Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and also Sallie Mae. We will allow the private banks to give loans or your children will earn Pell grants according to their academic achievements. The Dodd Frank bill will be abolished and replaced with a business friendly bill. Obamacare will be abolished. However, tax rates will lessened to those PRIVATE healthcare companies that offer a reasonable premium and all companies can participate without having a license in that state but will be allowed to sell across state lines. Special consideration will be given to pre-existing conditions that require extra-ordinary care and discounts will be given to people, who with a pre-existing condition, have considerably lessened their costs when treating that condition. Reassessment will be given to the definition of pre-existing in addition. For example, if a person has had a seizure and the cause for that seizure is cured or the medicine to abate that condition has happened for a period of X amount of years, it is no longer consider pre-existing.

All medicines can be bought in the USA with an increased premium to help pharma companies pay for research…or people can forgo insurance and buy overseas, That means the insurance companies will become more competitive and competition means better prices for we the people.

As a representative, I will not be given a special healthcare plan. I will be required to purchase one OUT OF MY SALARY that you pay me. My salary increases will be in line with those given the current SS recipients and if they don’t get one, I, as your representative don’t get one.

I will press on for equal time for both parties through the media to allow our viewpoint to be expressed DIRECTLY TO YOU.

I could go on and on…It’s long…I hope someone likes the ideas…at any rate..I have no idea what the RNC stands for anymore.

I would like to know something…if I posted 18 minutes ago….why is it I had to go hunt it up? This happens with disqus and not just on this board. Are they an impartial facilitator…sometimes I wonder.

Disqus can be very ditzy. I have had entire diaries disappear.

I don’t know that polygamy has been shown to be horrible for either women or children. Children benefit by the extended family (and extended family is one reason that we associate some Asian cultures with being “smart”). Women, at least in pre-industrial societies benefit by having colleagues, if you will, to share labor and increase mean time between pregnancies. Polygamy works against social stability as the most crime and violence prone portion of society, to wit young unmarried men, radically increases. Even more so in a society that practices sex based infanticide.

Given the direction we’re going in regards to homosexual marriage, I find it hard to believe that a case exists to ban polygamy or it’s rare kin, polyandry.

While I might agree that Balkinization and hardening of parochial positions is one reason for the growing irrelevance of Republicans, the problem is much more complex than that.

It starts with an extreme dearth of leadership. The type of leadership which can articulate a principle based vision. People that simply display in common words and deeds to even the most disinterested of political participants what the Republican philosophy is based on. People who lead the way, not follow the latest issue of the day or seek to tactically take advantage of people’s dissatisfaction with another party, candidate or their policies.

We’ve always been a very diverse party. But we are only successful when our leaders are strong. From what I can tell, none of the leaders who will guide us to a successful future occupy today’s party or congressional structure.

the tension is that conservatives are not libertarians. Same as the tension between conservatives and liberals.

I’m certainly not going to argue with you that we need reform of Congress, I’ve been tilting at that windmill for a long time now. An anti-gerrymandering Constitutional amendment and an amendment to limit congressional districts to 50K or 100K people would go a long long ways towards reforming the House and making it actually representative of the People. The smaller the districts, the harder it is to game them via dumping money into the system, which is why we have Republican statehouses in even purplish-blue states like Pennsylvania. To my mind, it’s better to reform the system to make it much more immune to the effects of dumping money at it than to try to limit the money, much like it’s healthier to have a robust immune system than to try to live in a plastic bubble.

I’m just wondering when he’s actually going to respond to what I’m saying, instead of just throwing lame accusations that I’m not reading or responding to others.

But isn’t half of the libertarian creed conservative? I’ve been properly taught by liberal bloggers that even Paul Ryan professed an admiration for Atlas Shrugged at one time. Or can’t I trust what I read on liberal blogs?

Not really . . . Krugmann’s prize-winning work dealt with international markets and customers’ being able to obtain the items they want based on the free market capitalism and diversity of products–you know: kinda the opposite of what he preaches now.

good points all. But this underscores the extent to which we speak a different language. This guy says he voted for Reagan until he decided Reagan, with a Dem Senate and House, couldn’t fix the deficit, then he became a democrat.

Most democrats seem to think that the government is working two jobs and living on beanie-weenies and that you have no need for the money you earn.