“Social conservatism isn’t the problem.”

Amen.

The problem is there aren’t enough social conservatives “in” our Party.

Thank you.

CW

not sure exactly what your point is here? the further i go into my political life the more libertarian i lean. that being said i am obviously a republican but i feel that if social issues were posed in the proper light, i.e. states rights and individual prerogative then we would have an easier time on our hands. we desperately need an apologist here who can define proper constitutional roles in these issues. do i like abortion, hell no. do i believe that marriage can be anything but between a man and woman, definitely not. but there are ways to explain these issues that many republicans just don’t grasp.

btw all that being said i’d be soooooo happy if republicans didn’t even, for the most part, talk about these things whatsoever, when asked how old do you think the earth is, is a easy proposition; 80trillion in unfunded liabilities? and you want to talk about the age of the earth? period dot bingo

I actually think for the most part, the pro-life side has done a good job talking about things and stopped support for abortion in it’s tracks and even pushed it back some. This year was a huge setback in large part because of cretins like Todd Akin (who should never be aloud near a microphone again) but I still think overall things are moving in the right direction, there.

At some point, the GOP is going to have to realize that the gay marriage issue is lost, though. More and more states are going to vote in favor of it – the only question is how much the party will sustain as it happens. It’s a live by the sword, die by the sword thing as the issue certainly helped the GOP in the mid 00s, but now it’s gone the other way.

I guess what really bothers me right now is there are some loud voices out there that I do not respect and they have too much influence in the party. I do not respect Rush – I do not respect James Dobson. Everyone has the right to say whatever they wish, but I would be a lot happier if party leaders told those two where they could shove it.

Social conservatism is not the wedge issue. Establishment Republicans who speak about less government but really just want Democrat spoils vs. the Tea Partiers who really mean what they say…that is the issue.

Go back and read the diary. Go back and read what I wrote: “Leithart is right”.

I don’t believe there was any ambiguity there.

Do what he says.

I think it’s wrong to suggest jettisoning the SoCon positions entirely much as it would be to jettison the libertarians and any other supporters who hold certain principles dear – but there has to be some form of accommodation that everyone can get behind in order to present a unified position that everyone can get behind which is absolutely necessary to succeed as a political party – a party can only be divided if there are obvious division to exploit after all.

As any absolutist view-holder you are almost always faced with Hobson’s choice and it comes down to whether you’d rather sit out the election and potentially end up with the worst-case scenarios (a Democrat) or compromise your principles (for example, a gay marriage supporting Republican in say, Massachusetts or similar)

I think a lesson can be learned from the Democrats – within their coalition there are members who are anti- and pro- gun, anti- and pro- abortion, (usually in blue and red states respectively) anti- and pro-Israel but you never see them demonizing or labelling other Democrat candidates as ‘squishes’ because they happen to hold an opposing position on certain issues and they sure as hell get behind their Presidential candidate without reservation. Call it a lack of principle or moderation but it seems to work for them.

It’s one reason why I find the recent GOP trend of pledges problematic – by the time a Presidential or purple-district/state GOP candidate has navigated the NRA, the Susan B Anthony List, Grover Norquist, the no-amnesty-under-any-circumstances pledge et al in order to be ‘accepted’ by the various interest groups demanding complete loyalty, you either end up with someone who is virtually antithetical to a significant proportion of the voting populace or, like Romney, some-one who just comes across as weak-willed and dishonest.

As for the solution – I don’t know what it but I do think that the current absolutist paths being adopted by the disparate wings of the GOP is going to cause significant issues going forward, and no more so with a President and Democratic party ready and willing to hammer those wedges deeper at every opportunity.

It’s a valid point that certain views change as people age but my instinct is that the support for gay marriage is unlikely to really change significantly over time. IMO many of the generational changes in views you describe tend involve thoughts on taxation, immigration, abortion and suchlike which to me are likely to change from idealistic to more realistic as a person joins the workforce, has a family and ends up facing circumstances which build a more nuanced and less naive viewpoint.

That said, I can’t for the life of me imagine a comparable event of significance that an individual could attribute to the gay couple down the road being married and living together instead of just living together that would drastically alter their prior views of being in favour or even simply apathetic to gay marriage, the only thing that comes to mind is ‘finding religion’ and the whole ‘living in sin’ thing.

Obama reminds me of Satan in the beginning in the book of Genesis when he tempted the woman saying, “Did God really say don’t eat….?” And then again, when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness at the end of his forty day fast — trying to get Jesus to bow down to him by lying and promising the world to him. Obama’s blatant disrespect and defiance of God — declaring the times have changed and it is time for the Republicans to get with the program — makes him look arrogant, childish and foolish. I really could not care less what he or any “bad” Republican thinks about the so-called social issues. Or what position legislators, judges or the so-called influencers of policy take. It won’t change the truth and that’s all that really matters to me.

My response to Obama and “bad” Republicans: Get thee behind me, Satan. And then I thank God for the first Amendment to the Constitution.

First of all, which party is libertarian?
The dems want to restrict the ability to own a gun, speech if you don’t agree, the kind of lightbulb I can buy, the kind of car I can drive…..
The reps (which I am still registered as) want to restrict my freedom to… buy alcohol on Sunday (maybe not where you live but where I do.)

To be pro-life do I have to be against abortion when the mothers life is at stake? How about pregnancy due to rape? Do I have to be against the morning after pill? I’m sorry to disappoint this site and if this is my first and last post if will not stop me from reading and voting conservative in primary and r in general. But I believe that you must believe it is murder OR it is not. If it is, then a doctor is not qualified to decide to terminate a pregnancy to save the mothers life. And certainly not morally OK in the case of rape. But I fully respect your beliefs if you believe in no exceptions.

The paragraph above is about belief. Now let’s talk reality. The SCOTUS ruled abortion to be legal and barring an amendment that is extremely unlikely to change. Now, because social conservatives feel so strongly it is murder they will not vote for anyone who suggests they could support even first trimester abortions–AND they actually do what they say (I can respect that too). However, following this strict code makes it possible for people who support infanticide (Kermit gosnell is supported by pro-abortion dems) to win power and ensure we still kill babies in partial birth abortions.

As for marriage we are missing the forest through the trees. Government is killing marriage by making financial incentives to stay single with children. Government is responsible for linking people financially and responsibly (parents have responsibility for dependants, powers of attorney). Let’s return the word marriage to reilgion, and legally linked is a government status. Obamacare is going to destroy family insurance coverage–that is a far bigger treat to the family and our morals.

You’re right, there is broad support for socially conservative positions in the party. But how do you deal with the fact that there aren’t enough social conservatives in the party to win a national election though?

Cause uh, that’s sort of an important detail, when talking politics. The central detail really.

exactly rick and bill i never said we should silence anybody. i just think social conservatives need to be a little more, “wise like serpents, while gentle as doves” to quote the ultimate so-con

What good are State Governments if the Feds control every issue in life? People can rally in front of their State Capitol if they aren’t happy but how many of us can travel to Washington D.C.? What we need is the Feds OUT of our lives and let States handle the social issues. Feds can’t do the job the Constitutions allows them to do so they just mess up everything for everyone.

Yeah, the budget votes have been a bit of a joke. The debt ceiling or fiscal cliff issue might be more understandable, but Boehner pulled every other House Republican down the cliff with him on most other budget votes.

Actually, no. The central detail is that it’s impossible for Republicans to win without social conservatives. Because there are most certainly not enough libertarians to win.

Then the GOP had better figure out a way to retain social conservatives, because at current course and speed, we’ll be gone.

I really dislike it intensely when I see Republicans who insist on buying into the Liberal narrative wholesale that adhering to a set of Judeo-Christian beliefs as a political party can not be a means of persuading people to our side.

Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Without those who are willing to stand by those principles come hell or high water, the very moral foundation of this nation will be lost.

The type of government our nation was designed to be will not survive without a moral foundation. It was not designed to be manipulated by corrupt men who desire to put the rule of man, i.e. their own rule, over the rule of law. It will crumble and fall into ruin. Can you not see how the efforts of Liberals to alienate those who stand by Judeo-Christian principles correlates with Obama’s professed intention to “fundamentally transform America”?

I think your comment is based on a flawed analysis. How do I think things will turn out for social conservatives if we walk away from the GOP? Just fine, that’s how. We will go to church, and raise our families, and experience the joy that we have been promised. In general we are not dependent on government, and run our lives the way we are called to run them, regardless of what government does. Sure, we may have to do it in secret, we may be persecuted, we may be forced to hide, but that’s happened before. It’s happening right now in places all across the world.

How will things turn out for the country? Now that’s a different story. That’s what the founders were talking about in the quotes rbdwiggins shared below. That’s what we are worried about, and that is the fundamental difference in our side and theirs.

We aren’t so much worried about what we can take from the trough, we are worried that conditions in this country will deteriorate to the point that our children will not enjoy the liberty and prosperity that we do. We certainly don’t want things to return to a state of nature that we have been so fortunate to have risen above – and may I add, BECAUSE of our moral beliefs, not in spite of them.

You seem to have a serious dichotomy in your last sentence. If DOMA is “abandoned”, then there will be no “federalist” path for the issue. The States will not be allowed to go their own way on same sex marriage (which I believe is what you allude to with the term “federalist approach”), they will be forced to accept the legality of marriages performed in other states. Of course I could be mistaken and you define “federalist” as the Federal government controlling all.

Amen. I remember the 80s, when “Rust Belt” folks were moving here. When they arrived, they said “Wow, no income tax! That’s wonderful!” After a few years many of those same people could be heard saying “When I was back in (name a city/county/state) the (city/county/state) did X for me. Why doesn’t the (Texas city/county/state) do that for me too?”

I think this quote must be taken within the context of, and with an understanding of all of TJ’s writings.

I’m not trying to scrutinize anyone’s conservative positions, social or otherwise.

I believe in God very strongly, just not in religion. I go to the church of the F-150 where I commune with God daily.

I have no disagreement with the quotes rbdwiggins posted. I just don’t interpret them the same way he/she does I guess.

However, most people are at least socially libertarian, even if they are social conservatives or moderates. We can accomplish socially conservative goals with creative socially libertarian solutions. Its not our principles that must change, its our strategies that must change.

Here’s the problem – 130 GOP House members come from districts where 80% or more of the population is white. For Dems that number is 31. So, while lots of polls show that within the GOP there is support for certain social and economic conservative policies, the wider electorate isn’t so supportive (74% don’t want Roe V. Wade overturned, majorities favor gay marriage, women in combat roles, comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship, revenue increases and spending cuts to balance the budget, etc.). And we all have seen the huge numbers supporting “sensible” gun control legislation. I think the strategy outlined in the article makes sense as it will probably keep the House in the hands of the GOP (at least until 2020 when redistricting occurs again). But not sure its a strategy to win the Senate (although that’s possible). It is not a strategy to win the White House (which, perhaps, is not the goal of the author but, rather, the goal is to keep the faith with certain social ideals).

Ok.

But my comment that you responded to was one simple question to Bill.

“Which side does this put you on, the good or the bad?”

I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, I’m genuinely curious what qualifies as a good republican or bad republican to other republicans. If a person toes the republican line on everything except the two social issues Bill listed, abortion and same-sex marriage, does that make them a bad republican? If they’re against abortion and SSM but reject the party line on everything else are they still a good republican?

I only ask this because recently here at Redstate I’ve been called a leftie, a bleeding-heart liberal, and a RINO because of my views on a couple of issues. My personal view is that anyone who votes republican most of the time is a good republican.

There are no “good” Republicans or “bad” Republicans. There’s only principled Republicans or unprincipled Republicans. Good and bad are too subjective.

I would say that a “bad” Republican is the same sort of thing as a “bad” Democrat. If there is very little difference between you and the people you say you disagree with then I believe that would make you “bad”, particularly on deep philisophical issues like abortion or gay marriage.
Let’s take gay marriage, for example. It’s not about whether or not we want people to be happy. Of course we do. It’s about the definition of a fundamental building block of society, which has been defined a certain way sense definitions of that sort have existed.
If anything can be marriage, then anything can be a family, then you can’t affirm that society doesn’t benefit from one form of these building blocks over the other, then nothing matters any more, and the now vacant lot is overwhelmed by weeds. That’s a fundamental difference.

Try being a young skull full of mush and decide who is wrong in the
debate. The left is fighting for “marriage equality” and the right
opposes it. They figure the right must be wrong to oppose such a nice
thing as “marriage equality”. These youths are not any more pro-gay marriage than their parents. We just need to change strategy to get their votes and protect traditional marriage from government meddling.

We should support “marriage freedom” or the deregulation of marriage between consenting adults. This would flip youth support to our side because, who can oppose “marriage freedom”. After all, “marriage freedom” would be for everyone and “marriage equality” is just for gays. Young people will see the “marriage equality” movement as a fringe group of gay rights radicals trying to force their version of marriage down our throats. Sure gays could marry under marriage freedom, I doubt there would be enough of them to statistically matter. However, the left would lose their battle to officially redefine marriage and attack traditional sacred marriage in our churches.

I know this is not perfect but, I don’t see any other realistic options to win a battle against a well-organized,well-funded left-wing movement that has the power of government and media behind it without flipping the argument on them and talking government out of the equation. Otherwise, eventually we will lose , just as we lost on abortion, no-fault divorce, school prayer, etc. I’m sick of losing these battles.

But those people are still there, whether you write them off or not. Go look at the breakdown of who voted yes or no on California’s Proposition 8– every single racial group was no more than 52 percent yes or 52 percent no, except for blacks, who were 60 percent yes. If we assume that the polling profile of those voters is close enough to the same voter profile that turns out for presidential and congressional elections, where 90+ percent vote Democrat, that means over half of blacks voted yes on Prop 8 but also vote Democrat.

That’s why social conservative causes can do well at the ballot box but social conservative Republican candidates go down in flames.

Agreed, we must not be silenced. I just want to beat back “progressive” values. Without the government acting as their benefactor, “progressive” values are just representative of a fringe group of radicals. Therefore, government is the problem and cannot be part of our solution. We can also start fighting for good ideas like school choice and cable choice to start turning the tide in our favor.

We can either get an amendment to the constitution to protect traditional marriage or get the states out of the marriage business among consenting adults. The former is a tough road if we are up for it. The latter may be easier if we hold to our principles. Leaving it up to the states will just force the Supreme Court to side with the left on this issue to resolve such conflicts as married same-sex couples move to states that banned gay marriage, etc. I wish that weren’t true but, its that sad state of affairs that the deck is stacked against us.

By last count, gay marriage bills/votes are being advance in Ohio, New Jersey, Minnesota, Hawaii, New Mexico, Wyoming, Illinois, Washington and in the ONE state where there is traditional marriage legislation, Indiana, the bill has been postponed indefinitely.

Each year the turn-18 voters are becoming more and more pro-gay marriage, which is now sitting at like 75% approval. Young conservative are bailing on this like no other. Heck — even on *RedState*, the “give up on opposing gays” posts get 37 upvotes to “fight gay marriage” getting 4 upvotes. I get trying to spin the social conservative position on marriage in a positive light, but we’re now approaching post-power outage Super Dome blackout lighting here.

All that said, I still do not understand how we’re lumping this in with the pro-life movement. An issue where hundreds of millions of lives are at stake (lives!), versus elderly voters taking issue with two women getting married. I really just don’t get it.

Except that social conservatives seem to be very comfortable with ignoring federalism when it’s inconvenient to them. For example, medical marijuana / marijuana legalization, where most SoCons won’t even listen to federalism-based arguments that the states should decide for themselves whether it should be legal or not in their state.

What is your point? Gay marriage bills are always being proposed somewhere. But every time it goes to the public for a vote, the vast majority side against gay marriage. You may have bought into the “equality” argument, but I have not. And to be even more blunt, you may not be willing to stand for things that are right even when it is not “cool” but I am. I do not base my values on a bill being proposed in WY, nor do I base my values on your opinion or the opinion of the public.

Abortion is pure evil, but it is not the only attack on morals and our way of life, it is not the only important value that needs protecting. So sorry if I refuse to heed your advice.

Yeah, let’s just ignore the fact that solid majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans all agree that the federal government should not be enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have made it legal.

I really hope that you become a political consultant someday for all the candidates I dislike, because your political instincts are the worst I’ve seen in a long time. Get a clue.

No they do not Finrod, just another example of your silliness. A majority of democrats may favor it, but that does not booster your argument since they also favor abortion on demand, socialism, high taxes, etc. Independents are about split, and republicans are mainly against. We are not talking about the so called republican group of nuts, the libertarians, as they are idiots.

And maybe I will become a consultant to all those you dislike as that would mean I would be consulting decent, smart, conservative, God fearing, men and women, the opposite of the dope smoking, animal farm saving idiots you tend to gravitate towards. I know you meant that as an insult, but it is actually a great suggestion.

Now go save that animal farm, you are doing a great job at being site clown, and as I said before, get a life. Even you should know there are better things in life than being a loser, you should try some of them sometime.

No, divorce is not “immoral”. It is quite undesirable and we’ve made it far, far too easy. Even in the Christian Bible there are exceptions to the prohibition on divorce. No-fault divorce is one of the most disgusting evils perpetrated on this country. The Left has a valid point on the marriage argument – we should absolutely be paying more attention to the sanctity of marriage on the heterosexual side as well. There should be far more done, as a society, to solidify marriage between man and woman.

I would like to pose a question. No, I am not a conservative, but could be if the GOP looked more like the libertarians precisely because of the social conservatives issues. I have always seen a dichotomy between conservatism and SoCon issues. On the one hand, arguing that the government should stay out of the way, and on the other that it should dictate social “norms”. How does the social conservative square these two seemingly opposing ideals? I do see a difference in the abortion issue based on safeguarding a human life based on your definition of the beginning of life,but what of the other issues? How and why should a conservative and small government legislate morality?

Your approach here does not bode well for your future. Smartasses don’t stay around long, and your past history ain’t that hot either.

Can’t fit a sheet of paper? Obamacare was written on over 2000 sheets of paper. Obama’s tax proposals and regulations account for thousands more sheets of paper. And the Fed’s endless money printing creates even more worthless sheets of paper. There’s plenty of room between us and the Dems.

Agreed. As a “come to recognize the brilliance of Federalism” Republican I could not agree more. The focus should be on power first, then implementing Federalism. Getting the power to do that has two purposes. First it destroys the foundation for the patronage economy as a national force of occupation (my description of Obama is doing) and second it returns America to the era when we believed that strong fences make good neighbors. Or put another way, a time when we cared more about our neighbors minding their own business and leaving us alone, then we cared about telling them how to live their life.

As long as social conservatives are convinced that we will all go to hell because somebody in New York murders an unborn child, none of us will gain the political power we need to make where we live a haven for social conservatives.

There are more serious things to worry about then Roe vs Wade. No one was forced by it to have an abortion against the mothers will, where as ObamaCare has the power to declare certain unborn children to be expendable as a cost effective and cost saving medical procedure required under policy dictated by the federal government.

If we can’t put aside a forty year old battle that we have not won, in order to combine our forces in a greater war for our liberty then we should be prepared to watch as we loose ever more control over what the federal government can dictate that is against our religious sensibilities.

No, I believe I understand the difference between anarchy and conservatism. Saying that you would like to shrink government small enough to drown it in a bathtub, then making an exception for peeking in my bedroom or in my contraceptive decisions is definitely not consistent. I am not disagreeing or agreeing with any single social conservative issue here, I am trying to understand how the social conservative platform works in the larger conservative movement. For me, the libertarian platform is more consistent. Keep government out of the way except in issues of national security and letting the markets work and allowing social norms to fall where they may. The SoCon platform worked for decades when the US was a predominantly socially conservative Protestant country. Legislating morality works well in cultures where the population is homogeneous. The US is not that today. The election showed that the lines have been drawn racially and ethnically as well as generationally. The older white Protestant electorate that won the GOP elections in the past is shrinking in size.

Who cares what England did, or the vatican for that matter. Few are fighting to stop civil unions or as RB stated, contractual protections, but we are not willing to stop fighting for the protection of traditional marriage. Not that hard to understand.

Yeah, I didn’t say that everyone agrees with that article. I said that *I* do. Perhaps others will respond differently. But as I noted in a prior response, there is a pattern of social conservative disengagement when they believe their issues are being ignored. I believe it’ll happen again. GOP leaders who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I always get a kick out of people who want to approach SoCons from the angle of legislating morality.

You think Liberals haven’t been legislating morality? Of course they have, and it’s very plain to see for those who have eyes to see it with. The difference lies in moral standards. Moral standards run along a spectrum, i.e. high standards, low standards, or even no standards, etc. When it comes the protecting and preserving the value of human life, which is a moral issue, Conservatives have a high standards. Liberals do not. That’s why they can condone abortion. They place little value on the life of the individual. It’s also why they praise some of the programs that have already been put into place in Europe, such as the Liverpool Care Pathway in England.

Whether you or others who obviously have a prejudice against SoCons want to admit it or not, we have our part to play in American society. For all intents and purposes, we are rapidly becoming the remnant that guards, protects and preserves the moral foundation on which our form of government was established.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

The value of human life and the value of the individual have to be protected and preserved. That’s part of what we do.

Given some of the underlying threats to the right to life that we’re starting to see here in the US, Bill, and then consider that our founding fathers did include the right to life in the Declaration of Independence…do you ever wonder how far things went in the experiences our founding fathers faced? I find it very difficult to believe that they put the right to life in there as a random gesture with no meaning.

Good question. I used to get frustrated beyond words when people would respond with an attitude of “black?…permanent Dem voter,move on” and not even make the effort. But during the last few years, I learned more about the black culture. The basis for faith can be the same, but the principles taught in the black community can often have Black Liberation Theology woven into the principles of faith. I’m not sure that will ever be easily overcome.

I do think we’re to the point where parents of all races can have a common point on which they agree, i.e. quality of education. It’s definitely a starting point.

Not all social conservatives feel that way, that is simply hyperbole. I would
not want marijuana legalized in my state, because I think it is a very bad idea. But if the people (not legislature) voted to legalize it, that is their choice. You get the government you deserve and I do not think the Feds should get involved.

This is why we need to get government out of the marriage business. Otherwise they will begin to dictate what parts of the gospel are still allowed to be preached.

I hope that was worth burning your registration. One-handed commenters don’t last long here.

Here’s my take. Those of us who believe in limited Government see us as a nation heading in the wrong direction. The Democrats push us that way, and the best the Republicans seem to be able to do is slow it down somewhat. As I’ve posted before, true compromise would be the status quo, no change at all (or a zero sum give and take, like spending increase here, equal real cut there, or create new program here, eliminate program of equal cost there, but I don’t want to get technical). Since the action of the present Republican leadership does not dig in to move our agenda or at least prevent any movement in the wrong direction, we lable them “squishes.” I’d be much happier with any leadership of ours that could move us – however slowly – in the right direction, and if that were the actual case, I’m sure you’d find much less discord among our “coalition.” I’d even settle for the federalism approach, as I could at least choose to live in a freedom friendly state. But our congressional leadership doesn’t fight for that either.

It is in the interest of government to be in the marriage business. Government depends on a stable society.

This was something that I received in the mail this AM…thought some of you would find this interesting. Although it is about guns…it also says something about Democrats and what has not come out in the news.

http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/01/liberals-with-guns/

Now…I guess we know of some “bad” Democrats.