« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The CPAC Controversy and the End of Fusionism

By: Ben Domenech (Diary)  |  January 12th, 2011 at 10:59 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

Today on Coffee and Markets we’re joined by Matt Lewis of Politics Daily to discuss the recent controversy over the CPAC gathering among conservatives and whether the 2012 field will mark an end to Fusionism on the right.

We’re brought to you as always by Stephen Clouse and Associates. You can find our iTunes feed at CoffeeandMarkets.com. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Lewis: FRC Explains Boycott
Lewis: Keene Response to Social Conservatives
Weigel: Heritage Isn’t Skipping CPAC Because of GOProud
WashTimes: CPAC Exposes Rift on Right
National Journal: CPAC Boycott Won’t Stop 2012ers
Follow Matt Lewis on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • concap

    Fusionism? Gee, wonder where I?ve heard that before.

    See my post

    A Conservative house divided against itself cannot stand.

    http://www.redstate.com/bjwilson83/2011/01/06/a-blueprint-for-the-gop-in-2012/#comment-339

    There is a movement to separate the fiscal from the social side of the house.

    They are oil and water.

    You may be able to store them in a bottle (party) but they are still separate.

    Spill the bottle and they both go there separate ways.

    The bottle has spilled.

    • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

      I’m a fiscal and social conservative. In fact, most socons are fiscal conservtives, too.

      • concap

        a person can be both fiscal and social at the same time (I.e. separate but in the same bottle). But. Remember. If that person is split 50/50 fiscal/social, they will be considered politically neutral and no use to the party they are in. They will only be of value to the extent of which side and how much they are for that side. If they lean say 30/70 toward the fiscal, than they are of no use to the fiscals because 70% of that person is for increased spending for social programs, not cutting them.

        The question is. If and when the people that are both fiscal and social are forced to chose, which side will they be more for?

        The ones more fiscal will migrate to the Tea Party and the ones that are left will stay social, thus splitting the party.

        Fusionist impulses declined during the presidency of George W. Bush. The social conservative element of the Republican Party was seen on the ascent (at least with respect to domestic politics), leading to INCREASED domestic spending on ?moral? issues that ANGERED fiscal conservatives and libertarians.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism

        • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

          I am 100% fiscal conservative and 100% social conservative. There are issues on which I do disagree with other fiscons or other socons, but my stances on those issues are still reliably conservative, or at least libertarian.

          And most pointedly, in no case do my social conservatism and fiscal conservatism interfere with each other.

          What is more, it was not the social conservatism of Bush that led to his spending, but simply his weak understanding of economics and conservative principles generally. Lacking a full understanding of conservatism, he went with vote buying.

          There is an area, defense and homeland security, where (in hindsight) Bush spent too much and grew government too much. That had very little to do with his social conservatism and everything to do with wanting not to have another 9/11 on his watch.

          Your anger at socons is misplaced.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    CPAC allowed GOProud to co-sponsor the conference last year and GOProud immediately attacked Liberty University and several other social conservative organizations. They continue their attacks – just go to their website. GOProud is not the victim but the aggressor.

    After CPAC last year, Mr. Bob Park at Big Government interviewed Mr. LaSalvia, the head of GOProud, and allowed him to use the column to further the GOProud attack on social conservatives. Mr. Park allowed Mr. LaSalvia to smear those organizations without asking them for their side of the story. It was really a poor piece of journalism. Mr. Park responded to my questioning by arguing he was not a journalist and did not have to be fair and balanced.

    This year Mr. Andrew Breitbart will host a reception for gay conservatives and continues to put pressure on social conservatives to compromise their social agenda by accepting GOProud. Mr. Breitbart knows that culture influences politics and he has encouraged the gay culture promoted by GOProud by supporting them in conservative politics.