« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Further thoughts about Rockefeller Republicans

This started as a comment to this diary, but expanded into diary length.

In the years I was growing up (1950s and 1960s), Republicans had the image of being the party of country club, social registry, WASP establishment, using the government to promote big business perks at the cost of everyone else. In practice the legislators divided the pie with the majority Democrats – they got some money for their big business clients while the Democrats spent money on social projects (Great Society and all that).

On foreign affairs, things were better: Republicans and the Scoop Jackson Democrats (along with Walther Reuther and Big Labor) were able to maintain and strong defense working majority.

Vietnam broke up the unwritten agreements, pushing the Democratic Party and Labor to the left and anti-defense. (Now the 60s (actually the 70s) radicals have infiltrated and are now in charge of our government under Obama – but that’s another story.)

Meanwhile the Republican establishment found themselves facing a 3-stool Conservatism movement that invigorated a moribund party. However, the status quo interest in the Congressional leadership and Party leadership, coupled with the personal failings of key leaders and attendant inconsistency with public values of Conservatism led to internal fracturing, with the moderates vilifying social conservatism (with some inadvertent help from excesses by some leaders of the interest groups) to try to regain the ascendancy, ignoring in the process the radical shift in the Democratic party, a blindness which persists today in their behavior in Congress.

George Bush let Congress run riot early on (due to his political weakness following the 2000 Florida debacle and his non-confrontational instincts and country-club instincts of politeness) and then took a hands-off approach to this conservative vs. Rockefeller conflict. His acquiescence to Rockefeller Republican “business as usual” regarding big government and spending, and his passivity in defending his programs left an opening for the Obama phenomenon – and his excessive deference to his advisors led to the TARP debacle that sank McCain and emasculated Republicans attempts to reverse the plunge to socialism that TARP has initiated.

What social conservatives need to do is to shore up our small government bona fides, and subsume our social issues to conform to federalist, small government principle. On abortion, as mentioned above, that means emphasizing the desire to return this to state and local level debate and decision-making: which means our goal is to reverse Roe vs, Wade rather than aiming for the courts to impose a Federal anti-abortion policy. Plus a continuing forthright commitment to protecting vulnerable life – which is the most persuasive argument we have.

Gay marriage is a conundrum because it is the state courts that are usurping the legislative and civic debate in favor of imposition – but this will have to be fought at the state level. Attempting to get the federal government involved is shooting ourselves in the gonads given the political realities of the current administration and of Congress in the foreseeable future.

The bottom line is that if social conservatives can promote agenda items in a small government context, then we have the upper hand against moderate canards about socons wanting Federal government interference in private affairs – which will then expose big government moderates for what they are, without the diversion of “government in your bedroom” hysteria.

I’m not sure how to handle the libertarian – conservative disagreement over national defense – but Obama and the Democrats extreme anti-defense and appeasement actions may enable common cause against an existential threat from the left for the time being – especially if those of us strong on defense take a somewhat more cautious approach to foreign military campaigns.

And Obama may provide the chance for some rapprochement with civil libertarians and we also start to see Obama and the Democrats utilize the WOT necessary infringements and twist them to start suppressing domestic dissent. There’s nothing like seeing the beginnings of a real left dictatorship to create an alliance on civil liberties between conservatives and libertarians.

So I see some hopeful trends if we keep our focus on the real dangers of the ongoing Revolution by the Democrats and stop fighting last year’s battles.

Whether the moderate can see the forest for the trees is unclear, but social conservativse at least can clear away underbrush. Inertia is difficult to overcome; but the failure of moderates to perceive the new political environment in this new age will be fatal.

COMMENTS

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    it’s a simple statement of “going back” to the Constitution. That simple statement belies the complexities of the concepts.

    Our message has gotten lost because we fail to effectively explain those concepts since they inherently appeal to us and are easily understood as a result. When one becomes accustomed to other ways of doing things, it’s not so easily understood.

    Excellent write up, CV.

    • AKSteveB

      One of the reasons I was so unenthusiastic about the Repubs during the last administration was because along with “Big Government Conservatism” came a move away from federalism. The Constitution and Federalism should be where all three legs of the coalition come together.

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        Given the historical role of a VP, I really didn’t expect much except, hopefully, pushing McCain into the presidency over Obama. I don’t believe it would have been all that much better with McCain but even just a little better is more than nothing or worse.

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

          You know the answer.
          I know the answer.
          But does the President know the answer? I’d guess no, though he thinks he does, and he’s a supposed “Constitutional Law Professor.”
          Does the VP, the Speaker of the House, the losing GOP Presidential candidate?
          Do the Supreme Court Justices know?
          Do the rest of the goofballs in Congress know?
          Do the military men and women who bravely serve our country know?
          Do the Federal government employees know?
          Do State and Local government employees know?
          Do reporters and editors in the media know? Newsreaders? Anchors? Talk-show hosts? DJs?
          Do the people know? Immigrants? Illegal immigrants?

          No?

          Why not? Can we get all these people to read, understand, and believe in Mark Levin’s new Liberty and Tyranny book?

          But that’s not the real important question.The real important question is “what can I personally do to fix this?” Its corollary is “how can we get the truth out through a hostile media to a disinterested public?”

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            don’t even try, at least not at first, in the context of party politics, but simply as core beliefs, even life in general.

            How do you have a dialogue with people who, once they’ve heard the “c” word, run shrieking in horror as if you have the cooties or something?

          • AKSteveB

            Instead of mentioning the “c” word, ask them and talk to them about what they actually believe, I’ve been one of them myself at times.

          • randy streu

            Great thoughts, excellent post.

          • AceInTX

            Everything you mention has to do with “Principle”:

            The state has grown virtually without letup since the turn of the twentieth century and it has done so by distracting us with a lie.

            The big lie has two parts:

            • The Democrat is the party of bigger government and central power
            • The Republican is the Party of smaller government and less spending

            There is truth in both statements but not enough. The truth is…both Parties are virtually the same…if you draw a line with absolute liberty at the right end of the line and absolute government power and despotism on the left side, many think in terms of the Republicans being on the right side of that line and the Democrats being on the left. True Moderation would be at 50% which I will call the 0% mark. The truth is…we have the Democrats operating at the 85% mark between the 0% mark and the absolute despotism line. Republicans whom many assume are on closer to the right end of the line between the 0% line and absolute liberty are actually operating at the 75% mark between the 0% mark and absolute despotism. Our guys are on the Left side of the divide while claiming to be on the right…while the Dem’s aid in the charade by beating Republicans up for being to far on the right side of the divide let alone being on the left side of 0%!

          • AceInTX

            Those of us who charish the Constitution are at about the 85% mark to the right side of the 0% mark…we aren’t represented at all and we need to stop letting the RINOs and the Democrats distract us and stop letting them convince us that we’re fighting the battle on the right side of the divide…we’re not…as it is now…even when we defeat the Democrats…We lose because we win on their side of the divide!

          • Doc Holliday

            liberals want government to control our economic lives and conservatives want government to control our private lives. Just different sides of the same coin, both want government to control something.

          • AceInTX

            and Republicans where you say Conservatives…

            That’s the point of my post…we need to get past the Republican VS Democrat game. We keep getting distracted by the idea that we’re winning like I did with Bush over the last eight years because we kept confounding the Dems over all that time…but I lost sight of the fact that we weren’t making any gains…in fact we were losing ground the whole time because we were winning at acting like Democrats…

            Let’s start keeping score on whether the Govt. is growing or shrinking rather than whether it’s growing in a Republican way as opposed to it growing in a Democrat way!

          • Doc Holliday

            i did mean Democrats/liberals and Republicans, not true conservatives.

      • EzOnTheEyez

        There is no such thing as a “Big Government Conservative.” There are only “Big Government Republicans.” If a politician is big government, they are not conservative. It’s a contradiction in terms, and unfortunately “Republican” and “conservative” are not interchangeable terms.

  • streetwise
  • Kyle-MI

    On average socially conservative politicians tend to be very good on fiscal issues, but there are a few that buy into pork barrel spending. I also think there are some that don’t understand business and economic issues. To win on our social policy we need to present the total conservative package. We need to recruit total-package candidates. For those in office, we need to educate and shore up the fiscal and liberty flanks.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    They have been lashing out at so-cons since 2006 and even mroe after 2008, in my opinion, to cover up their fault in our losses.

    So-cons have been loyal and are not any more big guv than any other faction.

    Except maybe the fi-cons, who I think have made mistakes by only being aginners and not laying out specific small guv proposals to deal with health care, etc.

    We did not lose in 2006 and 2008 due to social issues. We lost due to moderates that wanted a pork obsessed McCain.

    Pork is a puny issue. We need to focus on the Obama trillions and the economy now.

  • AKSteveB

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/secular_liberalism_as_consensu.html

    I’ll try and do a diary on this later, I think he articulates this issue as well as anybody I’ve seen so far.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • A_Texan

    The idea that marriage defense is a losing issue for conservatives is contradicted by all electoral evidence. Show me any other conservative cause that has such a track record in state ballot initiatives. Yet we social conservatives are constantly berated that our cause would be so successful if ONLY we focused on the important issues, like lower capital-gains taxes and such.

  • A_Texan

    For example, it would be helpful not to characterize pro-life Republicans of “aiming for the courts to impose a Federal anti-abortion policy.” Who has seriously suggested such a course?

  • Right Reason

    Especially with regards to abortion and gay marriage. Adherence to the constitution dictates that these are matters to be left ot the states. The SoCon penchant for wanting the federal government to do what the right wants instead of what the left wants is, IMHO, damaging to conservatism as a whole.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    The non so-cons got and get judges to impose their views on all states.

    So-cons got involved to reverse unconstitutional usurpations of their right to self government, free speech rights, etc in their states.

  • streetwise
  • AceInTX

    Gay marriage is a conundrum because it is the state courts that are usurping the legislative and civic debate in favor of imposition – but this will have to be fought at the state level. Attempting to get the federal government involved is shooting ourselves in the gonads given the political realities of the current administration and of Congress in the foreseeable future.

    I agree this issue is a conundrum, but I’m not sure it’s an issue that lends itself very well to Federalism.

    I’m not saying this because I don’t think this should be a state issue and that federalist principles shouldn’t decide the matter. I’m saying it because of the fact that the state courts are taking the active role in this matter taking the decision away from the people’s representatives which is bad enough…but also with an eye toward helping the radical gay agenda of federalizing Gay Marriage and normalizing the “lifestyle” by bringing this to the Supreme Court so we can have another Roe Vs Wade type decision forcing Gay marriage down the throats of every state government and the people against their will!

    That said…Obama is dramatically over reaching and independents are starting to swing our way so it’s imperative that we get this infighting put away ASAP. I’ve been at the front of the firing squad where the Country Clubbers are concerned and I don’t intend to step back from that either…it’s time they learned their place, that they are a minority of the party and the RMSP has been outed…we’re watching them and we will take them out…Even Snarlen Arlen is sniveling back to us with his tail between his legs now and I say he needs to take a hike…We need to be ready to take a newspaper to his nose before we kick his ass out the door!

    That being said…***MARK THIS*** Given the polls showing independents coming our way…the next Rino campaign will begin telling us that the time for the so called “Circular Firing Squad” is over and now we need to put a more moderate foot forward to attract the independents that are shying away for the golden child at the moment…keep your powder dry because this one will need to be shot down as soon as they try to launch it!

  • AceInTX

    We as SoCons wouldn’t be so energized on either of these issues if the Supreme’s had left things where they were in 1972….but they didn’t did they?

    And again…we see another example of a “moderate” painting SoCons with a brush that doesn’t apply. SoCons aren’t the Problem. We didn’t ask for these issues to be federalized…but abortion was in 1972 and Gay marriage is in the process of being nationalized through the state and federal courts

  • invalid10

    We need to get pas the Old Right and Paleoconservative sutff, and work on getting an anarcho-capitalist in the White House.

    I like the idea of an alliance with the extreme left on most issues other than fiscal.

  • invalid10

    I like your avatar…how did you manage to get that image in your signature?

  • invalid10

    test avatar

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX
  • redware

    You are clearly referencing a fringe element that has zero chance of persuading the overwhelming majority of conservatives to support an anarcho-capitalist government.Sorry,but I doubt your alliance with the extreme left on social issues such as legalization of drugs,gay marriage and God knows whatever other conjugal malformations preferences would dictate in your “anarcho-capitalist” world will get many takers here.

  • antisocial

    What do you mean? I don’t want extreme left around me.

    Where did you read that in the post?