with almost everything you have said.

Socialism is once again raising from the dead from the ignorance of those unfamiliar with its failures. So why is it not believable that Conservatism can raise its head from the ashes quasi-conservatism of what is currenly spread across the fruited plains today.

I think the more we renegotiate our positions the futher we will continue to slide our ruler to the left. We are thus allowing things to continually degenerate.

We are in the process of societal degeneration, as was seen by the Roman Empire. Does that make sense? A line in the sand must be drawn, for if you continue to lighten your position, before long you will find yourself choosing between a Liberal (Republican) and a Marxist (Democrat).

The realisms of Conservatism is to remain knowlegeable of history and what works, and what we have seen is a clear. Though the limitation of Government is paramount, the cohesion of society through a shared American culture and traditional values is just as important to the maintenance of a strong foundation.

So I would advise sticking to your principles and maintain your constitution just as we try save our U.S. Constitution. People who were brought up like I was find those people who stick to their principles refreshing, and they are more likely to impart their confidence and leadership unto those they interact with and influence.

Well anyway that is just my opinion.

I might even add this: I think it’s Democrats that now occupy much of the middle ground that used to be solid Republican territory. It’s the mentality of “either get on board with the social conservatives or get the hell out”.

And I agree with your analysis; as much as the socons want America to be the same place today as it was in 1960…1970…1980, it’s just not. And it won’t ever be again.

I mean, I remember being in high school in the early 80’s. If you were gay, you were an outcast, made fun of, and at risk of being beaten up at any time. Last week I picked up my daughter from high school, and I saw two girls kissing. No big deal, no one made a fuss. I asked my daughter about it, and she shrugged and said “So? Lots of kids are gay, who cares. No one cares”.

Yes, times are indeed different, even from 20 years ago. The issues that are of paramount importance to the 40 and 50 and older crowd…gay marriage and abortion…aren’t even on the radar screen of the young generation. It’s just the way it is.

1. Was there a period in History when Republicanism as an ideology was tied to any religious philosophy?

2. Was there a period in America when Conservatism also tied to religious philosophy?

My Humanities professor was very clear on this.

Republicanism, as an ideology, is way of relationship between the people and their government, emphasizing that there is this “invisible” contract between the government and the governed. The Governed or the people are the one who give mandates to the Government.

Conservatism is an ideology that “adherence” to natural laws is the most efficient way of achieiving social transformation into peace and prosperity.

Conservatism is not really about being fanatic or traditional. Edmund Burke warns us to keep our society as:

not so old but not so new.

This means that conservatism is something that is NOT SO FAST BUT NOT SO SLOW.

For those who have a background in physics or engineering sciences here, conservatism is all about “continuity” and minimization of random change or chaos(i.e., entropy). The most efficient machine that could ever be designed is the one whose system minimizes the production of entropy. It’s called The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If the society is a machine, the only way to keep it efficient and productive is to ensure its “controlled transformation” over time. We must not hurry our change and we must trace our transformation.

Having said the above, CONSERVATISM AND REPUBLICANISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS FANATISM.

I agree with much of what you have said. What is different now, compared to the 1980s, is the amount of exposure to lifestyles and approach to life. Whether this be due to media influences, the internet, a more mobile society (compare the number of people who have been on an airplane now, vs. 1984), transient populations (I moved 4 times for school and/or employment by the time I was 32). Social conservatism, as it manifests itself in elections, will continue to marginalize the GOP if the issues remain to delay “change”. You have successfully pointed to a number of them.

Let me offer a possible approach for the GOP going forward, and I like to think its better to keep a broad philosophy simple and straightforward, then employ that philosophy in practice:

The Republican party, and conservatism, believes individual liberty and individual responsibility.

The Democrat party, and liberalism, believes in the individual’s servitude to the collective, and collective responsibility.

In this age of self-sufficiency, the above differences are stark, and should favor the Republicans.

… I would like to point out a few problems with your argument. Please understand that this is meant to be constructive and not critical.

1. I do not know any Christains who want school pray instituted. A government that can be involved in school pray can have my children praying Muslim or Buddist prayers. Most Christains just want the right to have our children pray on thier own without getting into trouble.

2. Most Christains are opposed to abortion. However, as a national campaign issue for a politician, I do not know of any campaigning on the national level using abortion as an issue. However, politicians do campaign on good judges. There is commonality within the party that won’t split the party on this issue nationally.

3. You seem to be advocating alienating a whole segment of the Republican voter base, just as John McCain did until he choose Sara Palin as a running mate. The alienating of evangelican Christains would only drive our party deeper into the wilderness.

4. On embrionic stem cell research, the issue has never been about it being legal. It has always been legal and remains so today. The issue is about government funding of stem cell research. This comes down to the issue of you agreeing with Obama that the government is the answer to your problems, or if the free market is the answer to our problems. I am a free market capitalist and fiscal conservative. I think this is best left in the free market. However, it also has an abortion componant. Should we be creating embrios in the labratory for the sole purpose of harvesting them for stem cells? Well, should the Chinese government harvest organs from condemed crimals for organ transplants? This debate comes down to the meaning, and the beginning of life and what is morally right and wrong. All that is being asked is that the government not fund it with the tax money of people who are opposed to it.

Lastly, I will close that what has been costing us elections is conservatives who claim the mantel of conservativism and end up behaving like Democrat light. Remember Bush 41 and read my lips “No New Taxes” and them raised taxes and was instantly killed in the next election.

What the public has been rejecting is the choice between Democrats and Republicans who are almost Democrats. Cutting off a big segment of our base in the name of “claiming the center” is what doomed John McCain. I personally don’t care to go down that road again.

…but this is just how I see it.

and ignoring the lessons of 2004….Rahm Emanuel learned the lessons of 2004 when the Democrats lost as a result of the massive turnout effort of values votes which overwhelmed a Democrat turnout that was the largest in history up to that point…and if I’m not mistaken…it was smaller this year than 2004…Republicans lost this time because values votes were good soldiers and voted for McCain…but they weren’t fired up enough to work on the GOTV efforts…

Rahm Emanuel made a public call for the Democrats to contest every national office after 2004 with socially conservative candidates in Red states…so the last two election cycles we’ve had the Republican Party shunning values voters while the Dems are reaching out to them…

and guess what…the Democrat Party because of Prop eight and other pro marriage initiatives are currently in the process of blowing up it’s gains among this demographic with massive anti christian protests in front of Saddle Back church in CA and in Michigan and attacking worshipers during churches committing hate crimes by snatching Bibles and crosses out of congregant’s hands and stomping on them…

Let me be clear on this…The Rockefeller bunch is ashamed to have values voters as a part of the party but the fact of the matter is…we are the party…they have the reigns now but not for long…and they need to get over their embarrassment and bet on the train before they are run over by it because when Christians are attacked as they are now…they will band together and turn Washington ion it’s ear…I hate to see the hate spewed at them…but at the same time I’m happy to see the ugliness of the Dems and the tea and crumpet set of the Republican Party exposed for the hate mongers they are because when the hammer falls…they will pay the piper!

Oh…an to the Original Poster…Please continue with your Christian bashing…every little bit helps!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

nt

and since that was one of your major issues of contention I will go so far as to say you are wrong in totality.

The ban on embryonic stem cell research actually led to discoveries in other areas that showed more promise than embryonic stem cells ever actually produced. Aditionally adult stem cell research has a 20 year head start on embryonic stem cell research and therefore is now already in the human testing stages. It would be silly to divert funds away from what is now working to a wager that embryonic stem cells could close the 20 year gap and surpass the applicability of adult stem cells. And this is all irrespective of the morality of harvesting embryo’s to use in research.

Secularism, which is rising in all parts of the world except the Islamic nations, always leads to both an erosion in respect for life and the trampling of tradition.

But, if we entirely move away from such issues we will lose a large part of our troops. On the other hand. If people are litmus test, one or two issues voters then you might not be able to win with them either.

You are basically proposing that we re-arrange deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.
No democratic republic can survive without strong morality.
The democrats lack that and will only fail and possibly wreck the nation as they do so.
The Republican party may lsoe being on the side of morality and individual liberty, but so be it.
I think I do not mind being on the losing side of what you are proposing.
But I don’t think I am on the losing side of this.
You are.

You are basically proposing that we re-arrange deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.
No democratic republic can survive without strong morality.
The democrats lack that and will only fail and possibly wreck the nation as they do so.
The Republican party may lsoe being on the side of morality and individual liberty, but so be it.
I think I do not mind being on the losing side of what you are proposing.
But I don’t think I am on the losing side of this.
You are.

First off, we need to stop lumping abortion with homosexuality, marriage, religion, Christianity and “traditional values.” They don’t logically fit together, and we need to get rid of the mindset that they do.

Abortion is different in that the intent is to kill a whole distinct living human. That’s wrong regardless of religious belief. There is nothing personal about it. I’ve said before that people need to stop trying to make the case from a religious or Christian perspective. We need to be telling people what abortion is and why, when, how, and where it is done. It seems many have no clue.

We are going to HAVE to work to increase the percentage of pro-life atheists, agnostics, and people of other faiths. Sending out messages on church bulletins, talking on Chrsitian radio and TV, and quoting Bible verses and referencing God won’t cut it, and it’s why support is not rising.

Indeed secularism is increasing. We need more pro-life secularists.

People need to know that human life is not about retaining “traditional values” or going back to the past. It’s a matter of stopping genocide and protecting real human rights (as well as the integrity of the medical profession). Going back to the past would actually support abortion and infanticide given the lack of biological knowledge.

I would argue marriage is FAR less serious. The arguments against have become weak since it serves more to make a statement than it does to protect someone from intended harm.

The polls seem to reflect that attitude. Opposition to abortion has not changed since the 70’s. It is even the same, and in some cases stronger, among younger generations. Because it intentionally and directly harms others, it has a legitimate basis beyond making a statement of where society is or how it behaves. Still, more needs to be done to get that message to people who are not Christians.

On the other hand, while opposition to legal recognition of same-sex marriage is stronger, it is declining among younger generations. It is also less of a voting concern than abortion.

In sum, the arguments and bases for support must change from what they have for so long. We need people outside the church to champion the cause of life. “Traditional values” can only work so long as people support them. Otherwise, the case needs to be made as to why else it is important the government act or not act.

A party that does not stand on principle is not worth supporting. If the GOP abandons a pro-life position, then it is not worth squat. For example, ESCR is NOT the only path to medical progress with stem cells. Non-embryonic stem cell research is progressing rapidly, and the main reason we don’t hear about it is because of our old friends in the media. Success in non-E research would go against their leftist narrative and would give the conservatives in the GOP a victory. Opposition to abortion is a given. I (and most of my conservative GOP brethren) simply will not waver on this position. They don’t call the Dems “the party of death” for nothing.

The David Frum wing of the party seems to be flapping their gums a lot since last Tuesday.

After the defeat of moderate and secular republican John McCain and a host of moderate Senators, you can still write such a blog; even after the people voted to defend marriage in three states, including California?

In the NorthEast the republican party has actually been doing for many years just what you suggest. Do you know how many republican house members now come from New England. None, Zero, 0.

What more proof do you need??????????

This argument should be over. The party is out of power for NOT living up to its social and fiscal conservatism.

All Posters,
What we are discussing here, I believe, is a discussion that the Republican (conservatives) Party needs to be having to determine strategy for the next elections. So keep it up, remain respectful, and hope the Republican leadership is paying attention.

I could not disagree more with the proposition that they way the GOP will resurrect itself is in moving left. This will not work for several (I would think) very obvious reasons:

1. “Moderate” Republicans got completely obliterated this year. I mean, annihilated. The last New England GOP rep, Rep. Shays, has been defeated. The northeastern GOP states tried the moderate GOP strategy and it has been an utter and complete abysmal failure. There are good reasons for this (discussed below) which would be replicated across the rest of the country.

2. Other “moderate” Republicans wind up just leaving the party anyways. Whether its Chafee apostasizing his GOP tag, or Senator Jeffries, or the Governator being almost unrecognizable in his repeated lunges leftward, this may win a few seats in a “bait and switch” type tactic, but all too often its really the GOP base which is being baited. The other RINOs are virtually worthless to the party due to the stamp of bipartisanship they give the other side of the aisle and the failure to support us when we need them.

3. Social conservatives will never ever ever ever go for the Giuliani type candidate in large numbers. Sure, you can win a few here and there with a national security issue (when its at the fore of voters minds) but there is no enthusiasm at all there. You have to win your base. Do Democrats apologize for their a__-backwards base? No. They went out of power for 12 years, then going left with Howard Dean and a 50 state strategy, they built up liberalism in this country. They sowed their own seeds instead of capitulating. And then they won with incredible grassroots support. The “moderate” Republicans never have so much grassroots support as that. And guess what? They get painted as “right wingers” anyways because they are never as liberal as the Democratic candidate (case in point, Senator McCain). Then, as social conservatives leave the party, or vote on other issues because abortion becomes moot with 2 candidates who don’t support life, your base shrinks, and you can’t win. Which is what keeps happening in New England.

4. We don’t need a social conservative consensus in order to win in this country. Even the Guttenmacher institute’s polls only show about a 50-40 Pro-Choice majority, and there are as many polls showing a Pro-Life majority. The abortion industry is far left of the country’s center. What matters is how many people base their vote on the issue, (9%) and there we have a 7-2 advantage according to lifenews.com. So, we beat our counterpart at the polls. Which is all we can ask of from any member of a coalition.

5. The notion that we are losing because our party’s values are too Christian or too conservative is short-sighted. Not only will this drive a wedge into our own coalition and damage all of us, but it glosses over the fact that the other parts of this coalition have made some serious mistakes that cost us electorally.

I could point fingers, but what good what that do. We all can. Ideally, I’d like to see a party that is a little bit more welcoming to Hispanics (without whom I think we are in serious trouble as a party), a reformed brand that the public does not see as war-mongering, a fiscal policy which is conservative but retires the outworn cliches of trickle-down which I believe the public by and large hates and utterly rejects, and utilize some more of the old school Reagan and Gingrich conservative based populism.

How about tax breaks and tax cuts for “trickle up” economics? The Democrats can always offer more programs than we will. But we can offer to let people not have to give their money and freedoms over to the government, increasing their opportunities.

How about hammering the Democrats more on their chronic mismanagement of every level of government through their raising of taxes and then failing to spend the money on legitimate government expenditures? The Democrats always seem to believe there are more and more programs worth spending money on, but we can recapture the mantle of fiscal responsibility and make the government serve the people again with strong defense, energy policy, and sound national infrastructure.

Ultimately, each part of the coalition must ensure that it stands up and outperforms their liberal counterparts at the ballot box. And ultimately a winning party is one that has a broad coalition. Each part to our coalition has weaknesses and strengths, but we are in this together. United we stand, divided we fall.

So lets assume we have this dilemma:
1. We cannot give up social conservatives who keep us together in the heartland.
2. That wont win in the northeast and Cali, so we need a different flavor there. what would it be?
I have to assume it would mean one thing:
PRO-GROWTH ECONOMIC POLICIES.

How about hammering the Democrats more on their chronic mismanagement of every level of government through their raising of taxes and then failing to spend the money on legitimate government expenditures? The Democrats always seem to believe there are more and more programs worth spending money on, but we can recapture the mantle of fiscal responsibility and make the government serve the people again with strong defense, energy policy, and sound national infrastructure.

Yes, and the ultimate corruption that is involved in that too:

ETHICS, ACCOUNTABILITY, HIGH STANDARDS,

Yes, America is more secular. No, you cannot abandon principle, nor a huge chunk of your base. It’s that simple. You have to remember that a fairly large number of social conservatives vote Republican based solely on its social conservative stance. There are many who would bolt in a second if it were the Democrats who were more socially conservative. We’ve seen it in practice over the last few years as the Evangelical vote has been splintering. I consider the Catholic vote to be a very different phenomena as it is not a reliable voting block. Catholics, although socially conservative, do not vote along those lines.

Personally, I vote pro-life, and I am by no means a member of the socalled religious right. If a pro-life Democrat were running against a pro-choice Republican, I’m gone. This isn’t to say that fiscal conservatism and national security are not important to me. I’m not even socially conservative, but I will not budge on life.

I think a part of the problem is the framing of our arguments. Often the rhetoric behind the arguments is Christian in nature, which isn’t appropriate for policy discourse. For example, you cannot oppose gay marriage because it is disallowed by God. That is not a legitimate argument.

that cause me great concern for this country. Culture drives politics, not vice versa, and as Bork warned in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, well, we may be closer, and if so, the matter is outside of politics.

more later

much more

…tell them the best jobs are in California, New York, Florida & Illinois…

As hoards of illegals flood the blue states and pressure the welfare & social systems maybe those spread the wealth believers won’t be so eager to give instead of take.

A good example of Republicans thinking this country was still as socially conservative as it once was, was their opposition to embryonic stem-cell research. I think this practice is immoral, but when 75% of the country is for something, and the Republican party looks like it’s stifling medical research to appease a small faction, it’s political suicide. Anecdotally, I’ve been amazed at how many “right-leaning” voters have been outraged at Republican opposition to this type of research

This may be more of a framing issue than anything else.

Stem-cell research is NOT OPPOSED by prolifers! Adulst stem-cell research is supported by prolifers, and they also support use of umbilical cord blood for research and recent non-invasive techniques to study stem cells that dont raise ethical dilemmas.

What is opposed is only this: The killing of human life in order to study it. The taking of human embryos and destroying them to get at stem cells.

If you think its not a big deal: Are you opposed to bio-ethics? Do you think bio-ethics and cloning bans are an outrage? Opposition to therapeutic cloning is just another way of opposing human cloning.

At this point, the stem cell issue has become a phony issue, in that there are research techniques that do not require killing embyros in the process of doing embyonic stem cell research.

Adult stem cell research - strongly supported by prolifers as an alternative - has been far more productive and far more beneficial. Embyonic stem cell research has been nonrpoductive and plagued by scandals (eg South Korean research) where claims were faked.

We need to not let the lie get told that pro-lifers are ‘anti-stem-cell research’, that’s a lie used by the pro-abortion side to drive a wedge. The truth and the bioethics concern is more subtle - do we need to end human life in order to study it? Should we clone humans for therapeutic purposes?