« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Cultural battles lost despite, not because of, Dobson and Reagan

The failures of all conservatives for the last 45 years, not just the failures of Reagan’s social conservatives for the past 30 years, have led to the present circumstance.

Recent remarks by James Dobson of Focus on the Family (referred to below) concerning the culture battles/war have been picked up on by the Drive-by Media to declare victory over the supposed theocracy-seeking social conservatives in that war and to blame “radical right wingers” for recent GOP election losses.

Such is par for the course from the Left.

What troubles me more is when conservatives echo such claims, especially such thoughtful ones as Sandra Wise, as in her recent “We have lost the culture wars”, Words to the Wise:

Dr. James Dobson was widely criticized for recently making the statement that we have lost the culture wars. I saw him on Hannity this past week and he backtracked a little. He clarified himself by saying that we’ve lost the current battle, but not the war. He talked specifically about abortion, and the fact that all of the progress that had been made is currently being rolled back by the Obama administration. He believes that even partial birth abortion will be legalized again.

I think Dr. Dobson is too pessimistic and quite inaccurate concerning abortion. Yes, the odds are great that we won’t be able appoint a fifth vote to reverse Roe v. Wade on the Supreme Court given the Democratic Party majorities in the U.S. Senate and the Death Cultist in the White House, but the odds favor maintaining the current five-vote majority in favor of many state restrictions that fall short of reversal of Roe.

Dr. Larry Sabato has just published a book which explains the overwhelming Democrat gains in the last election. He believes that any Democrat candidate would have won the Presidency and that it was not all about Obama as everyone thinks.

Sabato explained, in an interview this morning on Fox News, how the changes in the demographics of the country affected the last election. One, the growth of the minority population which voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and the youth vote. He pointed out that younger people tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

These trends will continue and I don’t see the country moving back to being conservative on social issues any time soon. In the next few years, States will continue to legalize gay marriage, as the country moves more and more towards accepting gay marriage as a civil rights issue.

I think that Dobson was right the first time. We have lost the culture wars. The battle lines were drawn in the last election and we lost big time.

I haven’t read Sabato’s book, but am aware that McCain led Obama post-Palin and pre-credit crunch when the moderate Republicans candidate of choice since 2000 blew the election by agreeing with his Democrat opponent to pull the TARP over our eyes. I know that Obama won by less than overwhelming margin that could easily have been overcome with a more enthusiastic conservative base.

I also know that social issues played insignificant roles in the 2008 national election dominated by the economy and the 2006 congressional elections dominated by the Iraq War.

Yes, young people are more socially liberal than the general population, but they are more pro-life than baby boomers. Yes, blacks registered in record numbers to vote for the first viable black candidate, but they are more socially conservative than the general population.

Sandra, “states” are not “continu[ing] to legalize gay marriage, as the real “movement”, defined by the preponderance of actual laws passed, in the country has been We the People in referenda and state legislatures passing laws and Constitutional amendments defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.

No referenda by citizens of a state and only one state legislature has approved of gay marriage. Even the citizens of the deep blue states of California and Massachusetts, when given the chance, have rejected gay marriage.

The only “movement” towards changing such laws is the same movement we have been losing in the courts since the 1940s, and especially since the 1960s.

Conservatives have been losing the culture wars primarily within the culture, not politics, for 50 years primarily due to non-participation of enough conservatives in the institutions of the culture, i.e. press, law, academia and Hollywood, and also due to un-elected judges and the federal bureaucracy.

When conservatives gain control of the bureaucracy or the congress/white house, we play too nice.

Social conservatives entered the political arena precisely because their free speech rights were threatened and due to abortion, etc and other laws being imposed by secularists via judges, etc thus usurping we the peoples’ right to self government, Liberty.

We are happy to compete within the federalist system and the culture, in the arena of ideas and let the chips fall where they may. We came into the national political arena due to usurpation of our Liberty.

Had other conservatives helped both before and after Dobson and Reagan entered the fray, and had the political spine to fire bureaucrats and “Bork” their judges been present (albeit based not on personal smears, but rather via objections to the unconstitutional Oath violating “living Constitution” interpretation mode), we would have fared better in the culture wars.

Of course, there is much truth to the idea that Christians and other so-cons may have invested too much in the political arena. After all the main purpose of the Church is the saving of souls and even if Roe is overturned, one must still win the hearts and minds of people in states.

But, we must not be doing so very badly given gay marriage votes and the deep drop in the number of abortions.

This member of We the People has not, and never will, give up on cultural battles, much less the war, and given the Obamanation we are witnessing, I suspect a GOP comeback that will be partially driven by revulsion at the far left non-values of the DC Democrats that are anathema to the traditional Judeo-Christian values a large majority (76%) of Americans still hold.

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed, including Reagan’s own words on abortion and the culture war.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The Democrats don’t. Instead they use it against us and we fall over for it.

    7 times 70. That’s what Christ said about turning the other cheek. I think we’ve past that number already and it’s certainly apparent that the Democrats are never going to change their behavior.

    It’s retribution time.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and to ultimate judgment of a person, not to reasonable common sense and certainly not to render unto Caesar politics.

    amen?

    Kind of like the Left’s application of turn the other cheekism to refuse to defend the innocent when Jesus never said one should not defend innocent others from evil others.

  • mbecker908

    a good place to start would be with the Bush family. They collectively held the presidency for 12 years and 43 had both houses of Congress. If he had stood and really waged war against the enemies of this nation instead of calling in his presidency for the last five years we wouldn’t be faced with this situation. When all is said and done, the Bushes did more damage to this nation that probably all previous presidents combined. Their legacy is Obama and people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

    Shoulda been Cheney/Bush 2000.

  • SteveLA

    mbecker

    My theory is that GW Bush would have been much more active on the culture wars if not for 9/11 and the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    After 9/11 the President had a large amount of political capital, which he spent on prosecuting the wars. As the wars continued and opposition to the wars grew, the President’s political capital was less and what was available was spent on keeping the war funded. Look back to history and how the war ended in Vietnam, not from overt opposition by the Donks, no by cutting off the funding to the Republic of South Vietnam which Ford was not able to stop.

    An interesting question to ponder is what would have GW done in regards to culture issues if 9/11 had not occurred, but the reality is that President Bush was more a war President than ether a domestic policy or one engaged in the culture wars.

  • mbecker908

    Bush used political capital to go into Iraq. But he didn’t have to use much, because – current whining aside – the Democrats were ready and willing to go to war. Anybody with an IQ of 10 knew they would change their stripes and line up in opposition to the war as soon as troops were deployed. They did it against LBJ, why wouldn’t they do it against GWB?

    No, Bush refused to fight because he was a political coward. He didn’t fight to keep the war going, he just didn’t do anything. Fortunately, we had majorities in both houses long enough to carve out a military victory (maybe) in Iraq, Afghanistan remains to be seen, but he just sat in the Oval Office and kept his mouth shut while Ds slandered our troops, lied about the war effort, lied about the run-up to the war, etc. It was shameful.

    I have no confidence that he’d have done anything proactive with regards to the culture wars, that too would have taken real courage.

  • http://www.braindeadrepublican.com Michael DeWeese

    I think the extensive spending done by congress during his years was also because he needed them complacent so he could get war funds and approvals as needed without any losses to the war effort.

  • http://www.braindeadrepublican.com Michael DeWeese

    Roe vs Wade reversal is not needed. Abortion can remain legal forever. The win comes when no one avails themselves of it, because they understand it is evil.
    Full effort should be made in education of the citizens of America. When the mention of abortion to anyonemakes them want to throw up, that’s a win.

  • SteveLA

    mbecker

    Well then we disagree and in my view there were flashes of GW pushing social issues during his term in office. Not to re-fight the battle of Terry Schaivo, but that was the biggest marker that I see as GW putting down on social issues.

    I really do think Bush at least in the last three years of his term spent the majority of his political capital working towards insuring the outcome we are seeing now in Iraq. I’d also lay a fair share of the economic mess we are facing today in this country on a focus on the war instead of on domestic issues by the President. There was a whole bunch of Congresscritter Democratic stupidity going on with little challenge by the Presidents team when the Donks controlled Congress.

    In my view one of the root causes of the defeats in 2006 and 2008 was a lack of competency by elected Republicans, including the President on domestic policy issues. To win elections going forward a true conservative set of domestic policy issues are called for, and I keep watching for someone to start hitting back at the stupid Donks with those good ideas.

  • Achance

    to being a one-term President, little noted nor long remembered. He eked out a razor thin victory over a terrible candidate on the strength of Clinton-fatigue and his family name and money. Having been no fan of his father, I know I didn’t expect much from him and saw his nomination as just an inevitability of the superior money and organization and likewise, he was by no means an inspiring candidate; the Republican “machine” won.

    On September 11th we all rallied around him and stayed with him through the ’04 election, but after that, I know it took everything I could do to defend the Administration with a straight face on anything but WOT issues and even in that realm they weren’t coving themselves in glory. Basically, we stuck to him because we had made him our dux belorum, not because he did a damned thing right in running the government otherwise.

  • redneck_hippie

    Broadcast your viewpoint and get to the polls.

  • mbecker908

    I would argue that the only “SoCon” point – and I wouldn’t even go so far as to say “issue” – he stood up on was ESCR. That was his first veto. On that point, all he really did was deny federal funds for ESCR, he didn’t do a thing to stop anybody else (like the state of CA) from funding it and didn’t stop research from moving forward, so I don’t really view that is much in the way of leadership.

    On Schiavo, all he did was follow the Congress.

    I have a hard time calling either of these “laying down a marker”.

    As far as focusing on the war, I don’t see that he did anything there either, with respect to the political ramifications in this country. He didn’t do a damn thing. He just ignored the Ds and fortunately, they had Harry & Nancy and not Tip & George. If the Ds had competent leadership after they decided to make the war a political issue, we’d have been out of Iraq in six months and there’d be a couple or three million dead Iraqis to add to the folks from SE Asia they were complicit in murdering in the ’70′s.

  • redneck_hippie

    on our side who CHOSE to stay home on election day.

    Even a vote cast for some other non-Donk-party nominee counted against Obama.

    It wasn’t only about the presidency, either. Good people need to inform themselves and vote on non-national issues.

    “…Obama won by less than overwhelming margin that could easily have been overcome with a more enthusiastic conservative base.”

    Exactly.

  • mbecker908

    had the least little problem with spending. He certainly didn’t when he spent political capital early on to insure NCLB and MedPD. He’s just a Republican – like McCain – who’s never met a problem that government couldn’t solve.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Any way you want to size it up, it’s retribution time as far as I’m concerned.

    It’s time to start pushing back and using their crap against them.

  • SteveLA

    mbecker

    Well then I guess we do disagree because I viewed Fisk, Congressional Republicans and the President stomping all over states rights and the 10th amendment in Schaivo.

    I became a R after turning 18 back in the days of forced busing and overreach of the Federal government into states business. That and the some of the stupidity of Democrats pushing majority minority Congressional districts by court fiat under the mantra of the voting rights act.

    To be honest, I was very uncomfortable with the insertion of Federal powers in the Schaivo matter into something that had been fully adjudicated in Florida courts based on Federalist principles and 10th Amendment principles of reserving powers to the states in these matters based on why I became a Republican. Call it what you want, but I saw those moves as being based on social conservative principles, guess we do indeed disagree.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and that Bush 41 certainly didn;t make social issues a major concern though he did appoint Thomas to the Sup Ct. Dubya did much better than Dad, esp with Alito, Roberts, Rogers-Brown, Owen and Pryor et al, and in some ways even Reagan, but as you suggest, he didn’t push back more and as Achance points out, we didn’t purge the bureaucracy. Plus GOP congresses didn’t fight Clinton judges on constitutional interpretation grounds.

    But I mainly blame the repub congresses and We the People for not fighting the culture wars in the institutions themselves, on the ground.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Look guys, I know you’re trying to find somebody to blame and the truth is, everybody is to blame, the Republicans (of which we’re a part), the Democrats and everybody in between.

    Before we can fix things, we have to acknowledge our own shares in the blame. That’s a hard thing to do but it must be done.

  • olsmithie

    and who was the leader of the party?

    Where does the buck stop?

    Regards

  • olsmithie

    Even I held my nose and voted for McCain, smiled and promoted McCain to others, no matter how distasteful.

    Those who said “we’ll show’em”by staying home, unfortunately will have to suffer along with the rest of us until “O” is not re-elected.

    Bear in mind we must have more than a winning majority to win, we must overcome 100s of millions of dollars ACORN is being given by congress to continue their campaign of fraud.

    Also the courts demonstrated recently that they think themselves the final arbiter of elections, not the voters….

    The seatbelt sign is on.

    Regards

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Bush had no political capital after the scorched earth battle over the Florida electoral votes – and as a result he ended up letting Congress run rampant. September 11th only intensified the power of Congress.

    The out-of-control behavior of Congressional Republican leaders poisoned the Republican brand while allowed the career bureaucracy in Washington to sink its roots deeper – and with Bush’s passivitiy and inability to articulate policy (or even defend himself) has perhaps sealed the fate of conservative movement advocates of small government/federalism under the present constitutional order (starting in 2006).

    While I credit President Bush for his tenacity for staying the course in Iraq against extreme political and media pressures (and for putting the right people in charge just in the nick of time), the conditioned response of the American people to his administration will be an anchor around conservatism for at least a generation.

    Which is one reason why Obama wanted to push the show trials of the Bush adminstration – except that he’s discovered that by overdoing it, he runs a serious danger creating a counter-conditioning that will undo all that hard work of tying Bush around the necks of conservatives. Which is why he is trying to backpedal some.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    There is no doubt that Dubya is part of the so-con base judging by his personal life, esr policy before 911 and his judicial appts.

  • mbecker908

    You don’t get “leadership” from the Republicans Congress when you have a Republican in the WH. Leadership HAS to come from the top or ship just drifts. And that’s exactly what happened in – frankly – both Bush Administrations. Neither father nor son could lead an addict to a meth stash. Oops, bad analogy. The Congressional Republicans acted exactly like an addict going for a meth stash. And neither Bush – but especially 43 – did anything but point the way.

    If you’ve got to reach to Alito and Roberts to find something to pat 43 on the back for, you’re just reaching. Yes, he gave us R&A, but he also set the stage for Obama and the advent of socialism in the US with his domestic policies, his willingness to let Congress print all the money they wanted to, and his unwillingness to fight the Ds on ANY issue. He surrendered the Bully Pulpit to Harry&Nancy and we are now getting geared up to pay the price.

    GWB was an absolutely pathetic president. History will tell, but I won’t be surprised to see that he’s worse than Carter, mostly because any “accomplishments” he might have been responsible for will either be usurped by Obama (we’ve now won the WoT), or will be erased by Obama Policies that will never be reversed by Republicans (you can expect at least two, maybe three, SCOTUS Justices who will more than offset any good R&A might have done).

    With respect to the lack of fight by GOP Congresses v Clinton, the Democrats actually had some leadership in the WH. I have no use for BillyBob, but he was 100X the “leader” that 43 was.

  • mbecker908

    We’ve repeatedly elected people who think politics is an honorable profession and it’s not. It’s a game of “who’s-got-the-power-and-who’s-willing-to-use-it”. Period. And when we’ve got the power, we’re not willing to use it.

    Art has blogged on this numerous times and he’s absolutely right. The Ds have created a shadow government that runs things when they’re not in power and when they are, they expand it and feed it.

    We’ve tolerated people like GWB and GHWB for too long. And I’m not suggesting that we shut “moderates” out of the tent, I’m just saying that if we are going to recover – and I’m not sure we will – we need to make sure that they have no part of leadership and no say in policy. Never again should someone like Arlen Specter be allowed to be a Committee Chair of a committee like Judiciary.

    One of the reasons I don’t think the Party will recover is the willingness of folks on the right to stick their heads in the sand with respect to GWB. Defending his Presidency is tantamount to defending the status quo.

  • SteveLA

    Mike

    In engineering we call it OBE, or overcome by events.

    I do tend to beleive in the absence of 9/11 and the wars in South West Asia, President Bush would have pushed a much more aggressive agenda on social issues. Having said that, it’s all speculation really and it’s up to others to claim or not claim GW Bush as a social conservative, I tend to view him as one based on his profession of faith and some of his domestic policy actions.

  • redneck_hippie
  • mbecker908

    I don’t think the feds had any business messing with this one either. I’m just saying that from where I sit, I don’t see that Bush did anything other than play follow the leader on it. He certainly gave the support of his office and was probably happy with the outcome (law passed, etc).

    And my point is that the “committee” was Fisk, Congressional R’s and Bush, not Bush, Congressional Rs and Fisk.

    I think we agree and the argument is relative to the number of angels on the head of the pin. Which would be no more than 12, BTW.

  • SteveLA

    mbecker

    I think history will show that President Bush was much more engaged on this issue than people realize. His brother Jeb was very engaged on the issue and President Bush cut short a vacation to Texas to twist arms and sign the eventual legislation.

    To my way of thinking President Bush very much supported the Republican actions in this matter and it was driven very much by his views on social matters. If you agree with that view, then President Bush should receive much more credit that he did.

    When you think about it, this was another failure of the President’s communication skills in that he appeared passive when he was very much a player in this affair and for very real reasons he should have been using the “Bully Pulpit” to communicate his stance.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    70s it was…

    Yes, Bush shares reponsibility.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    speaks of it extensively in Slouching and the losing of them continued in the 70s thru today. Bush shares responsibility along with We the People that eschewed the fight within institutions and with congressmen throughout the whole latter half of the 20th C.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    the people’s right to self government and opened up Pandora’s Box. Law matters too.

  • mbecker908

    I’m not saying that WtP aren’t culpable, but give me a break. B41 was President for four years and couldn’t get out of his own way. He gets credit for a masterful job of putting together the Desert Storm coalition and I think – and said at the time – that GHWB would have been the best Secty of State EVER. Instead, he was a mediocre VP and a lousy President. He provided exactly no leadership.

    B43 was worse.

    If you live forever, you won’t find “leadership” coming from the congress. Gingrich tried and discovered what happens when you try to lead from the pack. You get eaten by the pack.

    I’m not arguing with Bork. But I am saying that WHEN we’ve had leaders, they didn’t lead. The only exception was Reagan.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Dubya’s dubious young adult personal life also made minor contributions to the loss. I agree with you re leadership and Reagan v Bush’s, but I guess we may disagree on the relative importance of executive political leadership vs congressional and cultural institutions.

    And I certainly do don’t discount the very important difference an executive leader can make, but consider what a difference could have been made if Hatch’s senate repubs had learned the lesson of Bork and liberal activist judges and vigorously opposed ginsburg et al rather than simply saying Clinton won the election blah blah blah. They won the election too and have a role to make sure only judges that will uphold their Oath get appointed.

    Plus, I think that culture moves politics more than vice versa. So that would immediately put politics at less than 50% at fault, hence Bush and Bush would be even less culpable.

    Even Reagan didn’t do enough for that matter, although I do think he was betrayed by Sununu and Baker and O’Connor and Kennedy themselves.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    on Election Day, I’m at the voting booth.

  • olsmithie

    Said sitting Republican President bears all burden for setting agenda and direction for congress and the party.

    (In consultation with congressional leaders), but the buck stops at the oval office when we control it.

    How’s that for a bold comment…

    Bearing in mind I have seen 104 deg fever this week, perhaps I should check back over my recent posts, just in case! There may be some unusual things in there.

    Best Regards

  • mbecker908

    See Reagan, Cold War.

    Bush provided no leadership on anything. He muddled where he found himself. At least his father was an able administrator and an excellent diplomat. 43 was none of the above.

    GWB didn’t even TRY to lead his party. He left the Congress alone to muddle through on their own while he was muddling through under the desk in the Oval Office. Nothing makes Bush less culpable.

    With respect to the contribution from WtP, that was done in the ’70′s and ’80′s with the RTL movement. We moved from almost universal acceptance of the “right” to an abortion and the reasonable assumption of those on the left that the ERA would fly through the Congress, to killing the ERA and moving public opinion to a point where most favor at least significant restrictions on abortion. That, in some measure, is due to the leadership of Reagan on life issues. Given that the country made significant movement while he was in office, no Republican has provided any leadership to just keep the ball rolling.

    With respect to the judiciary, I wish eternal damnation – in a historical sense – on GWB for not hammering the Republican majority in the Senate to get his judicial nominees confirmed and for allowing McCain and Graham to take the leadership on matters of the Judiciary.

  • mbecker908
  • Aaron Gardner
  • eburke

    I do try to remember his steadfastness on the WOT but he did so much damage to the GOP brand everywhere else that he is in large part responsible for the current inability of the average voter to see the difference between a donk and an elephant.

    And if the spending orgy he was on (aided and abetted by GOP CongressCritters) weren’t bad enough,the last 3 months of his presidency, Hank Paulson’s abysmal and socialistic handling of the credit crisis, and Bush’s arm-twisting on TARP has given the Dems free reign and cover to say ‘they started this, they’re only complaining because they’re bigoted, racist, mean-spirited homophobes who hate Dems.”

    The damage GWB did to the Republican brand is incalculable.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    as long as there is an R beside the name. Every election it’s the same game, we choose Democrat or Democrat-lite because the Republican party knows it can do that and get away with it. When are we going to stop letting them get away with it?

    We talk about purging. We talk about how we can’t go third party. We talk about a lot of things and still the Republican so-called leaders keep doing what they’re doing without paying any real penalties.

    If we don’t have the courage of conviction to outlast their games of “chicken” why should we expect anything different?

  • mbecker908
  • Rod_Patrick
  • Rod_Patrick

    But it’s GC’s work. I had to read it.

    For me, it offers two painful scenarios:

    One: It basically says that Victoria, the beautiful Elephant is dead. All the vultures are having a party to eat her carcass;

    or,

    Two: It’s like my painful experience with my grandfather. Grand Pop went to a surgery because his disease. The disease didn’t kill him. The surgery did.

    As a Republican, my heart bleeds whenever I read an analysis like this. Sadly, the diary is bordering from “information” to “fact”:

    GOP has a disease. Yes.

    But be careful guys with the surgery. Yes, it may cure the disease but it may also kill the patient.

  • mbecker908
  • mom2oneson

    Do you listen to his show? He was basically out pleading with people to vote, in the days before the elections he had many speakers on that were warning against socialism and comparing things in America to what happened in other communist places. I wish someone here would write a diary about some of those shows. The one the compared the churches here to German with their tax exempt status and how it silenced them against the Nazis was excellent because we see the same thing going on here. He also traveled and showed up at some of the prop eight gatherings.

    He is a psychologist, his ministry is about marriage. Many many many!! of his shows are basically interviews with popular Christian authors on how women want men to communicate more. His target audience is really middle class and up stay at home mothers. I don’t think it’s fair to put all of this on a ministry that basically focuses on the dynamics between husbands and wives.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    mind to understand your bemoaning!

    smile

    but seriously, I don’t get your point, and knowing you, I want to.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    have won the war and even if he and congress since 1994 had been perfect they couldn’t have won it. It would have helped, but given the immediate above, and all of the above, to claim that Bush or bushes “own” the defeat in the culture war is quite myopic.

    respectfully

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    that violated their oaths when they refused to grant the de novo hearing prescribed by the Schiavo law.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    argument that runs counter to the conventional wisdom that the GOP congress was hostage to a powrful post-911 president that wanted to spend more but that it was just too hard to stand up against one’s own party’s president.

    would like your thoughts on those opposing paradigms

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    politically. You do admit that those controliing the press, academia and hollywood have some influence on the culture?

  • Rod_Patrick

    It’s not the diary itself. In fact, I totally agree with the arguments presented.

    It’s the topic of the diary. I hate it, including the themes of many comments. I don’t like them., may be except for Civil Truth’s assetion.

    I hate losing. Just hearing the word that “we lost” ticked me off. Maybe it’s my weakness. I dunno.

    And I don’t believe that we have lost the Culture wars YET.

    How can we lose if we have never even “declared” a war against liberalism YET? Have we really fought in this so-called War?

    Yes we have been defensive against liberals’ excesses to some extent. But we have never truly launched a massive assault against the liberals (and the Hollywood culture for that matter) which can be construed as “WAR” on our part.

    We have not truly fought them. In fact, we have pandered them , which cost us some of our main values as Americans.

    The last 2008 election is just a wake up call. If we really want to declare WAR, then so be it.

    Never tell me “that I have lost a war” that I have never tried fighting for.

    If it’s truly a war NOW, then somebody should “lead” us against this fight and start the War against the liberals. But who? GOP Leaders are the still in the state of “pandering with the liberals” – NO WAR AT ALL.

    In short I’m tired of hearing the lines: we’ve lost, we’ve failed, etc.

    When I say GOP has a disease, I refer to our nonchalant acceptance of damages that the libs have done against this society without even trying to stand up and fight.

    In fact, this has provided some openings for RINOs like Meghan McCain to make a case for changing some of our core beliefs and principles – i.e., an untried surgery that involves risks of killing the patient, the Conservative principles.

  • Aaron Gardner

    When conservatives gain control of the bureaucracy or the congress/white house, we play too nice.

    And in that Gamecock is absolutely right. This transcends the culture war, it is the Republican Party’s and Conservatives weakness. The democrats depend on it.

    The comments stray so far from the point of the diary that it is truly sad. And Rod Patrick is right…we shouldn’t be mourning like this is a funeral…we should be sharpening our swords because we are on the eve of battle.

    This is a call to intellectual arms, whose coming with me?

  • mbecker908

    They have a tremendous influence on culture.

    And when Reagan was President, acting like a leader, we saw the death of the Soviet Union, the effective death of Communism (China is communist in name only), the death of the ERA, and birth of the prolife movement with movement across a broad swath of society to ban or at least regulate abortion.

    Since Reagan, there has been no leadership from the right on cultural issues, other than the move to prosecute Clinton for perjury as the result of a blow job. Which, incidentally, was end of the Republicans leadership on economic issues, tax reform and small government.

    GHWB did zip in his four years.

    The party had leadership for only a brief and shining moment over the next eight, and that was done in primarily by the MSRP along with a complete shift in focus from issues to personalities when we went after Clinton, and Gingrich’s political suicide.

    The next eight years, we had a President who couldn’t spell leadership on any issue after his third year in office and didn’t even try.

    Bottom line, Reagan was a leader and he led and the country moved to the right. Neither of the Bushes are leaders, they didn’t lead and the country has drifted steadily left.

    Like it or not, they’re culpable.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Pilgrim gets another main point, i.e. that we have to fight this war on all fronts. And finally, I was moved to write this column to refute conservatives echoing the left in blaming the last two election losses and the loss of the culture war on those religious conservatives that actually engaged in the political battle while exonerating all those that never got out of their lazy boys since 1968 either politically or to a PTA meeting. It is also not true that most social conservatives and church folk ever stopped their primary mission or, as the left supposes just re-discovered helping the poor either thru churches or in calling for an end to Reagan;s safety net for the truly needy, abeit via welfare reform.

    Thanks Mr Gardner

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    for the reason you state. The war won’t be over till Jesus returns.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • mbecker908
  • penguin2

    I was reading through all of the comments and perked up when I read “never tell me I have lost a war” “that I have never tried fighting for.” That’s it in a nutshell. We have been standing by for years, watching our core beliefs and principles being attacked and our culture eroded. I have not understood why we have not fought back.

    At this point it doesn’t even matter on the why, we must fight back. Obama may be the “tipping point.” An analogy for me would be the idea we’ve been inching toward the cliff, being pushed toward the edge, and as long as we had not gone over we thought we would be “okay.” And now we have been pushed over the edge…but by God, by all that is right, we can climb back up and fight the bloody war! I don’t know what’s happened to me, I’m being blood thirsty again!

    One of our RS writers has a saying in their signature line, something like-”who will stand/guard the bridge with me” and I always feel a tug when I read it. My apologies for mangling it, I’m too fired up to think straight, but I’m sure you know what I mean.

  • Aaron Gardner

    In this becker is right….GW failed to lead…and that combined with a complacent and fratricidal congress lead to ultimate destruction. Had GW treated the WOT the way he treated the culture war, the war would have been exactly what the left wing said it was a disastrous quagmire.

  • mbecker908

    the WoT like the culture war. He ignored it. He knew the Ds didn’t have the votes to defund it, so he just let it go along. The level of leadership after “Mission Accomplished” was pretty much zip and that’s when we really needed a leader.

  • Aaron Gardner

    at least GW didn’t active subvert them.

  • mom2oneson

    relationships -especially for those in crisis (domestic violence, divorce, affairs, behavioral problems in children) has been totally hijacked by left liberal family hating types. I just thought it was unfair to critcize as a spokesperson for conservatism when he has done so much good. I believe is a pediatric developmental psychologist. In the 70s and early 80s many Christians were skeptical of psychology too. People did not run to counseling like they do today. I think he has had a huge impact on keeping some families together after a crisis. I just had to stand up for him. :) He was one of the lone rangers giving out family and parenting advice that wasn’t full of feminist hate for a long time.
    I have also noticed his pessimism too. I remember there was a lady talking about young women from a brothel and how they were singing and happy and full of the joy of the Lord, and he did sound skeptical that they could be over that trauma of their life. I wonder if it comes with the territory of being a personal counselor, because they hear sorrow after sorrow after sorrow day after day year after year and those that aren’t healed come back. I just don’t think it’s fair to put so much on him when he is a psychologist. :)

  • Menlo

    Sabato is way out of touch with reality if he thinks younger people tend to be more “fiscally conservative.” I’d say quite the opposite. People with that libertarian philosophy are a vocal minority who, at four percent of the voting population, have little if any significant influence in elections. It is not and never will be a winning philosophy.

    The protection of human life failed right off the bat in 1973 because the elected branches of government at the state and federal levels obeyed the court and did not tell law enforcement to ignore a court that clearly lied. O’Connor said as much in the 1992 Casey opinion, asserting that obedience implied Roe had at least been plausible and taken seriously. It was a huge mistake for people to wait on reversal by a judicial system that had been trained to lie and to defy the law (as “law” schools teach). This kind of genocide is not something one waits for or looks to popular opinion, certainly not if reasons for opposition are serious and well-grounded. No honest person with half a brain could have taken Roe seriously.

    That said, it never was right to make it a religious matter, because there is nothing faith-based about opposing the legality of mutilating, torturing, and murdering children on socioeconomic and emotional grounds. It’s a matter of equal justice under the law. Why people made it religious is beyond me. The move should have been targeted at medical professionals and the whole medical profession and touted as a civil rights or human rights issue. Like slavery, the Holocaust, and segregation, it’s not even something that rational people in a civilized society should even be “disagreeing” about.

    I would like to know who made up this senseless, illogical, and haphazard definition of the word “social.” Why are we attaching a fundamental matter of basic human rights to issues like a legal definition of marriage in which people are not having their own rights violated. It’s like comparing the design of a new government building to the fight against Islamic terror. I guess “culture” makes a little more sense when you consider some cultures still sacrifice their born children to their “gods.”

    What’s more, I got to wondering after a while why protecting life should be a “conservative” position. The aim is not to restrict or oppress, or to preseve some tradition or cultural practice or role in society. It only makes sense and has credibility to me as a liberal and progressive cause seeking to grant rights where they had been denied. So I have to wonder how it got considered conservative and why it was tied to the Republican Party.

  • Rod_Patrick

    I totally agree. Let’s declare the WAR and win it.

    And we have a leader. GC has just mentioned His name (see his comment above.)

    If God is with us, who can we lose?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    It is not that the matter was “made” a religious issue. Its that it took religious people to get politically active for the issue to be addressed given the secular squishes to whom the field had been abandoned.

    The Liberty of all the people had to be defended by religious conservatives whose free speech rights were threatened by unelected judges who also had usurped the rights of all the people to self government.

    Many secular people are simply unwilling to fight for anything. go figure

  • Rod_Patrick

    Cheers!

  • eburke

    Guess my thought process went something along the lines of:

    the average American has been trained to reflexively equate “conservative” with “Republican” (the fact that large chunks of the GOP have long ceased actually *being* conservative is lost on Joe Six-Pack; it’s why RINOs in leadership and spokesperson positions are so damaging to the ability of Repubs to defeat donks…but I digress) Since the “conservative brand” has been proven to be the philosophy on which this country was founded and allowed it to become the greatest nation in the history of the world, someone who destroys the GOP in the minds of the average voter has severely wounded the conservative brand, which in turn damages the nation.

    See, I got there….it just took me little longer than your brilliance :-)

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    thread where I have said that as well. The question is how much blame is there to be assessed Bushes in a culture war we have been losing for 45 years, that was quite advanced in the losing thereof by 1988 and 2000 esp when one considers all the other players in and out of politics that share blame.

    Don’t imagine that just because some commenter asserts some great chasm over and over and that I don’t repeat everything I have said earlier, that the debate has been properly characterized by said commenter.

    Life is too short for this.

  • Rod_Patrick

    I agree. Sorry for being such a “nuts” on the topic.

    BTW, I forgot to say THANK YOU for such a wonderful diary.

  • eburke

    n/t

  • mbecker908

    1. And NEVER forget or confuse this: Brilliant I ain’t. I’m just an old curmudgeon who tries to keep things relatively simple.

    2. You were actually right. Bush did incalculable damage to the Republican Party (brand). And that’s different from the **nation**, but he did both.

    It’s possible to do one and not the other, he accomplished both. The Party can probably be fixed, given that we have people like the Cheneys. I’m not sure the Nation will survive. It will continue, but I don’t think I’ll define where we’re headed as “survival” (See Britain).

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    a specific moderate conservative republican, Sandra Wise, who is representative of many that echo the false allegation of the left that the religious right lost the 2006 and 2008 elections and the culture war.

    It was not about George Bush and any defense of him by me. It was a commenter that brought up that tangential issue and has falsely characterized my position as being that Bush and Bush bear no responsibility for a lack of leadership in the culture war. I never said that, yet the commenter keeps on acting as if I have.

    I know it is time consuming to read a whole thread and quite natural to read a comment or two and then instruct me as to what a commenter is right about as if I have disagreed with same when the commenter mischaracterizes my position thru implication.

    I never call threadjack though because I can, as I usually do, ignore them or enjoy them for a time, but since you felt the need to second a statement upthread by the commenter and implied that I had contradicted the quite obvious and puny point the commenter was making, and since you are a man of good spirits, I felt the need to set the record straight for you and others lurking herein.

    more later, but not on the bait and switch

    The issue that matters going forward is that we not buy into the meme that so-cons lost the elections or that our positions on the social issues can’t win with better candidates that are unapologetic conservatives.

    That is the point of my column.

    But if Bush bashers want to use this thread to continue their favorite sport, let them have at it.

    BTW, google chrome has no spell check

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • mbecker908

    Please note, I never said, anywhere, that the Bushes could have “won” the culture war.

    As far as 43 “owning” it, I made that comment in the context of you trying to share the blame and get Bush off the hook for sitting under his desk for the bulk of his two terms in office and doing basically nothing that required actual leadership.

    Note my example of Reagan. Nowhere did I indicate that he won the culture war (OT: he and MT did win the Cold War and with generally no help). I noted that through his leadership we made great progress on the culture front and we’ve lost ground daily since then because we haven’t had that kind (or any kind) of leadership since then.

    The “problem” isn’t We the People, it’s no leadership. With Reaganesque leadership through the 90′s and the last decade would we have “won” it. No. I’m unconvinced that the culture wars can be won, primarily because the goal posts will move with success. But we could have made real progress and we generally didn’t. The exceptions to that statement would be things like PBA ban – which boiled up from the grass roots, not from any leadership. Same for the current state of abortion restrictions. Again, no leadership.

    And, “myopic” is the idea that GWB was anything but the worst – or nearly the worst – President in our lifetime. He’s left the country in worse shape than Nixon did when he resigned.

  • David123

    Once upon a time phrases like politics stops at the waters edge and the job of the media is to impartially report the news without political bias were true. I used to think they were true, and maybe President Bush did too.

    George Bush maybe figured the media would report the objective truth and that the Dems would give him some respect on war/foreign policy matters. Historically he would have been right, but boy was he wrong when it was his turn to be president.

    Can you imagine some Republican saying FDR was a worse war criminal than Tojo?

  • Menlo

    Who are the people fighting in court to remove God or any reference to Him (outside a Muslim, Hindu, or new age context) from public sight, sound and mind? Who seeks to hijack and misrepresent the “separation of church and state?” Also, these are the very people who promote abortion under the guise that opposition is faith-based. Positions on protecting human life heavily correlate to religion. Even if secular people were more involved, you still wouldn’t see many Elizabeth Cady Stantons or Oriana Fallacis out there.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    that it is best to make objective arguments on marriage and abortion rather than arguments limited to religious ones, but just think its unrealistic to expect all religious people to do that es p given that the left’s arguments are much more like pagan magic and certainly are not based on data or history or logic.

    I agree with your many comments on the life issue and how best to argue, and
    I’ll never for get an atheist disabled lady in Decatur, GA that I featured in a column due to her support for Schivo!

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    don’t think we the people have failed in our non-participation or silent acquiescence to libs as we participated in the major cultural institutions of this country since the first hippie took over a class at Bork’s Yale thru yesterday, than, yes, that would be a symptom of myopia.

    Even when some of we the people own a Fox, we invite in libs to occupy half of it and treat lib arguments as equally legitimate while Coopers do a 360 and treat conservatives and Christians as illegitimate and only invite on those that will bash our own.

    But back to congress, wouldn’t it have been better had Hatch led the senate to oppose Clinton’s Ruth and Sam?

    of course

    But do I think that supreme leadership by both Bushes would have won the culture war. No

    Now, had Bush41 defeated Clinton and then appointed two more Clarence Thomases…maybe would could talk about the possibility of winning…

    My main point here was and is to refute the arguments of the left and echoing repubs that want to shift the blame from their moderate McCain selves in the defeats of 2006 and 2008 to social conservatives.

    Did you have any opinion on that actual subject of my column or did you just want to write chapter 586 on why Bush is Beelzebub and responsible for your toothaches and back pain?

    smile (see joke – sense of humor required, and yes, I don’t find your profanity amusing – I still find it juvenile and didn’t appreciate it in your first comment)

    Now, try to be civil, but of course, if you aren’t there will be no consequence.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I’m not quite sure what you identify as the “opposing paradigms” but let me try a few ideas:

    1) The 2000 election controversy and press coverage left Bush with no mandate to govern – the weakest position any President has been in probably since the Tilden-Hayes election of 1876. (And with respect to his party, probably not since Andrew Johnson).

    2) As a result, in order to get any of his programs through, Bush had to give away the farm to Congressional leaders. Any loss would have sunk his Presidency once the media jumped on it.

    3) What 9-11 did was to strengthen Bush enough that he and the Republican Congress were mutually dependent: Bush still needed Congress to get his domestic programs through, while Bush for a time had credibility as Commander in Chief in a time of war that the Congressional Republicans had to stand behind him. This only lasted for no more than two years.

    4) Later on, as the mood of the country shifted against Iraq, aided by wrong leadership and Bush’s inability to articulate and defend, the Congressional Republicans had to prop up Bush in order to protect themselves, but in turn, they called the tune on legislation.

    5) Key evidence is that Bush did not use his veto power until after the Democrats took over in 2006 (due to runaway Republican Congressional leadership who, with Bush as their accomplice, had destroyed the Republican brand). He didn’t use it because he was too weak to withstand the retaliation that would have ensued.

    6) Over all, throughout his Presidency, Bush was in a position where he could not afford to be seen as losing any battle with Congress or he would essential be judged as not longer functional. As a result, in any showdown, Congress (and particularly the Republican leadership) had the highest trump card.

    With one exception (see next section)

    7) Ironically, the only time Bush in his 8 years held the whip hand over Congress was in the TARP proposal, since he made the case that the sky would fall if this didn’t pass. I say ironically, because TARP is the issue that 1) sunk the McCain candidacy; and 2) provided the cover for Obama’s socialistic politicies, because the Republican Bush gave the ammunition for the Democrats to proclaim the capitalism and the free market had failed and the the government needed to take control, and therefore 3) has perhaps doomed our nation to economic and political ruin – or at least great misery.

  • mbecker908
  • mbecker908

    150 words. And you’re right and she’s an idiot.

    The 2006 defeats were the result of Bush showing no leadership. 2008 was McCain.

    Is Bush Beelzebub and responsible for what you offered? No. But he is responsible for the fact that today we’ve got a Marxist President and the a Congress that makes the Duma look like a Conservative’s dream. And that had nothing to do with SoCons either.

    As to my first comment, oh well. I’m civil and I stay on point. You should try it sometime.

  • David123

    In 2004, initiatives to preserve marriage plus Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage helped Bush win re-election.

    In 2006 and 2008 cultural issues took a back seat. And McCain could not, or did, draw a distinction between his position and Obama’s position on protecting marriage and judicial activism.

  • Achance

    other than I dont’ think he much cared about a lot of the other stuff. It was sorta, “Well, I’m President, what do you want?” Don’t think he ever saw it as anything more than a family obligation. Then 9/11 forced him to deal with that stuff. He had the right manly instincts, but even so, you have to wonder how much of Iraq was US policy and how much was Bush family revenge.

  • MrMosis

    I have come this far in the comments, and I have not yet seen this answered or addressed: Why have WtP been absent in these institutions?

    My position is that all light is sourced in The Church. There are those who believe that the reason The Church was not more involved in the social battles developing in the 40s-60s was: the liberal church, liberal theology, and a social gospel. They did not want to be confused with the liberal church. So they kept to themselves.

    So from a civics perspective, one might ask why WtP (who I suppose are largely conservative) were not more involved. It’s not the REAL question that needs asking in my opinion, but I am curious what attempts at an answer some might make.

    I personally believe that it is The Church that really must ask this question. If it is true that all that is illuminated is done so by The Church, then it follows that an isolationist church will soon find itself surrounded by dark institutions.

    I could read RS content all day and night.

  • DONTREADONME
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah touches on this. Too many Christians bought into the idea of the left’s idea of tolerance, which was to keep one’s faith to one’s self and inside the church lest we offend. This also allowed one to be cowards with an excuse. This started in the 60s.

    I saw this firsthand in the dem party as people of the faith were told to clam up in the 80s. Many did, But many more went to the GOP.

    Court decisions usurping religious free speech rights and local control of schools drone them into politics.

    But back to the institutions, of the press, academia and Hollywood. They were always naturally occupied by liberals. I have several links to columns by others that discuss this. It takes courage, esp when the media is telling you, that you are intolerant, to stand up.

    Actually, I think Rush Limbaugh helped greatly to give people courage when his show started in 1988 by echoing what millions thought for years but never heard since the 50s.

    more later

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    blaming Bush exclusively for hangnails, the fall of Liberty and everything in between and then agree with 90% of the column piecemeal in the comments, al beit in a hostile manner. Then mischaracterize the issue leading others to think that the columnist disagrees with an obvious point about “leadership” and what not. Yes, I have seen you “on point” many times.

    Some families have crazy old uncles in the attic or skeletons in the closet.

    Redstate doesn’t have closets and attics.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Aaron Gardner

    I read all of the comments before I commented at all.

    And I was responding directly to a question that you asked…not merely parroting what Becker said.

    But In my mind that is all just discussion of minutia…and unimportant to the larger point…which is what I drew attention to above….we need to start fighting back…all of us..all the way up to the President when he is a Republican and the RNC Chair when we don’t hold the Oval Office.

  • Flagstaff

    Especially, “When conservatives gain control of the bureaucracy or the congress/white house, we play too nice.”

    And, “Had other conservatives helped both before and after Dobson and Reagan entered the fray, and had the political spine to fire bureaucrats and ?Bork? their judges been present (albeit based not on personal smears, but rather via objections to the unconstitutional Oath violating ?living Constitution? interpretation mode), we would have fared better in the culture wars.”

    I wasn’t aware that “blacks… are more socially conservative than the general population.” What is the source for that statement? I’m curious, because I want to commit it to my fact bank, not my opinion bank.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Doc Holliday

    or libertarian-conservative if we all go back to divisiveness. It seems to me you are trying to meld Socons and liberty, which is a good thing. I have been saying liberty is the key to all conservatism and our nation, it is smart you say that is what Socons are about.

    The problem is you are defending a certain religious group led by Dobson while criticizing other conservatives, kind of like saying, “I didn’t do it, He did”. Me, thinks you doth protest too much.

    I agree with your overall premise about liberty and fighting the culture wars. I just think most of us our past Dobson and trying to focus on Reagan Conservatism. And yes, I would never try to prop up Dobson by including him with Reagan.

    What it comes down to is that we all are to blame. Everyone supported Bush for too long. Many so called Socons took control of the Congress and then lost it when they lost their conservative bonafides. In the end, we all played a part, we all lost to the left wing drive byes and the NEA. When we all admit we are in this together, we can move on.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    buy into the lib false memes about losses in culture wars and elections. The fact is though Doc, that Reagan proudly included himself as ONE with Evangelicals (don’t take my word for it: read the evil empire speech give before the Evangelical Conference) and he brought them into the party so we could win.

    The blame for the culture war goes back to the 50s and every year since in terms of our failures to get INSIDE the cultural institutions and once inside, to be influential as well as electoral politics.

    But Doc, when I converted to the GOP in 2001, it was primarily due to economics. This was before 911. I had always been a war hawk even as a dem. And as recovering trial lawyer that read Borks books in 2001-2, I became ever more passionate on the social conservative and judicial activism issues.

    I most often since have, when appropriate, emphasized the so-con ID due to the unjustified attacks on these folks that I waved good bye to as a dem in the 80s and 90s knowing first hand as Spartanburg County chair of the dem party how shabbily they were treated by the secular dem party.

    But Doc, I am a Reagan conservative down the line.

    And I appreciate your recognition of my reconciliation attempts to bring so-cons and libertarians together as they naturally should be allies.

    God bless.

    ps I have also often identified as a neo-con due to my agreement with Reagan and Bill Kristol on America’s role in securing liberty around the world where we can, sometimes by military force, in special circumstances also doe to the unjust vilification of them.

  • Joe_Cor

    and other battles as well, much as Chancellorsville was lost during the Civil War. After Reagan we were winning, had people going over to our side. Then GHWB pulled pack, called off the forces, tried to get the left to like him, and the result was Clinton.

    Early in the Bush years, we had gained ground again, had people going our way. Then GWB pulled back, tried to get the left to like him, and we suffered an even greater disaster.

    McCain surrendered on social issues as well. He had Palin barely mention them, and McCain was so busy setting up his post-election “Mr. Bipartisan” role that he couldn’t be bothered waging much of any campaign anyway, on social issues or anything else.

    We didn’t so much lose the culture wars as surrender on them. We need to find our Grants, Shermans, and Sheridans, who will keep on waging the battle until it is won.

  • Doc Holliday

    He was not an Evangelical. He was a Believer and culture warrior in the way Ace mentions. He did bring in Evangelicals because they had common goals and common foes. But Dobson is no Reagan. Dobson wanted to be a King maker, it just did not work. We are a movement that transcends our personal faith, we believe in America and its ideas of freedom.

    The freedom is the great unifier, all conservatives should rally around that radical idea. No one here is a moderate, moderates don’t go to political sites. We are radicals as were the Founders, and we must all fight for freedom.

  • Doc Holliday

    by our Creator. I also believe we are a nation of believers and that our founding principles were the final great human expression of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I just wanted to be clear about that, I am pro religion, but I will always be for small government and freedom in the public square.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    his evil empire speech and also his Life in Letters book.

    Never said Dobson was a Reagan.

    And when I was speaking of moderates, I wasn’t restricting myself to “here” at Redstate, though there certainly are a few that comment and many more that lurk here.

    On your other comment below and most all of the one above, you are preaching to the choir, “here” at DeVine Law and none of your points contradict mine.

    God bless

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    that was only in politics and then only to a limited extent and mainly only due to the leader, not the congress. We have hardly ever been “winning” (and of course such -ing words are inherently vague) the culture war on ground, i.e. actual in the major cultural institutions of academia, the press and Hollywood themselves.

    But yes, we have surrendered on the ground and in Congress, mainly. But also, the Bushes old and new tones simply did not defend themselves and the party and the social conservative culture rhetorically.

    I am happy with Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    The only disagreements would be on the degree of said lack of leadership and one thing you just said.

    Don’t you mean that each POTUS is limited only by himself as to how much he will TRY to influence the culture, for surely you acknowledge that even if one tried 24/7 to influence same in a conservative direction and even if they were supemely good at it, that other forces will effect how effective said POTUS influence actually is, not the least of which of course are the receptiveness if the people who are greatly influenced by the institutions we have all but abandoned for 40 years in the press, academia and Hollywood.

    long sentence huh!

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Ed54

    In 8 years, today’s twenty-something starry eyed voter will be thirty-something, with a profession, a mortgage, a couple of kids to raise, and a growing aversion to taxes.

  • lkdavis

    Republicans and conservatives fight the fight according to a certain set of rules. In other words we “fight fair”. The Democrats and liberals have no problem using any means necessary to advance their agenda. We need to stand on our principles, look liberals staight in the eye, and proceed to absolutely devestate them. We have plenty of ammunition if we are not afraid to use it. We need to weed out the infiltrators who are trying to turn us into another wing of the Democrat Party. WE NEED TO STOP LETTING THEM SET THE AGENDA. Don’t eat our wounded…especially when the MSM is the one trying to do the wounding.

  • Doc Holliday

    I know what he was as a child, and his mother was Catholic, my point is he was no Dobson or Falwell. I have his book A Life in Letters, it is on my future reading list. I will reread the speech you cite. But here is the rub, you can’t extrapolate who a man was from one speech. Every politician is a farmer when speaking to farmers, a soldier when speaking to soldiers, and has a handicapped relative when speaking to the disabled. You know that one can not argue from the specific to the general.

    I know a bit about Reagan because I lived through his presidency. I remember the speeches, the great moments, and Morning in America. I could believe you that Reagan was a Evangelical Social Conservative who wore religion on his sleeve, or I could just remember the past. Reagan was so great we all want to claim him, and he did do things that supported all conservatives.

    I only responded here because you compared Dobson to Reagan, like they were some team. It was your title that I liked the least, the diary was pretty good :)

  • Doc Holliday

    I would not care if Reagan were an Evangelical, I have nothing against Evangelicals or any other Christian denominations or other peaceful religions.

    I do have a problem with big government theocrats who care not for freedom but want to use the government to THEIR own devices. We need small government and people will have the freedom to make their own choices in life as long as they do not hurt others (for that we need laws and gov). And you can read most any Reagan speech to learn about that.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    All the cultural conservatives who have a soapbox, Sure they draw attention to problems in the culture. But ultimately they become so repetative that people tune them out.

    They end up preaching to the choir. I got to a point in the early nineties where I could no longer even listen. Every week was a new crises that demanded immediate action. You can only operate so long with that mentality.

    It was over this period of time that I began to see that the real problem was not the changing of our culture, the problem was that we had too much government. If everyone had the freedom to live life as they chose (as long as they don’t have a direct effect on others) then most problems take care of themselves.

    If you live a promiscuous, addictive, or immoral life, you will probably die young. If you live a moral family life, you will live long, and you will have influence over your children, and influence in your community.

    The real problem is when do-gooders, either left or right, try to use government to interfere in people’s lives.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    My “comparison” was only to show that Reagan saw fit to bring the so-cons into the party and that he was in agreement with their positions on those issues, and not to suggest any political equivalence concerning impact.

    I just think that when critics of social conservatives falsely blame them for losses in culture wars and elections that they ignore the fact that we won with them thanks to Reagan bringing them in and so in many ways the critics of them are the same blue blood country clubbers that hated Reagan or are their useful idiots.

    sheesh?
    luv ya man

    We both as well as Dobson eschew big government theocrats, and I doubt you could find enough those in the US to fill a smart car. Try Iran for that animal.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and my point in term of the culture war was not how important they were, but rather how insignificant they were in the loss of the loss of the culture war, i.e. that we had been losing that war for 20 years before they got involved and to pin blame on those that actually fought back is CYA jobs as it is when the big guv moderates in the power that wanted mccain for 8 years finally got him yet want to blame so-cons for losses in 2006 and 2008 when social issueswere irreevant just to cover their miderate butts.

    whew!

    We are seeing under Obama writ humongous, what it is for government to intrude in our lives.

  • mom2oneson

    I got tired of lisening to all of it too a long time ago. Much of it is the same stuff different day. I think we put too much on him, he does meet the needs of his target audicence. There are lots of insecure middle and upper middle class women that decided to be stay at home mothers, stay married, use some discipline with their kids instead of buying into the anti-authority garbage but some are not very confident and starved for encouragement..he really has a target market playing the same stuff different day because it “fills’ their need for guidance and encouragement when everything else in the culture preaches against what they are trying to do.

  • mom2oneson

    I think about the same thing, not the part about blaming the recent players but where was everyone when these bad laws were being passed? I feel like that with so many things, and most of the people involved now are older, where were they before? Where was everyone when abortion and contraception was being passed in the states, child welfare and adoptions started to get funded by the federal government, more federal funding for low income kids in public schools, the IRS giving out tax credits that are refundable and stuff like that. Why weren’t these laws stopped or protested against way before now?

    I wonder too if some of this is a result of ignoring what the gov does to the poor. It seems like the government does a lot on the poor at first and nobody cares and when they move to do it for everyone, then people speak out against it. It’s already too late they have been doing it for years and then they use that to prove it’s needed.