« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Advice for a “moderate” Republican who voted Obama over McCain.

This is in response to gsy987 here, complaining that the GOP needs to adjust itself to make “moderates” more comfortable. Of course, his advice, like that of David Frum, Rick Moran, David Brooks, etc. is that we jettison social conservatives and demand less loyalty of “moderates” toward the party.

My father here is exhibit A right now in everything that is wrong with the Republican party right now. [He’s] a classic, northern Virginia moderate Republican, who felt isolated from the GOP through the continued emphasis on loyalty and social issues, and actually in the end voted for Obama.

I have to agree with the man – it sure does sound like gsy987′s Dad is exactly the type of “moderate” Republican that is everything wrong with the GOP right now. As Specter, Jeffords, Chafee, Schwarz, Leach, Gilchrest, etc. have proven – it is now too much to expect the very basic expectation of partisan loyalty from “moderates”. That would require them to take a side and stick to it, something we all know “moderates” are congenitally incapable of. Let me be blunt; I am yet to see any of the media’s designated “moderates” in the GOP stand strong on an issue the instant it is labeled “divisive” or “controversial”.

So far what I’ve found out is that the bulk of so-called Republican “moderates” are remarkably shallow thinkers with practically no original or worthwhile idea beyond splitting the difference on any of the issues that matter. They outsource their thinking to the liberal Press, to polls, to Beltway Conventional Wisdom, and are forever trying to please Democrats so they can get what they think is “respect.”

If people really want to know why moderates in the GOP get such a bum rap, it is not because of their positions on social issues, but the enervating jumble of cowardice, self-loathing, masochism and Quisling impulse towards capitulating collaboration with the other side when they’re needed most. Add that to the constant whining self-righteousness that they’re not getting the respect they’ll never earn thanks to a manifest lack of principle and conviction, and it’s not that difficult to see why the typical Republican would seriously consider sitting out an election if a “moderate” is on the ballot.

The fact is that when we look at the Democrat’s own “moderates”, we notice a few things. Whenever they’re on print and broadcast, they’re not bashing their own party. They do not call their fellow party members “extremists.” They do not sabotage their own leadership. They do not place Bipartisanship™ above achieving their party’s legislative goals. They do not repeat the other side’s talking points. They do not go on talk radio to agree with Conservative hosts that other Democrats are intolerant knuckle-draggers. They do not proclaim to one and all that the mainstream of their party as “too liberal” or “too far to the Left.” In other words, when it counts, and even when it doesn’t, they’re loyal, they’re Democrats.

But “moderate” Republicans are an entirely different kettle of fish. Now, all indications are that not only do they want to vote with the other side with regards to policy, they want to go along with Democrats on procedural votes (e.g. “Gang of 14″) as well.

Before on RedState, defenders of “moderates” tried to pass off the fantasy that moderates were “staunch fiscal conservatives” even while being social liberals when, to be honest, the only living breathing example of such a creature was Rudy Giuliani and Bill Weld (back when he was a Republican). The “fiscally conservative socially liberal” shibboleth was held on to quite strongly though, that is; until Snowe, Collins, Specter (with able support by “moderate” Govs like Crist and Schwarzenegger) sacrificed the nation’s financial health – not because they thought it would work, they never even read the bill – on the altar of Bipartisanship™ and getting invitations to talk to liberal news hosts on TV. Now, every one of the defenders is silent.

Thanks to their constant badmouthing of their own party, most of the “loyalty is too much to ask of us” “moderates” in Congress (the ones that would have voted with Obama on the ‘Stimulus’) were voted out in 2006 and 2008 by Independents convinced by their own words echoing (as usual) the Democrats that the GOP is full of extremists, “theocrats,” racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-environmental neanderthals. Apparently, according to what passes for “strategy” in “moderate” circles, this “Republicans Suck! Except Me!” message was supposed to prime listeners to troop to the polls on Election Day and pull the lever for the Republican on the ballot.

Which highlights another thing about “moderates” – without the advantage of incumbency or the success of a conservative predecessor to conveniently associate themselves with, they can’t win elections without help from the very same people they spend their time on TV denouncing, including the base they need to carry them over the finish line. Many of the so-called “moderates” that were booted by their district’s voters in 2006 and 2008 only got elected in the first place by riding Reagan’s coat-tails in the 1980s and Gingrich’s coat-tails in 1994.

So here’s my advice to gsy987′s “Republican”-for-Obama Dad, and this is with all due respect; he should switch his registration to Democrat and be done with it. Like Meghan McCain (proving that the apple seldom falls far from the tree) he sounds like someone who sees no redeeming value in the party he claims to be a member of and everything to admire in the Democrat Party – the fact that we nominated John ‘Maverick Moderate’ McCain, the man who for eight years exemplified the capitulating Bipartisanship™ that “moderates” have been clamoring for, the man the New York Times endorsed for us, and yet he voted for Barack Obama anyway, says this more convincingly than any words he (or gsy987) can say to the contrary.

At this point, unless they get over their aversion to loyalty and paralyzing fear of journalist disapproval, “moderates” like gsy987′s Dad are no different from Fifth Columnists – it’s far more harmful to have them within the Tent than without it.

COMMENTS

  • David_Rasbold

    Worthy of sharing with all. Off to Facebook and Twitter…

    More of this, please.

  • Aaron Gardner

    will post digg link when it’s ready.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • AceInTX

    maybe you should consider re writing those places where you call out gsy987 and let people go to his post if people want to know who you’re talking about.

    I say this as someone who was targeted…along with David Hinz by our own personal troll who continually stalked us from diary to diary and wrote numerous diaries of his own attacking us by name. It really is bad form and prohibited by the posting rules…

    That said Martin…I can’t agree with you more on the substance of this post and is something that needs to be considered by everyone…including moderates.

    • E Pluribus Unum
      • AceInTX

        of course you know of who I speak…

        :>)

      • AceInTX

        of course you know of whom I speak…

        :>)

    • Martin Knight
      • AceInTX

        we’re only talking about the difference between me agreeing with you 1000% and 999%

      • AceInTX

        We are only talking about the difference between me agreeing with you 1000% and 999%

        • AceInTX
          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            and I didn’t attempt to post it but once…. screen just stared back at me for awhile and when it finally rolled it was there twice. Something is dragging somewhere.

          • AceInTX
          • Finrod

            Plus, when I was trying to read Redhot, Firefox was complaining that it was getting an infinite redirect loop.

  • Pomme

    Agree wholeheartedly!

    Ms. McCain was on the Colbert Report (I think last night?) reiterating this exact stance. Made me wince when she stated to be outright against Bristol Palin’s abstinence tour. Maybe we’d listen to her if she didn’t attack us consistently.

    • AceInTX
  • itrytobenice

    If anyone besides full fledged Socialists/leftist/statists supported BO, they just weren’t paying attention. And anyone that uninformed has no business voting.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    First is the irony that social conservative issues played a far lesser extent in this election than in recent presidential elections. For Republican moderates to complain about them and vote for the Democrat indicates that they really want to expel them from any voice in the party.

    Second, your comparison of Republican vs. Democratic moderate in terms of how they behave towards their own party.

    Third, your skewering of the myth of the socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republican. That creature no longer exists – the only arguable group fitting that profile are Libertarians – and they are not Republican moderates.

    Bottom line: there is a concerted effort by Republican moderates and Democrats to anathematize social conservatives from the political arena altogether, expelling them from both parties. Rather than respectfully disagree, these groups want to silence dissent by delegitimizing social conservative views – hence their constants attacks to label them extermists, bigots, religious fanatics and theocrats, etc. – to exile them beyond the pale. Given the number of social conservatives, they will need to go further and proscription will sooner or later be instituted (i.e. silencing by statute and prosecution in the legal system rather than social ostracizing).

    And much of this really comes out of social class issues along with increasing geographic polarization of political views.

    • Martin Knight
  • molybdanthan

    I take it we’re to ask this any time a need arises to question the authoritarians. If you feel preyed upon, and are about to do something about it, just ask yourself ‘what would Arlen do?’ Like the Marines who took Iwo Jima. They should have turned their guns on their fellow soldiers, and raised the other side’s flag.

    • mbecker908

      someone amongst them who was lobbing grenades into the tents of Marines instead of into the caves held by the Japs I can guarantee you a second grenade would never have been lobbed.

  • lawguy9801

    Fantastic post!

  • jeffreywturner

    Morons who say we should “accomodate moderates” need tell me how the “moderate” Obama defeated the “extremist” McCain last year. If there is one thing most Americans can’t stand, it is a pansy. If you are not willing to stand your ground as a Republican, you simply will not be elected President. There are so many traditional values voters who stayed home in 2008 because they had no candidate in the race, that if they all voted, every lazy hippie in the country couldn’t have gotten Obama elected. You can’t win without your base. Period.

    • http://www.realityunwound.com realityunwound

      I reco’d this post, because it’s a great great point. I take exception to the whole, “values voters stayed home because they had no candidate in the race”line. McCain was the last guy on my list in the primaries. Every time he said, “reaching across the aisle,” I wanted to slap someone. I cringed at nearly every decision he made on the campaign trail, and I despised his “brand of conservatism.” However, the fact that he was running against Karl Marx Obama was reason enough to get out to the polls. It can’t be an either or proposition. We need to clean house, AND we need to not elect socialists.

      At this point I’m content to be in the wilderness, because that’s where we are and it doesn’t do any good to grouse about it. However, when I hear someone say that they didn’t vote because, “there weren’t any good candidates,” it makes me want to spit. There weren’t any good candidates, but there sure was one huge flaming liberal, and that’s as good a reason as any.

  • Jack_Savage

    I continue to be a fan of your writing.

    It seems that every sunrise shines a harsh light on someone that claimed they were one of “us”.

  • Return to Revolution

    of moderate dispelled. Fiscally conservative + socially liberal = libertarian, not moderate.

    Great diary.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • http://wellsy.wordpress.com wellsy

    Cogently sums up the problem with “moderates” and why the Republican Party can’t be based upon their comfort to find electoral victory again. You’re right when you say they seem more eager to turn on their own than moderate Democrats, and it’s absolutely true that any “hot-button” issue will find an uninspiring, equivocal, and triangulated response from a moderate. It seems their point is standing for principle, but just for getting along. There’s a place for that sentiment, but if it’s your party’s mission statement, then it’s an invitation for the other side to walk all over you.

  • gsy987

    Here’s my “moderate” dad’s response:

    I am offended by the notion that I am a shallow thinker who ought to switch to the Democratic Party. I would much rather have the Republican Party move towards sensible positions on a number of issues that are crucial to the future of our country. I typically vote Republican, and have voted for Republican Presidential and Congressional candidates in almost every election since I was registered to vote (including George Bush and his son four times, and for Tom Davis every time he ran). It is rare that I vote for Democrats.

    But the Republican Party needs to develop intelligent positions on the following issues:

    1. Fiscal responsibility ? it is outrageous that deficits have been soaring under Republican rule. The bailout package proposed by McCain would have been a disaster, and was much more liberal than the package proposed by Obama (which I strongly disagree with except for the bailout of insurance companies necessary to keep the business world moving).

    2. Foreign policy ? It is crucial for America to have a strong military, and we should not be afraid to use it. But the deterioration of American relationships with overseas countries after the departure of Colin Powell has been remarkable. Multinational use of force is crucial to support long term solutions, such as the resolution of Bosnia/Eastern Europe, and Gulf War I. Using force without international will to enforce a long term solution will work no better in Iraq or Afghanistan than it did in Iran.

    3. Environment ? How are we going to take action against China when its newfound auto industry ruins the atmosphere, when China can turn around and point to our position on the Kyoto agreement, or the US reluctance to impose simple solutions like raising CAF? mileage requirements.

    4. Social issues ? well, if my disagreement with using federal money to sponsor social programs makes me a moderate, then so be it. But so called ?faith based initiatives? represent social engineering just as much as typical Democratic social programs. Social engineering does not belong in the Republican Party.

    Hopefully Republican leaders will come to their senses and develop intelligent positions on these issues and other crucial issues such as reforming the tax code, reducing entitlements, and reforming health care so that physicians can deliver services more efficiently.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      deficit

      I suspect that I already know the answer, mind you.

    • Jack_Savage

      I mean, is this a serious answer? Colin Powell was the sole reason anyone liked us? CAFE is a simple solution? Fatih Based Initiatives earn your wrath, but 90% of the tax system doesn’t? Nor do the myriad of social engineering programs concocted by Democrats?

      Deficits are soaring under Republican rule? Does he realize who is in charge?

      Please, please, PLEASE switch parties. Please.

    • Martin Knight

      1. Obama’s bailout package more fiscally conservative than McCain’s? Are you high? Please explain how you came to that conclusion, without citing the New York Times. McCain’s package would have been a disaster, and Obama’s is not?
      And again, let me get this straight; you’re angry that deficits were “soaring” under “Republican rule”? And yet somehow you not only missed the fact that the deficit was falling rapidly for the past three years (see Moe), you voted for the party that doesn’t actually believe in fiscal responsibility?

      2. On the “multinational use of force”, you’re simply repeating the Democrat’s patently false “unilateral” talking point. 26 nations supported the US mission in Iraq, did you know that?

      3. Again, you’re outsourcing your opinions to the liberal Press. I repeat, you’re a remarkably shallow thinker. Here’s a thought that would obviously never occur to you in a 100 years; I care about the environment and I think that signing up the Kyoto protocol is a fundamentally stupid idea. I bet you’re shocked. After all, you’ve watched An Inconvenient Truth by that great climatologist Al Gore and fell for it wholesale, didn’t you?
      And second, Raising CAFE standards is not a simple issue. One is balancing the need to reduce emissions against increasing the mortality of car accidents. The fact that you obviously have no idea that CAFE standards make cars lighter and therefore more likely to result in the occupants’ death in mishaps confirms that your opinions are quite frankly not thought through.

      4. You oppose the use of federal money to sponsor social engineering programs.
      And you voted for Obama.

      I was right. The sooner people like you are gone from the party, the better. In fact, I think I should say you should stay where you are, because I find it impossible to believe you were ever a Republican in the first place – you’re more likely one of those fake “life-long Republicans” who bluff their way on to talk shows to repeat DNC talking points.

      • JadedByPolitics