There is not the strong connection to the Republican Party that there once was. I'm more representative of the younger generation and I don't have as strong allegiance to the Republican Party. And to the degree that they try to avoid the values issues and put them at the back of the bus, I don't have a lot of desire to mess around with that ...Read the whole thing (via Memeorandum). I'm surprised at Perkins' generosity toward Barack Obama, who represents a presidential beachhead for the left's war on traditionalism in this country.
But see also Robert Schlesinger's essay, "Republican Party and Religious Right Heading for a Split?":
This is a no-brainer for me.Conservatives have for a long time argued that Republicans talk the talk at election time to get votes, but are insufficiently committed when it comes to actual policies ...
... this also illustrates the broader dilemma facing Republicans right now: For what do they stand? The tensions between the various conservative coalition members were easier to smooth over when the movement was ascendant, but there's nothing like unceremoniously getting kicked into the wilderness to exacerbate tensions. Having to map a route back to power means having to resolve the differences inherent in the minimal government portion of the party—cut taxes and don't regulate things—and the religious conservatives who are less wary of using government provided it's a means to God's ends.
The GOP must stay true to core values. Party attempts to stay competitive by embracing disastrous leftist social policies will kill the party, and the various remnants of the political right will end up composing a fractured party system resulting in a long-term consolidation of Democratic Party dominance for a generation or more. I can foresee something like the turmoil on the populist left during the Second Party System of the mid-1850s, where factional competition and social strife among the Democrats split the party's coalition and paved the way for a Republican realignment in 1860 under Abraham Lincoln.
That outcome, while troubling for the direction of the country, is nevertheless preferable to the GOP's capitulation today to the culture of death that's central to the Democratic Party's agenda, as demonstrated by the rationalization of pro-abortion advocacy so extreme that live babies are being thrown away in toxic waste bags after botched late-term abortions at zip-and-rip "family planning" clinics in Florida.
7 comments:
The clue that social conservatives weren't buying the Repub brand was confirmed in the Ohio vote in '08, where Obama garnered 40,000 FEWER votes than John Kerry in '04 and still beat McCain handily, while GWB clobbered Kerry..... As they say in the NFL, Obama beat the spread and the religious right and their hillfolk brethren simply weren't bamboozled by McCain, although Palin did get a few of them excited.
I think Karl Rove should be the Dems true boogeyman, even though Rush gets honorable mention and is their current bete noire. Now that they don't have GWB to kick around any more, they'll still kick him around too, in the old Saul Alinsky maxim that a demon should stay a demon even unto the following generations.
As a Poli Sci prof, Donald, you know how long the "gatekeepers" of the left continue to distort the historical record even as Amity Schlaes finally writes the real history of the Great Depression, much Greater because FDR eff-ed up everything he touched.
Keep your output coming at such a high level, you're becoming my touchstone for mentoring my daughter [a Poli Sci major at UMiami, where she is going to take Donna Shalala's course next year].
As Mark Rudd once told me while puffing on my bong like Michael Phelps, "Dare to cheat, dare to win..." Tom Brokaw gave him a loving encomium recently as Duncan the Wonderhorse [Brokaw's nickname] suffused about Ayers and other specimens of American patriotism. [Brokaw's no relation to you, is he, Donald?]
Thanks Dave!
This might be where the younger and the older diverge...
I consider myself a social conservative, for the most part, although I have no problem with states granting civil unions to homosexuals. However, I am much more worried about fiscal conservatism and it's downfall than I am social conservatism. I get much more angry about conservatives wasting my tax dollars, spending money on absurd pet projects, and actively destroying my ability to earn my money, hold on to it, and spend it as I will, than I am about any social problem (the current Roe v. Wade set-up is deeply flawed, and should be changed, but...).
I can, for the most part, live my life socially as I wish. But when the government takes over my economic life, I become unable to live in the standard of living for which I strive. I must pay my taxes. I must obey labor laws and other politically correct policies. The more socialist we become, the more I lose the ability to self-determine my particular existence and that of my family.
Again, abortion is different. That's killing another and should not be allowed. But otherwise, the fiscal end of it is much more important to me.
Well, PrivatePigg, I don't oppose civil unions myself. It's gay marriage absolutism on the left that I can't stand. But you see, it's all of a piece to me, and when one area is conceded by the right, another is next in line. I'm also worried about fiscal matters, but the GOP lost that fight some time ago. Perhaps right now we're seeing some spine against the pork-barrel, and maybe that will be a ticket back to power, along with an innovative round of pro-growth policies.
"The GOP must stay true to core values. Party attempts to stay competitive by embracing disastrous leftist social policies will kill the party,"
Exactly!
Saying that we should "stay true to our values" is true, but something of a bumper sticker.
The issue is how you present your case to the people. Leading with social issues doesn't work.
To win you lead with economic issues. Make taxes and the economy the centerpiece of your campaign.
You don't hide your position on social issues, you just don't lead with them.
in other words.....
"its the economy, stupid"
first party to get it ....wins for now
Professor, your idealogical base just signified its symbiosis.
Post a Comment