The way forward for the Republicans...
There is a way forward for the Republicans....but who knows if they will go down the right path. Here are my suggestions...
1. Social conservatism will not win general elections for the Republicans. Issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are not winners for them.
2. In the major cities, the Republicans (like our Conservatives) need to run what I call metro conservatives - candidates who are gay-friendly, and are more interested in lower taxes, smaller government, free speech, and free-market environmentalism.
3. Being pro-family is fine - but embrace gay families in your definition.
4. Continue the fight against Islamic Jihad. Make sure people know that Republicans want nothing to do with the surrender faction in America.
5. The Republicans need to clean up their act and run candidates who are disdainful of earmarks, and who are very different from traditional democrats like Charles Schumer (who used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as his own personal fiefdom).
6. Offer a different environmentalism - talk about real environmental problems (a la Bjorn Lomborg) like clean water, sewage, etc. And, let's see some free-market environmental solutions.
7. Be more libertarian. Offer a contrast to politically-correct Democrats.
posted by GayandRight @ 5:06 PM
7 Comments:
I propound a similar theory. Good post.
http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/11/message-to-gop-no-more-mccain-no-more.html
I agree with you on many things you've written here, Fred, but on point 1, and 3 by direct relation, I think you're wrong.
The election results from last night illustrate to me that social conservatism is alive and well in the United States. Consider that every marriage initiative that sought to proscribe gay marriage was voted in the affirmative. Even California, a Democratic stronghold and arguably the most gay-friendly State of all, approved Prop 8.
What this says to me is that there is a considerable appetite for true fiscal and social conservatism. What there is no longer an appetite for is big-government Republicanism. That's well and truly dead.
Social conservatism gets a certain number of votes in a certain number of states, but it doesn't have the power to win federal elections in America. Economic conservatism (by which I mean capitalism) does. The GOP needs to win states like Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and Virginia, and Colorado. In order to do so, they need to tone it down with the social issues and ramp up their defense of capitalism, which McCain barely even touched on in his campaign.
If one is to support the laissez-faire approach to the government's policy on the economy, what logical reason could we put forward to fail to extend that laissez-faire approach to the social realm?
Social conservatism is not alive, Mark. The California vote was very close - and as younger people age, the percentage supporting gay marriage will increase. This shows progress - and same-sex marriage is inevitable in the US.
How else do you explain the result of the vote, Fred, if not social conservatism? What other test is required to demonstrate that there remains a strong sc undercurrent in America, even in blue states?
To me, the results speak for themselves. If social conservatism was as dead as you believe, surely one of the States would have voted for gay marriage. I mean, surely Cali would have!
As for the future, I don't think gay marriage is a safe assumption at all. If you ascribe to the demographic theories of people like Mark Steyn, the future doesn't look bright for liberals, who are having less children then their conservative counterparts (approx 1:2 margin). Over time there is equal if not greater potential for a more socially conservative America than exists today. It can be argued that once the glut of hippie boomers passes on, liberals will have less voice and exertion, not more. If the hippie boomers can't get it done, there's a good chance it won't happen for at least a generation after them simply due to numbers.
I generally agree with you G&R but I don't think conservatives adopting SSM is a winner. It will be divisive and lose more support than it gains.
Bottom line is you cannot redefine the traditional definition of marriage for one group and not others.
Being against SSM is not being against gays.
Dear Mark: Mark Steyn's demographics on the child-bearing of conservatives and liberals just isn't relevant. What is more relevant is that young people are much more in support of same-sex marriage than older people - it's a generational thing. So, as we move forward, more and more people will support same-sex marriage - making it inevitable.
As for the last anonymous comment, that you cannot redefine traditional marriage for one group and not others....well, what exactly is traditional marriage?
To muslims, it means allowing young children to marry. In North America it used to mean that inter-racial marriages were illegal. Traditional marriages in the Bible are like nothing we have today.
fred
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home