The Death of Conservatism, a Republican Catch 22

If Republicans want to become the majority party again, they are going to have to move toward the center on cultural issues, become more pragmatic and less ideological on domestic and foreign policy issues, and start showing some fiscal restraint.

They cannot do that though. Reason being is that they are being boxed into the South. The Democrats finally got some sense about them and started listening the guys like Clinton, the DLC, and for that matter even Howard Dean. To compete in traditionally Republican areas of the Midwest and Mountain West, they recruited candidates who were against the war and economic populists, but were also pro-gun, cultural traditionalists, and in some cases even pro-life. Basically, people who are pragmatic, believe in the populist notion of a good government that serves the people, but are not magnets for culture war wedge issues either. Moreover, Howard Dean has taken the party to a 50 state strategy, where instead of just trying to win the Coasts and major cities in the upper Midwest, the party is building up its organization in every state in the nation, including some of the Republican’s biggest strong holds.

So in a world where culture war wedge issues are losing their punch in the Midwest and Mountain West, where does that leave Republicans who have depended on them to win for the last 12 years? It is a big problem, if Democrats run pro-gun / pro-life candidates in Midwestern or Western States where that would have served as a wedge issue, then it would seem that would force Republicans to try to strengthen even more their strongest base right now which would be Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, otherwise known as the “Religious Right”. The problem is that the Religious Right is largely a southern phenomenon, restricted to areas where denominations like Baptists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God are dominant. The larger problem though, is that by moving even more to the right on social issues in an effort to further placate the Religious Right, they drive a wedge between themselves and everyone else.

There is even a bigger problem that conservative Republicans face. The national Demographics are quickly changing. In 2000, Republican pollsters and strategists looked at the changing demographics in this country and concluded that if Republicans did not find a way to get a significantly larger chunk of the Black and Hispanic vote, that in 2008, it would be statistically impossible for them to win a national election. Moreover, with every election thereafter, the situation would only get worse. This only compounds the Republican Problem, in trying to placate their religious right and socially conservative base, many times as a result they alienate Blacks and Hispanics.

Now it would seem that the answer for Republicans is to take more of a libertarian philosophy, basically a limited government that is used as neither a tool of social change, or moral and religious endorsement and promotion. They cannot do that though because their Religious Right base wants more than anything else for government to be used as a tool for moral and religious endorsement and promotion, even in some cases compulsion.

On the fiscal side, they have a huge problem as well. Most Republicans ideologically believe that the only thing the Federal Government should do is provide for defense, in some cases infrastructure, and keep the mail running. They believe in individual responsibility. Most Democrats believe in a government that is a servant of the people. The old “Good Government” philosophy of men like FDR and JFK. They believe in collective responsibility. Thus the problem Republicans have is that they come to government wanting to drown it in a bathtub, yet they are forced to govern a government that was built by those who believe that government can be a progressive agent in society and good servant of the people. So they pass a tax cut one day, and then appease their constituents by pushing a ton of pork through the next day. For example, 1993 there were 1,500 pork projects, last year there were over 15,000. Moreover, they end up with the inevitable result of a bloated and incompetent government that they simply do not believe in. As a result, Republicans, the party that is supposed to be the party of smaller government, has since coming to power grown the fiscal size of government more than any other administration before. Conversely, as we saw in the response to Katrina, the mess that is the Medicare Drug Benefit, and the failures in Iraq, despite the fact that the fiscal size of government has grown so much, it is because of their ideological disbelief in government, more incompetent and ineffective than ever before.

Where does this leave Democrats then? Well, if Democrats can, as they say they are going to do, keep to the center, maintain a broad base, and keep the far left at bay, then they are in good shape for a long time to come. Democrats have wised up over the last 12 years and thus I think they intend on doing that and probably will do just that. They know they are strongest when they are an economically populist party that does not get bogged down with cultural war issues. In fact, if they succeed, the only hope for Republicans would be if a disaffected minority of leftists were to become so disenchanted with the party that they started voting for the Green Party in droves. This however is pretty unlikely, after sitting through 6 years of total Republican domination, even the most hardcore leftists have figured out there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans and they would rather have center left Democrats in power than hard core Republicans any day.

So in conclusion, despite what conservative pundits are claiming, the worst mistake Republicans could make at this point would be to move further to the right. Just like hard core Liberalism, Conservative Movement Conservatism is dead. It may be alive in the hearts and minds of Right Wing Talk Radio hosts and pundits, but is a failure, it just does not work in the real world. They need to move to the center, become less ideological and more pragmatic, and cast off the religious right. The problem for them is finding a way to do that.

The country's move from conservatism, as this administration practices it, was far more reaching than just the national election.

Dean's "50-state strategy" was a huge factor in this election.

Democrats now possess 28 of America’s governorships after taking 20 of 36 races across all regions, including victories in states -- such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado -- that will be crucial to the 2008 presidential race. Texas' Rick "Adios Mofo" Perry(R) held on to his seat with only 39% of the vote.

The Dems also made gains in state legislative seats , this being significant, because of redrawing of Congressional districts following the 2010 census.

The Democrats now control the legislatures in more states than they have since 1994.

Democrats gained 26 seats in Southern state legislatures, and Republicans lost 20 seats in the 13 states.

Democrats control both houses of the legislature in 23 states; Republicans in 16 and ten are split. This adds up to 49 states because Nebraska's legislature is nonpartisan.

This is really not a big surprise to me, and to anyone who has researched the 6th year of most two term presidents. The trend has always been to clean house so to speak, I would not read too much in to this, as this change was even smaller then those in the past, where 40, 50 or even 80 seats changed hands.

As for conservativism being "dead" that is just nonsense, the Dems have proven that, choosing to nominate "conservative" Democrats, they may now finally have their hand on the pulse of the nation.

SouthernDemocrat,

If Republicans want to become the majority party again, they are going to have to move toward the center on cultural issues, become more pragmatic and less ideological on domestic and foreign policy issues,

Click to expand...

What exzactly do you mean?

The larger problem though, is that by moving even more to the right on social issues in an effort to further placate the Religious Right, they drive a wedge between themselves and everyone else.

Click to expand...

Really? To tell you the truth I wish they could move more to the right I hate the fact that they are sooo loose on these issues. Hell, I cleenthed my teeth voting Rep. this time.

So in conclusion, despite what conservative pundits are claiming, the worst mistake Republicans could make at this point would be to move further to the right. Just like hard core Liberalism, Conservative Movement Conservatism is dead. It may be alive in the hearts and minds of Right Wing Talk Radio hosts and pundits, but is a failure, it just does not work in the real world. They need to move to the center, become less ideological and more pragmatic, and cast off the religious right. The problem for them is finding a way to do that.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? It seems to me that this was already in effect. I voted Dem for Senate NOT becare I liked him but becase the Rep wasn't conservative ENOUGH! They were ecintualy the same. People have been complaining about this for years, and if what you are suggesting is put forth (as I fear it already is) than no one can convince me that there is any reason to vote for any of the major parties ever. And the march to communism continues.

Deegan said:

This is really not a big surprise to me, and to anyone who has researched the 6th year of most two term presidents. The trend has always been to clean house so to speak, I would not read too much in to this, as this change was even smaller then those in the past, where 40, 50 or even 80 seats changed hands.

As for conservativism being "dead" that is just nonsense, the Dems have proven that, choosing to nominate "conservative" Democrats, they may now finally have their hand on the pulse of the nation.

Click to expand...

The only time we have seen such a shift in power was in 1974, 1994, and then now in 2006. This is not your normal 6-year doldrums. The Democrats did not just win back the congress; they won all levels of government back. Moreover, they won in parts of the country that they have not won in decades. Finally, they took back the House, despite the huge amount of gerrymandering and redistricting conducted by Republican State legislators over the past few years.

Do not get me wrong, this is not some victory for hard core liberalism. Instead, it is a victory for moderates. The party that controls the middle will be the party that controls the country for generations to come.

Finally, those "conservative democrats" are conservative for Democrats, they are not conservatives. If they were Republicans, the ideolgically they would be the most liberal Republicans in office.

SouthernDemocrat said:

The only time we have seen such a shift in power was in 1974, 1994, and then now in 2006. This is not your normal 6-year doldrums. The Democrats did not just win back the congress; they won all levels of government back. Moreover, they won in parts of the country that they have not won in decades. Finally, they took back the House, despite the huge amount of gerrymandering and redistricting conducted by Republican State legislators over the past few years.

Do not get me wrong, this is not some victory for hard core liberalism. Instead, it is a victory for moderates. The party that controls the middle will be the party that controls the country for generations to come.

Click to expand...

While I certainly agree that the country has moved to the center, and that shameless issues like the Shiavo case have hurt the Republican party, this is more about a Republican collapse then anything else. It also hurt the party when the country realized just how much power they had, this will always set off alarms in voters.

Deegan said:

While I certainly agree that the country has moved to the center, and that shameless issues like the Shiavo case have hurt the Republican party, this is more about a Republican collapse then anything else. It also hurt the party when the country realized just how much power they had, this will always set off alarms in voters.

Click to expand...

I live in Kansas, right outside of Kansas City, Missouri. I think that what is happening in Kansas is a perfect microcosm of what is happening all over the country.

Kansas is one of the reddest states in the nation. In terms of party membership in Kansas, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by about 2 to 1. Other than Utah, I don't think there has been a state more consistently red. Kansas has basically two factions to its Republican Party, a conservative and a moderate faction. The conservative faction over the last few years has become the dominant faction in Kansas. Thus the Kansas Republican Party ran solidly conservative candidates and its elected officials have governed solidly conservative. Basically, the kind of conservatism that right wing talk radio hosts and right wing pundits have advocated, is the exact kind of conservatives that the Republican Party in Kansas has put into practice.

On Tuesday, every single conservative Republican candidate running for a statewide office in Kansas lost by a landslide. The Kansas Democrats ran moderate to centrist Democrats and had their best day in Kansas ever. The Kansas Attorney General, Phil Kline, renowned by religious and social conservatives nationwide lost by a landslide. The conservative Republican candidate for Governor lost by a landslide. The conservative Republican candidate running against moderate Democrat Dennis Moore lost by a landslide. Mainstream Coalition "centrist" Republicans were the only Republicans in any suburban Statehouse Districts to retain their seats.

The fact is, the kind of conservatism advocated by those on the Religious Right, Conservative Movement, Conservative Pundits, and Conservative Talk Radio hosts was tried in Kansas, and it was flatly rejected. If true conservatism cannot win in the reddest state in the nation, then how on earth is it going to win nationwide?

I stand by my original point. If Republicans want to become the majority party again, they must cast out the religious right and the conservative wing of the party and move to the pragmatic center.

SouthernDemocrat said:

If Republicans want to become the majority party again, they are going to have to move toward the center on cultural issues, become more pragmatic and less ideological on domestic and foreign policy issues, and start showing some fiscal restraint.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what some people said the Dems need to do in 2004.

What they did was move further to the left, but buried their shift under a constant onslaught of ad homs directed towards Bush.

What the GOP needs to do is the same thing the Dems did. Forget about shifting the party anywhere, and just start up a 2 year campaign of insults directed towards the Democrat party.

Apparently, that's what works in the US. The recent election is proof.

What you witnessed in Kansas was this, a state that is tired of the war in Iraq, a state like many other "red states" who send the majority of men and women in to battle. These people simply want their sons and daughters home, and all the rhetoric about the war has finally hit home there, they believe voting Democratic will help get that done. This, like many elections are just a snap shot, and if you think this red state has changed blue, you are just kidding yourself.

Deegan said:

What you witnessed in Kansas was this, a state that is tired of the war in Iraq, a state like many other "red states" who send the majority of men and women in to battle. These people simply want their sons and daughters home, and all the rhetoric about the war has finally hit home there, they believe voting Democratic will help get that done. This, like many elections are just a snap shot, and if you think this red state has changed blue, you are just kidding yourself.

Click to expand...

I never said the state turned blue. I said it rejected conservatism and has moved closer to the center. Why would state and local conservative officials be thrown out of office because of the war in Iraq? They have nothing to do with it. The reasons why people hated Phil Kline, and rejected most conservative Republican Candidates in state and local elections in Kansas was those candidates positions on social and state issues. The conservatism that hard core right wingers expouse is the conservatism that the Red State of Kansas rejected. I stand by my point, the country is in the center. Sure, 20% is on the far left and another 20% on the far right, but the rest are in the center. If the Republicans don't move to the center, they have little hope of winning back a majority nationwide. Once again, if solid ideological conservatism does not even work in Kansas, then how is it going to work nationwide?

SouthernDemocrat said:

I never said the state turned blue. I said it rejected conservatism and has moved closer to the center. Why would state and local conservative officials be thrown out of office because of the war in Iraq? They have nothing to do with it. The reasons why people hated Phil Kline, and rejected most conservative Republican Candidates in state and local elections in Kansas was those candidates positions on social and state issues. The conservatism that hard core right wingers expouse is the conservatism that the Red State of Kansas rejected. I stand by my point, the country is in the center. Sure, 20% is on the far left and another 20% on the far right, but the rest are in the center. If the Republicans don't move to the center, they have little hope of winning back a majority nationwide. Once again, if solid ideological conservatism does not even work in Kansas, then how is it going to work nationwide?

Click to expand...

You seem to want to lump all social conservatives in with the religious conservatives, it's a tactic that has been tried before, and failed miserably, just as it failed when Republicans tried the reverse tact. I am not arguing for the "hardcore right" I don't like that rhetoric anymore then the next guy, but you seem to under estimate the intelligence of most social conservatives. The point is that the far right does not own conservatives, and the neither do the republican, or democratic party, folks are intelligent enough to vote for who they believe will best represent them.

Conservativism is as close as you can get to the center.

Deegan said:

You seem to want to lump all social conservatives in with the religious conservatives, it's a tactic that has been tried before, and failed miserably, just as it failed when Republicans tried the reverse tact. I am not arguing for the "hardcore right" I don't like that rhetoric anymore then the next guy, but you seem to under estimate the intelligence of most social conservatives. The point is that the far right does not own conservatives, and the neither do the republican, or democratic party, folks are intelligent enough to vote for who they believe will best represent them.

Conservativism is as close as you can get to the center.

Click to expand...

Deegan, no offense, but that last statement is just absurd. Conservatism by definition is right wing. Liberalism by definition is left wing. Centrism, by definition is, well in the center. You are confusing cultural traditionalism with conservatism.

If you are a conservative, then by definition, you are the right of center. If you are a liberal, then by definition, you are to the left of center. If you want to see what the political center is, then a guy like Clinton or Bush Sr, would be a pretty good example of it. Ideological liberalism died when the progressive battles had all been fought and won. Ideological conservatism died because in the real world, it has failed. We want pragmatic moderates in power. We people to look at the problems we face, and find solutions for them in a pragmatic manner.

If you have an ideological objection to government ever being used as a vehicle to improve society, then you are out of the mainstream of America. Conversely, if you ideologically believe that government is a solution to everything that is wrong with society, then you are out of the mainstream of America.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Deegan, no offense, but that last statement is just absurd. Conservatism by definition is right wing. Liberalism by definition is left wing. Centrism, by definition is, well in the center. You are confusing cultural traditionalism with conservatism.

If you are a conservative, then by definition, you are the right of center. If you are a liberal, then by definition, you are to the left of center. If you want to see what the political center is, then a guy like Clinton or Bush Sr, would be a pretty good example of it. Ideological liberalism died when the progressive battles had all been fought and won. Ideological conservatism died because in the real world, it has failed. We want pragmatic moderates in power. We people to look at the problems we face, and find solutions for them in a pragmatic manner.

If you have an ideological objection to government ever being used as a vehicle to improve society, then you are out of the mainstream of America. Conversely, if you ideologically believe that government is a solution to everything that is wrong with society, then you are out of the mainstream of America.

Click to expand...

Well I don't know how you can say that, as the definition of conservative is favoring traditional views and values, and I think the majority of Americans fit this bill. What has happened is the blurring of conservativism, it means so many different things today, it'a hard to keep track.

Deegan said:

Well I don't know how you can say that, as the definition of conservative is favoring traditional views and values, and I think the majority of Americans fit this bill. What has happened is the blurring of conservativism, it means so many different things today, it'a hard to keep track.

Click to expand...

The majority of America IS Conservative. The problem is that Conservatives were no longer representing them in Congress. This election is not the death of Conservatism, but the rebirth of Conservatism.

Conservatism died its first death, and the dealers of that death blow were the Neoconservative, who split the Republican party during the Reagan years. It took a while for them to infest the Republican party to the point that they gained power, but they managed to do that when President Bush came into office. Rather than being Conservative, the Neocons are actually fairly Liberal hawks, fiscally and tactically speaking, who were ready to bankrupt America with their spending, and used tactics once championed by the likes of Plato, Machiavelli, and Marx. Their concept of "Noble Lies" was one of those tactics which Karl Marx hearily endorsed. And why not? Many Neocons come from backgrounds of Communism. Even their leader, Irving Kristol, was a card carrying member of the Communist party, and fully supported Leon Trotsky. Although the Neocons later reputed Communism, they brought the tactics used by Communists into the Republican party when they split from the Reaganite traditional Conservatives.

With the Republican's literally being handed their a$$es this election, true Conservatism is finally rearing its head once again in the GOP. Gone is Rumsfeld, and others will be gone before the end of the year. Mark my words, this is the beginning of the purge of the parasites known as the Neocons. Rather than being dead, Conservatism is very much alive today. Today, and in the future, it is good to be a Conservative in America.

Deegan said:

Well I don't know how you can say that, as the definition of conservative is favoring traditional views and values, and I think the majority of Americans fit this bill. What has happened is the blurring of conservativism, it means so many different things today, it'a hard to keep track.

Click to expand...

You can define it anyway you want to define it. However, for the purposes of politics in the United States, conservatism is the ideals expoused by conservative pundits and right wing talk radio hosts and the cultural ideals expoused by conservative Christians.

This is what has been rejected by mainstream America. This is why conservatives have had virtually no success at all in enacting any of their core agenda. It is a failure. From a political perspective, this is how I would describe it:

On Abortion -

Conservatives: No abortions at all with the possible exception of rape or incest.

Liberals: Few restrictions at all on abortion rights.

Moderates: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

On Gay Marriage -

Conservatives: No gay marriage, no civil unions. Homosexuality is a choice and not an acceptable lifestyle.

Liberals: Yes to gay marriage.

Moderates: No to gay marriage, yes to Civil Unions. Homesexuality is obviously not a choice.

On Government Social Programs -

Conservatives: No entitlements. Very little of a social safetynet. No redistribution of wealth. Charities should take on this role.

Liberals: Entitlement expansion, strong safetynet. War on poverty.

Moderates: Medicare for seniors, heathcare for the poor, Social Security, "Leg up, not a handout".

On Taxes -

Conservatives: Flat tax or national sales tax only. Favor tax cuts even at the expense of deficits.

Liberals: Return to tax structure of the pre-Reagan years, strong redistribution of wealth.

Moderates: Progressive taxation. Not necessarily for tax increases, but favor deficit reduction and pay as you go over tax cuts. We should not stick it to the rich, but taxes should be based on ability to pay.

On Defense -

Conservatives: Never saw a war or defense contract they did not like.

Liberals: Never saw a war or defense contract they were in favor of.

Moderates: Against rampant defense contracts, very leery of interventionist wars like the war in Iraq. However, not for gutting defense spending either.

On the Environment -

Conservatives: Pretty much anti-environmentalism / anti-conservation. Knee jerk reaction to any environmentalist campaign. In most cases very much against Federal Environmental Oversight. Property rights always trump environmental protection.

Liberals: Almost always for any environment campaign. Almost always for Federal Environmental Oversight. Environmental protection always trumps property rights.

Moderates: Usually supportive of environmental campaigns. Usually supportive of Federal Environmental Oversight. Recognize that environmental protection many times must trump property rights.

On Church and State:

Conservatives: No Separation of Church and State.

Liberals: Strong Separation of Church and State.

Moderates: Separation of Church and State, don't get ridiculous about it though.

Wow... Completely ignored?

SouthernDemocrat said:

I never said the state turned blue. I said it rejected conservatism and has moved closer to the center. Why would state and local conservative officials be thrown out of office because of the war in Iraq? They have nothing to do with it. The reasons why people hated Phil Kline, and rejected most conservative Republican Candidates in state and local elections in Kansas was those candidates positions on social and state issues. The conservatism that hard core right wingers expouse is the conservatism that the Red State of Kansas rejected. I stand by my point, the country is in the center. Sure, 20% is on the far left and another 20% on the far right, but the rest are in the center. If the Republicans don't move to the center, they have little hope of winning back a majority nationwide. Once again, if solid ideological conservatism does not even work in Kansas, then how is it going to work nationwide?

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. This election we've seen the Democrats move closer to the center, running far more moderate and conservative candidates and returning to their populist roots. The Republicans are sticking with their same neoconservative politics that won them the White House but is extremely unpopular at the moment. Moderates and independents, the majority of this nation, are leaning left and will fall solidly into the Democratic column if Republicans do not return to moderate-conservatism.

Ivan The Terrible said:

Wow... Completely ignored?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what your point was. You stated that if Republicans moved more to the center, that you would have no reason at all to vote for them. However, that is not the point. Do you honestly think that ideologically, you represent the center of America?

My point was that there are simply not enough conservatives for conservatives to maintain a majority courting conservatives. Conversely, there are not enough liberals for liberals to maintain a majority just courting liberals. Therefore, because Democrats are moving the the center, Republicans if they have any hope of gaining majority status again will have to do the same.

SouthernDemocrat said:

You can define it anyway you want to define it. However, for the purposes of politics in the United States, conservatism is the ideals expoused by conservative pundits and right wing talk radio hosts and the cultural ideals expoused by conservative Christians.

This is what has been rejected by mainstream America. This is why conservatives have had virtually no success at all in enacting any of their core agenda. It is a failure. From a political perspective, this is how I would describe it:

On Abortion -

Conservatives: No abortions at all with the possible exception of rape or incest.

Liberals: Few restrictions at all on abortion rights.

Moderates: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

On Gay Marriage -

Conservatives: No gay marriage, no civil unions. Homosexuality is a choice and not an acceptable lifestyle.

Liberals: Yes to gay marriage.

Moderates: No to gay marriage, yes to Civil Unions. Homesexuality is obviously not a choice.

On Government Social Programs -

Conservatives: No entitlements. Very little of a social safetynet. No redistribution of wealth. Charities should take on this role.

Liberals: Entitlement expansion, strong safetynet. War on poverty.

Moderates: Medicare for seniors, heathcare for the poor, Social Security, "Leg up, not a handout".

On Taxes -

Conservatives: Flat tax or national sales tax only. Favor tax cuts even at the expense of deficits.

Liberals: Return to tax structure of the pre-Reagan years, strong redistribution of wealth.

Moderates: Progressive taxation. Not necessarily for tax increases, but favor deficit reduction and pay as you go over tax cuts. We should not stick it to the rich, but taxes should be based on ability to pay.

On Defense -

Conservatives: Never saw a war or defense contract they did not like.

Liberals: Never saw a war or defense contract they were in favor of.

Moderates: Against rampant defense contracts, very leery of interventionist wars like the war in Iraq. However, not for gutting defense spending either.

On the Environment -

Conservatives: Pretty much anti-environmentalism / anti-conservation. Knee jerk reaction to any environmentalist campaign. In most cases very much against Federal Environmental Oversight. Property rights always trump environmental protection.

Liberals: Almost always for any environment campaign. Almost always for Federal Environmental Oversight. Environmental protection always trumps property rights.

Moderates: Usually supportive of environmental campaigns. Usually supportive of Federal Environmental Oversight. Recognize that environmental protection many times must trump property rights.

On Church and State:

Conservatives: No Separation of Church and State.

Liberals: Strong Separation of Church and State.

Moderates: Separation of Church and State, don't get ridiculous about it though.

Click to expand...

So you don't know what conservativism means at all, that is now abundently clear to me. I am a conservative, and I know many other conservatives who would strongly disagree with your absurd portrayal of conservatives! I am for civil unions, I am for a womans choice, I didn't like Vietnam, I love the environment, just not radical environmentalists, and finally am very much for separation of church and state. Still, one thing you were at least honest about...."for the purposes of politics in the United States" you'll paint with a broad stroke, anyone who get's in the way of your party coming to power, that could not be more clear.:roll:

Deegan said:

So you don't know what conservativism means at all, that is now abundently clear to me. I am a conservative, and I know many other conservatives who would strongly disagree with your absurd portrayal of conservatives! I am for civil unions, I am for a womas choice, I didn't like Vietnam, I love the environment, just not radical environmentalists, and finally am very much for separation of church and state. Still, one thing you were at least honest about...."for the purposes of politics in the United States" you'll paint with a broad stroke, anyone who get's in the way of your party coming to power, that could not be more clear.:roll:

Click to expand...

I don't paint a broad stroke, essentially, that was the Republican Party platform. You are obviously under some romantic illusion. If you hold the views you claim that you hold, then you are a Clinton Democrat regardless of what you call yourself.

Look at any polling at all. Look at the positions of the vast majority of Elected Republicans.

The majority of Republicans are Pro-Life, against Civil Unions, believe that Vietnam was a good idea, strongly against the Constitutional Separation of Church and State, and get an F from the League of Conservation Voters.

Honestly, I am not even sure why are you arguing this. By your own statements, by definition, you are centrist. You have much more in common ideologically with more liberal Republicans and more Moderate to Conservative Democrats than you do conservative Republicans. Basically, the ideals you just expoused are the ideals that I am saying the Republicans should move toward in order to regain a majority. So I really don't know why you are arguing it. Its like some huge cognitive dissonance on your part or something.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I don't paint a broad stroke, essentially, that was the Republican Party platform. You are obviously under some romantic illusion. If you hold the views you claim that you hold, then you are a Clinton Democrat regardless of what you call yourself.

Look at any polling at all. Look at the positions of the vast majority of Elected Republicans.

The majority of Republicans are Pro-Life, against Civil Unions, believe that Vietnam was a good idea, strongly against the Constitutional Separation of Church and State, and get an F from the League of Conservation Voters.

Honestly, I am not even sure why are you arguing this. By your own statements, by definition, you are centrist. You have much more in common ideologically with more liberal Republicans and more Moderate to Conservative Democrats than you do conservative Republicans. Basically, the ideals you just expoused are the ideals that I am saying the Republicans should move toward in order to regain a majority. So I really don't know why you are arguing it. Its like some huge cognitive dissonance on your part or something.

Click to expand...

No, I am a Reagan Republican, this is your problem sir, you think if you are a Republican, you have to believe all these things, this just means your weak mind has fallen prey to the vast amount of B.S rhetoric out there, not me. You have the nerve to suggest that if you have moderate views, you must be a Dem, not only is that ignorant, it is arrogant, and the two often go hand in hand. Do yourself a favor, get out more, talk to people, you seem to get all your view points straight from the democratic handbook, and that's sad, it really is.:doh

Deegan said:

No, I am a Reagan Republican, this is your problem sir, you think if you are a Republican, you have to believe all these things, this just means your weak mind has fallen prey to the vast amount of B.S rhetoric out there, not me. You have the nerve to suggest that if you have moderate views, you must be a Dem, not only is that ignorant, it is arrogant, and the two often go hand in hand. Do yourself a favor, get out more, talk to people, you seem to get all your view points from straight from the democratic handbook, and that's sad, it really is.

Click to expand...

I swear Deagan its like you are constantly on the lookout for something to get indignant about. I never said that there were no moderate Republicans. Where did I say that? What I said was that conservative Republicans are the ones in power today, and I said that the conservative wing of the party, holds the notion that the party must move further to the right to gain a majority status again, not to the center.

For crying out loud, you are getting all worked up because I state that if the Republicans want to gain majority status again, their only hope is to cast off the extremists from their party and move ideologically closer to moderate / centrist Republicans like yourself. Honestly, if you get mad about someone saying that your party ought to be more like you, then it seems to me that you are just looking for something to get pissed off about. I don’t get it.

If you think that the majority of Republican's would agree with the beliefs you espoused earlier, you are mistaken. That is their problem, which is my entire point!

For example, you state you believe in Separation of Church and State. This is a quote from the RNC platform:

"Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the myth of separation of church and state."

You say you are for the environment. Check out the League of Conservation Voters Scorecard on Congressional Republicans:

http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/

You say you are pro-choice. Honestly, what percentage of Republicans do you think are pro-choice? I bet 20% would be a high number.

You say you are pro-Civil Unions. 58% of Republicans are against them. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Finally, you say you are a moderate, it would seem that you are, then you say you are a Reagan Republican. Look, I think Ronald Reagan will be regarded by history as a good if not great president. However, he was an avowed conservative. Everything you listed yourself as being for, he was against. If you ask me, you sound more like Barry Goldwater or Eisenhower than Reagan.

Really, I just don’t see why as a centrist Republican you are getting mad because I say that the Republicans have got to move back toward people like you, if they want to win back a majority again.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I swear Deagan its like you are constantly on the lookout for something to get indignant about. I never said that there were no moderate Republicans. Where did I say that? What I said was that conservative Republicans are the ones in power today, and I said that the conservative wing of the party, holds the notion that the party must move further to the right to gain a majority status again, not to the center.

For crying out loud, you are getting all worked up because I state that if the Republicans want to gain majority status again, their only hope is to cast off the extremists from their party and move ideologically closer to moderate / centrist Republicans like yourself. Honestly, if you get mad about someone saying that your party ought to be more like you, then it seems to me that you are just looking for something to get pissed off about. I don’t get it.

If you think that the majority of Republican's would agree with the beliefs you espoused earlier, you are mistaken. That is their problem, which is my entire point!

For example, you state you believe in Separation of Church and State. This is a quote from the RNC platform:

"Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the myth of separation of church and state."

You say you are for the environment. Check out the League of Conservation Voters Scorecard on Congressional Republicans:

http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/

You say you are pro-choice. Honestly, what percentage of Republicans do you think are pro-choice? I bet 20% would be a high number.

You say you are pro-Civil Unions. 58% of Republicans are against them. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Finally, you say you are a moderate, it would seem that you are, then you say you are a Reagan Republican. Look, I think Ronald Reagan will be regarded by history as a good if not great president. However, he was an avowed conservative. Everything you listed yourself as being for, he was against. If you ask me, you sound more like Barry Goldwater or Eisenhower than Reagan.

Really, I just don’t see why as a centrist Republican you are getting mad because I say that the Republicans have got to move back toward people like you, if they want to win back a majority again.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am a little upset after the recent elections, I'll admit that, I just don't like the way religion has been injected in to the debate, and in to our politics, on both sides. I don't appreciate the suggestion that religious people are nuts, loons or unable to make rational, moderate arguments or decisions. I just think that the left is trying to destroy the traditions that have made this country strong, and that if they had their way, we would look more like Europe, and less like the America I know and love. This is why I am not a Democrat, and why I don't respect the party, because there is a much better chance that their extremists will hurt America, then that of the right. I think this talk of "separation of church and state" is just nonsense, designed to separate the country, there is no chance in hell of this country becoming a theocracy of any kind, and this hysterical talk is just driving us further apart.

Deegan said:

Perhaps I am a little upset after the recent elections, I'll admit that, I just don't like the way religion has been injected in to the debate, and in to our politics, on both sides. I don't appreciate the suggestion that religious people are nuts, loons or unable to make rational, moderate arguments or decisions. I just think that the left is trying to destroy the traditions that have made this country strong, and that if they had their way, we would look more like Europe, and less like the America I know and love. This is why I am not a Democrat, and why I don't respect the party, because there is a much better chance that their extremists will hurt America, then that of the right. I think this talk of "separation of church and state" is just nonsense, designed to separate the country, there is no chance in hell of this country becoming a theocracy of any kind, and this hysterical talk is just driving us further apart.

Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read my original post then.

Thoughts:

I find it funny that a self-proclaimed Democrat is lecturing the GOP about being TOO conservative and how they must move less to survive, especially when it was the 'Blue Dog' Democrats who led the Liberals to victory this past election. I mean, the Democrats victorious candidates included pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-war candidates.

I also found it funny how, inlight of the 'Blue Dog' Conservative Democrats sealing the DNC's victory, that several interviewed yesterday said they would bring their party back to the Center instead of remaining to the far left. Maybe should tell them to take a look behind them off camera at who is fighting for the controlling positions of the goverment - the extreme Liberal Left! The conservative Dems may have sealed the victory, but all they will get from the liberal DNC leadership is a cordial thank you and then directions to go stand in line in the rear as well as directions to do as they are told by Pelosi, Kennedy, and the rest of the Libs who 'don't speakfor the party as a whole'.

For anyone claiming that America rejected Conservative values, think again. Look at all the initiatives on the ballots. People voted according to their values, against Gay Marriage, for example. They also voted for the issue of funding embryonic stem cell research....but they voted out of office the GOP candidate who had been for it and voted in the Dem who, at one time, was against it! Such an action can only be seen as a move to punish the GOP, not some disgarding of conservative values.

If the Democrats do talk themselves into believing that this country is now/still not primarily conservative and go off of liberal left tangents, there will be another '2000'!

I will give them credit, though - Pelosi and Wrangel know what I am talking about and are listening to the people. Pelosi said Impeachment of Bush is off the table, and Wrangle followed suit. If they go after Bush t exact revenge, people will punish them for it. We have had enough with bickering, fighting, nasty partisanship and are ready to move the country forward!

The Dems, who helped slow this country's progress to a near stand-still through their (as Pelosi admitted in 'Time') Obstructionist Politics, are eager to show THEY can make progress, so much that they will be eager/willing to work with the GOP to get some legislation moving. What they are afraid of, as one new Dem elected offical said today, is the GOP doing a tit-for-tat gridlock of legislation, using Pelosi and Dean's gameplan of stalling the goverment so voters will blame the newly-elected Dems for being able to provide the change/productivity they promised!

I digress, however -- Conservatism is NOT dead, not by a longshot. I believe the voters just meted out a measure of justice to the politicians who forgot why they ewere there and who had become infested with criminals, spending-hogs, and frauds, just like what the Dems were dealt in 2000. The GOP is gone, and the Dems are now on the clock!