Free Markets, Free People


How Republicans will lead again

What will the Republican Party look like when it retakes the lead in governing?  I’d bet it will be a coalition that identifies more with what Alex Castellanos is laying out at NewRepublican.org.

Some of it is new messaging for old ideas. Castellanos rebrands spontaneous order and subsidiarity as “open,” “natural,” “organic,” and “bottom-up.”  He tags statism, command economies and federal control as “closed,” “artificial,” and “top-down.”  Those are elegant ways to tell Whole Foods shoppers and Silicon Valley what we’re about without assigning them F.A. Hayek or a history of the Soviets.

Castellanos also stresses the superiority of private compassion over state welfare, but instead of getting trapped by placing charity in a bidding war with the welfare state, or quibbling over the definition of charity, he casts the state welfare agencies as “machine-like” or “factory-like” and “archaic,” and more importantly labeling them as “social mercenaries” that allow Americans to “distance ourselves from our responsibilities as human beings,” which involve “person-to-person” compassion.

That leads into a much more substantive change: redirecting social conservative energy to where it can actually accomplish something for itself and for the party, namely local and fulfilling private action instead of trying to seize the top and push down, which outsources to politicians and bureaucrats the promotion of our values.

Several items on the list of 67 beliefs of New Republicans (67!) deal with this:

4. We believe in freedom nationally and values locally.

6. We believe that when we allow big-government to enforce our values, we legitimize it to enforce other values, as well.

7. We believe in natural and organic ways of addressing social challenges, not political and artificial controls directed by Washington.

12. We believe Washington should stay out of our wallets, and out of our bedrooms.

39. We believe we are Republican for Everybody, and Republicans Everywhere.  We believe our principles are an indispensable force for good, needed now to alleviate poverty, misery, dependency, and family breakdown destroying American lives in our inner cities.

Social conservatives lost the battle to use federal levers to enforce family and religious values, and damaged the good reputation of those values in the attempt, but those beliefs are still popular in many states, towns, and households.  They can still gather a majority coalition with libertarians and moderates to carve out the space to practice their values and their faith without interference from the state, with more confidence and optimism than Paul Weyrich had in the late ’90s; if they revert to using top-down power, those potential allies will be embarrassed of their association with social conservatives.  That’s coalition politics.

The New Republicans will avoid being associated with Big Everything, including Big Business. What saps the Republican Party’s entrepreneurial spirit and daring to cut government and promote free markets is its reliance on forces that want the state to protect them against change and competition; Milton Friedman repeatedly observed that this makes business community a frequent enemy of free enterprise.  But the GOP need not be anti-business, just suspicious to the extent of keeping anything Big at arm’s length.

Chris Sansenbach / Flickr

Finally, Castellanos does stress a couple of times that New Republicans believe in “campaign[ing] for our solutions in the most benighted parts of America, from the barrio to the inner city.”  I’ve heard noises to that effect from Republicans for years, but that will only succeed if it’s a major, sustained effort; if we have nothing to say about urban problems beyond school choice, and we don’t learn how to assertively persuade people that we are absolutely superior at addressing poverty, we’re cooked.  These things require practice, trials and errors, and personal experience with the poor and with urban life.  We have to be able to win at least sometimes, electing mayors and city councils in major metro areas, to show that our way of governing works for the growing portion of the country living in cities.

I said at the beginning that this is how Republicans will think when they regain the lead in governing, and I chose those words instead of “winning elections” because it’s possible the GOP can temporarily get over 50% here and there by other means, but it won’t have the initiative until it accepts the challenge to persuade all of America that its principles are relevant to them. The party could and should also make gains by modernizing the way it learns and reorganizes itself, how it encourages and channels activism, its campaign tactics and strategy, and more.  But those things go naturally with a mindset that’s reflexively entrepreneurial and not only open to change but so hungry for it that we’re unafraid to stop doing what isn’t working.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

53 Responses to How Republicans will lead again

  • Social conservatives lost the battle to use federal levers to enforce family and religious values, and damaged the good reputation of those values in the attempt, but those beliefs are still popular in many states, towns, and households.

    Which neatly INVERTS the truth.  Who opened the ball by a drive to remove social issues from the realm of persuasion or local law?  Why, I know!  It was the Collectivists…via the courts and Federal government.
    See Roe v. Wade
    See also every other social conservative issue to which you allude as a reaction to a STATIST federalization of issues, such as “gay marriage”.
    The destruction of the American family has been a concerted, designed use of centralized power, applying the Frankfurt School theories and their progeny with devastating effect.  That cannot be ignored.  It is not enough to try to “live around it”, since it is imposed on people every day in their work, play, and schools.

    What saps the Republican Party’s entrepreneurial spirit and daring to cut government and promote free markets is its reliance on forces that want the state to protect them against change and competition

    Again, nicely INVERTING the truth, and reciting a Collectivist meme.  And WTF are “forces”?  To a far greater degree (though not universally or enough to suit me) the GOP is the ANTI-corporatist party.  That is the reality, not the narrative (which you reliably repeat).

    • Rags, I think you misunderstand my point.  The Left was the aggressor in the culture wars, but social conservatives have from time to time gone beyond insisting on religious freedom and freedom of association, and that’s how they’ve lost libertarians and moderates.

      You still see social conservative groups pressing candidates to support a federal ban on abortion, even a constitutional amendment; I don’t fault those pro-life groups for believing in the principle of defending innocent life, but the politics of going about it that way are a pipe dream.  Overturning Roe v Wade is difficult enough: here we are, 40 years later, without a reversal in sight.  At this point, anything other than a pure focus on protecting religious freedom and reducing subsidies is wishful thinking at the cost of splitting the Republican coalition.

      On gay marriage, social conservatives could easily find allies to, e.g., protect religious institutions from having to recognize gay marriage, if their intent was clear.  Social conservatives could have even gotten ahead of Lefty activists on the matter using civil unions.  But the conservative activism for civil unions is pretty much nonexistent while the activism trying to lock gays out is extremely active, and every time a social conservative compares homosexuality to pedophilia or incest or bestiality, they make it harder for libertarians and moderates who self-identify as tolerant to stand with them on principle, and work with them on what’s politically possible, or even associate themselves with social conservatives.

      I believe there’s still a viable coalition to help social conservatives preserve religious freedom and freedom of association; one of the better aspects of this coalition in action is on school choice.

      Now, moving on to the point about forces that want the state to protect them against change and competition, I don’t think you really disagree with me on this point, because even you concede that the GOP is “not universally or enough to suit [you]” anti-corporatist.  Just because the Democrats are far more guilty on this point doesn’t excuse the GOP from needing to be innocent, especially because the GOP is compromised whenever it comes time to cut government.  It’s harder to make a deal to simplify the tax code or expand free trade, for a couple of examples, when you’re in bed with interest groups who will lose their special privileges.

      • At this point, anything other than a pure focus on protecting religious freedom and reducing subsidies is wishful thinking at the cost of splitting the Republican coalition.

        What nonsense!
        First you note that there is no “reversal” of Roe anywhere in sight, then you declare all other attempts to counter it vacant.  I am REAL glad you were not in charge of emancipation!
        And social conservatism does NOT reduce to “religious freedom and reducing subsidies”.  My opposition to abortion and “gay marriage” does not derive from religion.  It would matter only slightly if nary a penny of tax money went to support Collectivist attacks on values or to pay for abortions.  So THAT red herring won’t hunt, to mix a metaphor.
        Next, you put the onus on conservatives to “get out in front” of Collectivist battles in the war on our culture.  Tht hndsght s rll n f yr vr fw ttrbts, nnt?  Never mind that the “gay community” has done a complete 180 on “gay marriage” over slightly more than a decade, or that it is actually militated for by only a fraction of the “gay community” now.
        Fnll, GN *** wth ths “frcs” bll***.  Cn’t y wrt?  nd NW th GP s rqrd t b “nncnt”…!?!?!?  I rll wndr whr yr hd s.  Srsl, CLD y b mr p-n-th-sk nd dtchd frm…y knw…rlt???
        __
        What did I say about trolling behavior? Shouting, insults, etc.? – Bryan

        • Even the abolitionists needed to persuade a large part of the public before they had any hope of ending slavery. If you see a superior political alternative to social conservatives’ current losing streak and increasing isolation, something that makes sense given the tide of public opinion, present it.

        • Rags, I don’t think you get this argument. This argument says that instead of empowering the state to enforce whatever cultural rules you think are wise, which empowers the state when the Left is in charge to do the same exact thing, to instead use libertarian principles to make sure your cultural rules at least are defended from the state.
          Not only that, but he’s allowing for local areas to do a bit more than that.
          I think so-cons will only “get” this argument when they start losing badly. Like when the Feds force churches to marry gays. The UK had to pass an exemption on this very issue. It might not happen in the USA.
          Thus, rather than wrestle with the Left to control the levers of state-sanctioned marriage, it would be wiser to break the lever off by not allowing the state to be involved in marriage at all. Or if it must only offer civil unions to all. Marriage could only take place in the church, thus STRENGTHENING churches. Suddenly the Left has one less cultural issue to bang the drum about.

           

          • “to instead use libertarian principles to make sure your cultural rules at least are defended from the state.”

            Cultural rules like, for example, marrying off our 13 year old daughter to the highest bidder? Female circumcision? Etc. Sorry, but any society I want to live in WILL enforce some cultural rules. Strict state neutrality is at best a very silly argument.

          • I will add that the very structure of the state and its laws are based on and derived from cultural rules. Culture determines the state, and changing the culture will change the state.

          • OK, Tim, when the state forces churches to marry gays, you will understand what I am talking about.
            Your two examples both involved a minor, something that would not be allowed under any laws.
            By the way, I get where you are coming from, but I think that cultural rules should be just that: cultural.
            The shame of taking charity from private groups has been replaced by a insouciance when taking your EBT card…because it comes in the mail without any shame. Bringing in the state actually weakens the culture.

          • My response to your argument is that anything which forces non adults to do things is a bad law and not protected by either legal custom or the constitution. and likewise for any law which substantially insinuates the state into personal choice. So your argument is not a good one.

        • “What did I say about trolling behavior? Shouting, insults, etc.? – Bryan”

          Or, as Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat, kick them out of the kitchen”.

      • “Roe” is all but dead, but “Casey” makes that moot.

  • Castellanos also stresses the superiority of private compassion over state welfare, but instead of getting trapped by placing charity in a bidding war with the welfare state, or quibbling over the definition of charity, he casts the state welfare agencies as “machine-like” or “factory-like” and “archaic,” and more importantly labeling them as “social mercenaries” that allow Americans to “distance ourselves from our responsibilities as human beings,” which involve “person-to-person” compassion

    Well that’s one place where you’re mistaken.  The ‘distancing’ is what appeals to people.  They want those who need charity helped.  They just don’t want to have to get involved and if you can make someone else pay for it, all the better.   So let’s be childlike about human behavior and altruism.  The democrats approach isn’t about solving the problem.  Its about and easy out to absolving those who feel some pity or guilt.

    You just have to be honest about the fact we can’t give out money we don’t have.  Trying to sell private charity as better (regardless that it is probably is more efficient) won’t work.

    • jpm100, I agree that the distancing appeals to a lot of people, but the appeal is that the implicitness of it shields them from shame.  So it’s worth a solid try to call them out on it, and actively set an example that puts them to shame.  Conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, are already more generous with their money, time, and blood (literally!) than Lefties.  The Republican Party, and conservative activists, could honestly make that voluntary giving a core part of their identity and outreach, as part of a broader effort toward taking back the culture.

      Pointing out fiscal limitations has its virtues, but it plays into the Left’s whole inequality platform: the rich can stand to “give” a little more, they say, and when Democrats come to raise taxes on just the super-rich, the Republicans howl.  You know that looks bad to a lot of voters, and it reinforces the now-widespread perception that Republicans don’t care about the common man.  So we need to change the subject.

      • Some of them will at least feel embarrassed about this point. But let’s assume that people truly want a distance from the issue. Is there an alternative? Minimum Income while dismantling welfare bureaucracies? I’d suspect that if people on welfare had a choice they would jump at minimum income, but progressives would be appalled at this for some reason. That might be useful. Or not, as some people really, really want a nanny state.

      • “The Republican Party, and conservative activists, could honestly make that voluntary giving a core part of their identity and outreach,”

        From what I have seen, it already is. Maybe not inside the beltway or amongst the party apparatchiks, but most of us peasants do.

      • Ultimately what does it matter.  Romney gave a lot of money, but the left found a way to trivialize it.  If you’re looking for PR marks, that’s a lost cause.  Not only will they trivialize personal giving of people they don’t like, they make it a contest and make sure their candidates contribute 2x (percentage-wise) what Republicans give and make it up though the Backdoor via contributors or post-political career jobs.

        People who want ‘someone else to take care of it’ will be even more drawn to the Democrats.  Democrats specifically target the idea that if you vote Democrat, you will make a change that saves the world.  You feed more starving Americans if you vote Democrat.  You stop global warming if you vote Democrat.  You stop discrimination and other injustices if you vote Democrat.

        Push this button and your guilt is absolved.  Even better, push this button and you’re a hero.  That’s a message ready made for today’s people.  That’s what you have to work with.

        • If we’re waiting for something that the Left won’t try to trivialize, then there’s really nothing positive left to do.  But I think it makes a difference whether we make it easy on them.  After all, we may not convince all Democrats or even most, but we don’t need to win them all over.  We need it to be a little easier to associate with Republicans, and a little harder to attack us.  And right now, it’s apparently easy to believe that Republicans don’t care about the common man.

          And if Democrats want to try to one-up Republicans on charity (and blood donations, and volunteering), let them.  So far, I don’t get the impression that they’re really trying, but if they do, maybe they’ll learn a thing or two about private charity in the process.

  • Another great article. But can we keep using kulaks and wreckers? I like those terms.

    • put out a petition, I’ll sign – Kulaks and Wreckers.   Make it formal though, capitalize.

      • Its my secret hope that when I use those terms in an argument, the person actually googles them and learns something.

  • Pick and his ilk make me tired.
    Gun control is a “social issue”.  As is compulsory monopoly education.  As is the Delusional Energy agenda.  As is immigration.  As is…

    • I would suggest the major plank should be school vouchers in the form of tax credits. That helps education and over the long run, helps to weaken the Gramscians. In Sweden, the vouchers are for slightly less than the public school gets…and they still do better. So you could even have a fiscal savings as well.
      I also seriously suggest moving tax day to one week before election day. The price tag needs to be near the purchase decision.
       

      • Only one major plank? Surely people can handle more than one idea at a time. Re. vouchers, in all the voucher plans that I have read about the vouchers are worth considerably less than what is spent on the student. The financial benefits to the state system and remaining students are already there. It no longer puzzles me why rightish political sages have not been emphasizing this; I just assume they are stupid and ignorant. Occam’s razor, and all that.

        • Sure we can have other planks. But I think we have not pushed that one strongly enough to be a major plank.

    • I blame the educational system.

  • What’s more likely to happen:  The public will be sick of the Dems at some point, and the GOP will take over for a 4-8 year period until the media and pop culture hounds them out of power again by blaming every Democrat-created ill (including sipping water and meteorites) When the GOP does regain power, it will be the soft squishy Murkowski/McCain types continuing to ruin the “brand” by keeping power by running hard against the “extremist” tea party.
    Pick, the fatal flaw in your piece (and I do thank you for these thought generators) is that you assume the public is persuadable to ideas in this way. The culture and media runs so far against, I don’t believe it.  The movie Idiocracy was on recently. That’s our future – best case scenario.
     

    • I need to read up on what happened to the Whigs. Are we getting near a political party extinction level event, or as you mention is it just 8 years of this and 8 years of that?

      • The Whigs could quite decide if they were pro-slavery or anti-slavery.  With each new state entering the union, it made it harder and harder to keep the party together.

      • They let all those “I need cradle to grave care” illegal immigrants in, and it may be closer to extinction. And I’m fine with that because what we have now isn’t working, and it won’t work given the people involved.

        • Unfortunately those voters are Socialist by Culture now.  That’s an immovable block of socialists no matter how bad things get.  Re:  Mexico. 

    • Re: the fatal flaw, I must admit I haven’t seen Idiocracy yet, but I do think the public is persuadable.  Conservatives didn’t split the Democratic coalition and start winning by happenstance, but rather because they started generating ideas and communicating them in relevant ways to the right people.  It took time, and it required conservatives (and libertarians) to build an ideological infrastructure, but it transformed the country.  The Republican Party didn’t go from the party that enacted wage and price controls and founded the EPA under Nixon to the party that slashed marginal tax rates by dozens of points because America just got sick of Democrats in 1980.  Intellectuals like Milton Friedman and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation needed the funding of very wealthy people to explore the costs of statist policies and produce the position papers that so heavily influenced Republican policymakers; and the work that they and many other public intellectuals did taught millions of people to look at policy differently.

      And in the opposite direction, Democrats didn’t just happen to win in 2006, 2008, and 2012.  That required an infrastructure that was built by people who looked hard at how the conservatives built their infrastructure and won elections, and they explicitly modeled their own efforts on replicating and improving on the functions of the conservative machine.  Democratic opposition research, policy research, messaging and activism is all performed or heavily influenced by Lefty foundations.

      It’s true that the American people tend to blame whoever’s in power for bad times and kick the bums out from time to time, but that’s hardly like clockwork, as several elections since 2000 show.  Ideas matter.  Infrastructure matters.

    • “until the media and pop culture hounds them out of power again by blaming every Democrat-created ill”
      “The culture and media runs so far against, I don’t believe it.  The movie Idiocracy was on recently. That’s our future – best case scenario.”

      I was trying to be constructive but all I could see was the left’s control of the media,  It’s not just the message, you can have an awesome message and if it doesn’t get broadcast….they’ve just done the banana republic dictators one better, they OWN the bulk of the media, there’s no need to send the tanks to take it over.  We’re not QUITE at the level of Iran, with their mythical stealth plane, but tell me, on the political and economic scene, HOW are we much different these days than Iran or the Soviet Union?   And that is the ball game till the lights go out.

      Shark, you’re practically tuned in to the station my thoughts were on.  I bet I got better commercials though.

      The only constructive thing I have to offer is the gay marriage issue – get the conservatives to embrace the idea of social unions, as Harun pointed out, on less drum for the left to bang.  Rags hit it too, the left realized how it could be played, and the radical gay community went from accepting unions with the same benefits (the 90′s) to demanding marriage so they can enrage people who are offended by the religious aspects and cause them to go non-linear (which worked nicely, along with mostly naked parades and feathered butt plugs to show ‘they just want to be accepted in society’).  Had the conservatives not been so resistant to ANY acceptance in the 90′s that particular battle would be over and the left would have one less group of secure allies.

      I might believe we could achieve political advancement via road through hell, I used to think that, it’s a sucky road… But as long as the media is what it is, when we get to the other side, they’ll be sure and tell everyone that the liberals had planned to take us to Eden and the tea-party blocked the road with their assault muskets… and now would be a good time to consider bringing Messiah Obama back for another go as El Presidente (history buffs should think Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna here).  The left understood (and tell me their Soviet Master’s weren’t coaching) they understood the loooooong game, and they started playing in the 70′s with education and the media.

      We’re waaaay behind, and I we’re past the half.

  • And yes, thanks Bryan….it makes me think, I wish I could think a way to get around this f*ing problem…grrrrrrrrrrr.

    Posing the question and laying out a proposition, even if I don’t always agree, still inspires thought (in fact, it’s more likely to inspire if I don’t agree…heh).

  • Heh, but HERE is your real culprit, you see, we’re genetically stupider….this whiz kid says so.   J Holy You-know-who.  I agree, all that intellectual horsepower and sugar, pesticides and water flouridization are our problems…..did I say J Holy you-know-who yet?
    http://naturalsociety.com/leading-geneticist-human-intelligence-slowly-declining/

    How about the idea that we’re deliberately training people not to think you intellectual ass-hat.
    What we lack these days is the occasional steppe pony mounted horde to thin out the portions of the crowd that don’t think well on their feet.   Or died off from various plagues.
    Our little whiz kid left those aspects out, he can afford to focus his fears on sugar and pesticides instead because brighter people than him solved the steppe pony mounted horde/disease problems.

    • Sorry Bryan, I viewed this as a sample of the problem we’re dealing with.   When this kind of clap-trappery can be sold the general population… AND it can, and IS (Global Warming, Mayor Nannyberg), you can sell them anything.

    • I am not sure actual raw intelligence helps you with Mongol invasions. Sometimes people survive those by pure luck. And sometimes they survive those by pure evil cunning. Say, stealing your neighbors food supply or being a bandit. I have a feeling some of our culture’s worst people have solid genes in a world of Huns.

      • I mean, don’t you think the guy who takes the bribe to open the city gates probably would be a Congressional staffer nowadays?

  • Social conservatives lost the battle to use federal levers to enforce family and religious values, and damaged the good reputation of those values in the attempt, but those beliefs are still popular in many states, towns, and households.

    So far, so good.

    They can still gather a majority coalition with libertarians and moderates to carve out the space to practice their values and their faith without interference from the state…

    And there you go.  Again.

    Brian, nobody… and I mean nobody, is being interfered with in practicing their values and beliefs.  NOBODY.  Particularly within their “carved out” space.
    Unless, of course, your version of “carved out space” happens to be broadened to the community with which they live in.  Then, obviously, they’ll need some form of government to enforce the “values and beliefs” that you suggest that many Americans still believe in – state, county, municipality, parish, whatever.  And in that, there is no libertarianism.
    The minute that someone within that community disagrees with the “values and beliefs” of that community, but is nevertheless forced – by coercion of government – to adhere to those beliefs, the minute that libertarianism flies right out of the window.  AND YOU KNOW THIS.  So why try to meld the two?

    These people, the so-cons, whom you are rightly suggesting that are trying to use government to enforce their values onto others, have their hands welded to the levers.  They are not going to let go.  That’s why they vote Republican.

    So you and Castellanos want a “new republican.”  A “neo-republican” right?  That sounds very familiar… like, I don’t know… a neo-libertarian.  You can slap that prefix on whatever you like, it will not change the fact that many on the right will continue to see government as a vehicle to push their beliefs, not a hindrance – as demonstrated by some in the comments thread.

    Neo-republicanism…. neo-libertarianism…  Time to fish or cut bait.  Otherwise, you’re wasting your own time.

    Cheers.

    • Pogue,

      People who are forced to fund what they believe is premeditated murder would disagree that their ability to practice their values and beliefs is not being interfered with.  Nonprofit religious hospitals that are required to provide services that are expressly forbidden in the catechism of the church that runs them might have some thoughts on that too.  Likewise for a Christian wedding photography studio that is successfully sued because it refuses to cover a gay wedding.  On each of those, social conservatives could find allies in libertarians and moderates, and even then they need to be careful in how they talk about these issues.

      And for those conservatives who insist on trying to use the government as a vehicle to enforce values beyond nonaggression, I think they’re bound to become more and more isolated as the tide of public opinion turns harder and harder against that kind of thing.  Many social conservatives will no doubt continue to try, and it may be wrenching for them to realize that they can’t pull together a national majority for those purposes, but I think the ones who are bound to succeed and replace the old guard will be those who change their strategy.

      • Hi Bryan,
        I think Pogue is totally on target with his post. The vast majority of people in the country are, for the most part, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A perfect opportunity for libertarians to expand upon in the political field, but first the SoCons are gonna need to be removed from the scene. Otherwise, as Pogue so beautifully said, their hands will remain welded to the levers of power, and they will never stop trying to use the Feds to impose a narrow set of religious B/S on all of us. It is folly to think Libertarians can, and should, make common cause with SoCons, as the entire SoCon philosophy is the exact opposite of what a Libertarian should be. Calling it Neo-Republicanism, etc, and hoping people will not notice the SoCons trying to push their crap on us under a different name will no longer suffice.

        As a photographer, I have read about the New Mexico photographer who was sued due to refusing to cover a gay wedding. Whatever happened to the right of a business owner to refuse service? I don’t see that as a civil rights issue at all. There were (are?) other shooters in that area who I am guessing would be happy to take a couples money for covering a wedding ceremony. I think Volokh had some good posts on this case I’ll have to look at his archives.

        • I am sorry to tell you that if this was true we would see more Democrats who were exactly that: socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Please tell me where those guys are located…oh, they are not. Or show me the California GOP senators…we ran socially liberal, fiscal conservative and lost big time. Romney did not run as a social conservative yet he got beat like a drum…
          So, its either that people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but they really, really, really prefer socially liberal.
          Or they claim to be both but are not. (I suppose they might be fiscally conservative but have no idea of our true situation, but what can we do about that? I mean we ran a VP candidate with a solid Medicare reform plan and lost.)
          I think these people are all “socially liberal” but like to tell people what to do, and they are “fiscally conservative” but want to run out of money before saying “oh, yeah, that. Yeah, I guess we made some errors.”
          “As a photographer, I have read about the New Mexico photographer who was sued due to refusing to cover a gay wedding. Whatever happened to the right of a business owner to refuse service? I don’t see that as a civil rights issue at all”
          But you claim the voters are socially liberal…see, you are mistaking socially progressive for liberal (liberty loving.) They are not liberal. They are progressive. They wish to nanny and IMPOSE morality “You goddamn will take photos of the beautiful gay couple or be run out of town by the sherrif!”
          I think in a few more years people like you will understand that by voting for Dems, thinking you are opposing Footloose conservatives, you actually are imposing a progressive fire and brimstone rather than the preacher. What’s worse is there will be less economic freedom as well.



           

        • So who are these omnipresent influential right-wing religious fanatics who are controlling the Rep. party? Which candidates are theirs? Romney? Bush (either)? Graham? McCain?

          It’s funny that with all the complaints about SoCons trying to use government to inflict their beliefs on others the example you use is that of SoLib coercion. Personally, I will worry about  so-called SoCon coercion when they actually have some power or influence. Right now I worry more about SoLib coercion, since they have the power and are using it. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”. Ooops! I just exposed my nasty SoCon leanings. It’s a good thing I don’t have any power, I might try to use the government to enforce my SoCon beliefs like not murdering, stealing, raping, etc.

      • I think so-cons could do more good by not attempting to use the state but instead use their private works, and lead by example. Mitt Romney for all his problems was an excellent family values candidate by example. Imagine Newt running – do as I say and not as I do.

  • I guess one ray of hope is Canada. Their center-right government is doing good things, and they have won the immigrant vote.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet