MARK CUBAN: Here's What Republicans Should Do Next

[MACVSOG68]

Social issues have been, and will continue to be, the death of the republican party because, for one thing, the social issue positions demanded by the social conservatives are, if viewed objectively, anathema to the principles of individual liberty and freedom that this country was founded on.

In point of fact, if it hadn't been for the social conservatives' fascist insistence on denying any recognition whatsoever to gay couples, the country wouldn't be dealing with the concept of gay "marriage" because there would have already been sufficiently robust civil partnership arrangements - available to everyone, and essentially what civil marriage is now - and wouldn't be facing the specter of having the government start forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.

You don't protect your house from a raging river by standing in front of it with a STOP sign.  You protect your house by redirecting the river's flow.  Social conservatives think they can sit athwart the current of culture and make it stop.  They cannot, and as a result, their houses are in danger of being swept away.

To the extent that social conservatives want to fit society to their own Procrustean bed, they are merely a fun-house reflection of liberals.

Nice post.  I might have shied away from the term 'fascist', as I want to engage them and not drive them off, but I can't argue your theme or the logic.

[Oceander]

Nice post.  I might have shied away from the term 'fascist', as I want to engage them and not drive them off, but I can't argue your theme or the logic.

I usually prefer to avoid it as well, both because it's inflammatory on its own and because I think it applies more appropriately to the left - fascism has historically risen from union leftist-authoritarian sources - but I chose to use it here precisely because of it's inflammatory value:  to make a point painfully obvious.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's quite the pity that, minus SoCons, Republicans don't have the votes to win dog catcher.  The best the party can do is tell them to "STFU or get out of the party," then act surprised when they do.

How many posts on this thread decry SoCons because they have chosen to sit out elections or vote third party, because they were told to STFU or get out of the party?  I'm more of a FisCon sort of guy, but I know we need SoCons or we lose. 

My takeaway observation:  "Most Republicans would rather lose without SoCons than win with them."

Good luck with that.

[Oceander]

It's quite the pity that, minus SoCons, Republicans don't have the votes to win dog catcher.  The best the party can do is tell them to "STFU or get out of the party," then act surprised when they do.

How many posts on this thread decry SoCons because they have chosen to sit out elections or vote third party, because they were told to STFU or get out of the party?  I'm more of a FisCon sort of guy, but I know we need SoCons or we lose. 

My takeaway observation:  "Most Republicans would rather lose without SoCons than win with them."

Good luck with that.

Good luck having to sanctify gay marriages in your churches under the liberal/democrat government you are thereby electing.  Good luck with that.

[mystery-ak]

I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.

[Cyber Liberty]

Good luck having to sanctify gay marriages in your churches under the liberal/democrat government you are thereby electing.  Good luck with that.

False dichotomy.  I didn't say it was all one or all the other.  I'm just saying when you start kicking people out of the party in hopes of attracting new people, you lose.  For every 5 SoCals who leave, you'll get 2-3 new members to replace them.  You'll need more than luck when you hemorrhage that many voters.

You can't tell people to STFU and then expect them to vote for your people because there's nowhere else to go.  That's my point, from start to finish.  Nothing more.

[Cyber Liberty]

I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.

I agree with you about defining the terms.  To some, it seems "SoCons" means "rigid-minded ideologues hell-bent on making us lose." 

Someone should scrounge up some of what Reagan had to say about them.  He found a way to include them without insulting them in the process.

[Bigun]

You can't tell people to STFU and then expect them to vote for your people because there's nowhere else to go.  That's my point, from start to finish.  Nothing more.

And it is a VERY good one indeed!

 :sword:

[truth_seeker]

What various definitions of conservatism turn out to be, won't help to drive the center-right coalition to win elections.

Contemporary conservatism needs to go back to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and see WHAT WORKED.

Ronald Reagan worked, that is what. He could synthesize the elements, into a WINNING coalition.

Intellectuals called it Fusionism. It WORKED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism

(As I've said repeatedly, we seem to have lost our "institutional memories," and unfortunately need to start over. We already know what works, but we forgot it.)

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's quite the pity that, minus SoCons, Republicans don't have the votes to win dog catcher.  The best the party can do is tell them to "STFU or get out of the party," then act surprised when they do.

How many posts on this thread decry SoCons because they have chosen to sit out elections or vote third party, because they were told to STFU or get out of the party?  I'm more of a FisCon sort of guy, but I know we need SoCons or we lose. 

My takeaway observation:  "Most Republicans would rather lose without SoCons than win with them."

Good luck with that.

What can Socons win without Republicans?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nice post.  I might have shied away from the term 'fascist', as I want to engage them and not drive them off, but I can't argue your theme or the logic.

Squishy... RINOs... quislings...

No one has clean hands in this debate.

[Luis Gonzalez]

False dichotomy.  I didn't say it was all one or all the other.  I'm just saying when you start kicking people out of the party in hopes of attracting new people, you lose.  For every 5 SoCals who leave, you'll get 2-3 new members to replace them.  You'll need more than luck when you hemorrhage that many voters.

You can't tell people to STFU and then expect them to vote for your people because there's nowhere else to go.  That's my point, from start to finish.  Nothing more.

Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives

[Cyber Liberty]

What can Socons win without Republicans?

Zero.  Not a thing.  Nothing.  It's a symbiotic relationship, neither will live long without the other.  That's my point, neither can afford to kick the other out.

[Cyber Liberty]

Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives

That's a great article.  Thanks for creating it. 

[truth_seeker]

Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives

Great article.

[MACVSOG68]

I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.

A very difficult thing to do, just as it is with fiscal conservatism where tax policy and debt issues frequently clash.  Social conservatives for right or wrong are currently at least viewed by many as two-issue voters, same-sex marriage and abortion.  They are viewed as wanting those two issues to be campaign themes even though they understand most polling doesn't favor their positions.  Immigration is an issue so-cons are frequently associated with, though I don't think it's as deeply embedded as the other two.  They are seen as having strong religious roots and for the most part tend to vote in blocks. 

But truth be told, there are probably no two exactly alike, and I believe many cross over into the fiscal and national defense areas of conservatism.  In the past they've been strong supporters of the Republican Party and its values, and I for one would hate to see them go.  But by putting those issues of importance to them on the back burner, it just may cause an irreparable split.

But that's simply my take, and I don't qualify to make such judgments.   I'd rather see social conservatives defining their ideology.  I just know that principles and issues don't always go hand-in-hand.

[MACVSOG68]

Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives

Does put a little perspective into it.

[Bigun]

I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.

That my dear is the crux of the problem! No one can or will define it because there is no single definition possible!

I would call my self a Social Conservative but in reality I'm a mixture all of the following: Conservative, small “l” libertarian, paleoconservative,  Krystolian neoconservative and Country Club Republican with the percentages of each varying from time to time.

Don't think I'm all that unusual either!

[Cyber Liberty]

Does put a little perspective into it.

Luis is good that way.  Sometimes it's a cold, hard slap across the face, but he always delivers what's needed.  It's why I missed him over the years and was happy to find him here on TBR.

[Cyber Liberty]

That my dear is the crux of the problem! No one can or will define it because there is no single definition possible!

I would call my self a Social Conservative but in reality I'm a mixture all of the following: Conservative, small “l” libertarian, paleoconservative,  Krystolian neoconservative and Country Club Republican with the percentages of each varying from time to time.

Don't think I'm all that unusual either!

You forgot "Pastafarian."  it's a pretty big tent...

    

[alicewonders]

That my dear is the crux of the problem! No one can or will define it because there is no single definition possible!

I would call my self a Social Conservative but in reality I'm a mixture all of the following: Conservative, small “l” libertarian, paleoconservative,  Krystolian neoconservative and Country Club Republican with the percentages of each varying from time to time.

Don't think I'm all that unusual either!

I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.

I want a much smaller government footprint - and I want the government staying the hell out of my business and my private life!

More power to the States and less power to the Feds.

[Bigun]

You forgot "Pastafarian."  it's a pretty big tent...

    

LOL! I guess so!

[Bigun]

I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.

I want a much smaller government footprint - and I want the government staying the hell out of my business and my private life!

More power to the States and less power to the Feds.

No matter what the percentages of each are at any given time Alice the highest percentage will ALWAYS be on the side of CONSTITUTIONAL government which means that the federal government is confined to doing ONLY those things it is charged with doing and not a smidgen more!

[MACVSOG68]

Luis is good that way.  Sometimes it's a cold, hard slap across the face, but he always delivers what's needed.  It's why I missed him over the years and was happy to find him here on TBR.

Yes, though we've had our moments.  Nonetheless, I respect him tremendously and yes he certainly adds value to any site he's on.  But don't tell him I said that.   :nometalk:

[alicewonders]

No matter what the percentages of each are at any given time Alice the highest percentage will ALWAYS be on the side of CONSTITUTIONAL government which means that the federal government is confined to doing ONLY those things it is charged with doing and not a smidgen more!

Yes, Bigun - Constitutional Conservatives!

The social issues are red herrings - it's the government overreach that spawned the Tea Party - and THAT has to be the issue that ties us all together.  We've got to stop arguing about the other stuff and get ourselves in office before we can even get a chance to address anything else.  I think most of us agree that what we have in common is a desire to see the Federal Government be severely cut down to the size that was intended by our Constitution.