The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: truth_seeker on December 13, 2013, 06:16:41 pm
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/to-attract-millennials-gop-must-dial-back-the-social-conservatism-20131209
Placating the cultural and deeply religious elements within the Republican Party risks alienating the electorate of the future.
snip
They are dark clouds on the horizon for the concept of an activist government. At the same time, any conservative or Republican looking at these same numbers with hope of support for limited or minimalist government must confront other findings that show that while this generation has a healthy—or unhealthy, depending upon your perspective—view of government, millennials also have a profound streak of libertarianism. Specifically, the conservative positions on social and cultural issues that have come to be dominant in the Republican Party in recent years run precisely against the grain of this new generation that is maturing politically.
One national conservative leader recently told me about visiting campus chapters of a national, very conservative organization and canvassing these conservative student activists about issues. Within their ranks, he could not find any that opposed same-sex marriage. Among younger conservatives, the perennial applause line of wanting “government out of our lives” now extends to every room in the house and the ob-gyn’s office as well. The GOP’s strict opposition to abortion and same-sex marriages, along with its other unambiguous conservative positions, severely jeopardizes any progress that conservatives and Republicans can hope to make from their skepticism of the effectiveness of government.
This situation creates quite a quandary for Republican leaders, elected officials, and campaign strategists because it means making difficult and unpleasant choices. To placate the cultural and deeply religious elements within the Republican Party is to alienate the electorate of the future. With most Americans forming their voting patterns and partisan leanings relatively early in life, this effectively means that taking the current path of least resistance for the GOP (i.e. placating social conservatives) may condemn the party to great difficulty in the future.
snip
-
What the author doesn't come to realize that most so-called 'social' issues are actually just poorly sold liberty issues. If we give up issues like abortion, it takes a philosophical foundation out of Conservatism. If you give up on the fundamental right of an individual to exist, for example, then what is the point of any other right?
We don't need to give up any of our values, we need to sell them better and realize we can't just preach to the choir. We need to sell them in a way that tells people even if they don't agree with anything, the foundation is in their best interest and it should be considered. We need to sell them this isn't just some old fashioned idea but a timeless idea that defends the individual over the system.
-
Well, I just saw some chucklehead is pushing Huckabee to run again. Wonder who he will be stalking horse for this time?
-
The results from the Virginia election says just the opposite of this article.
-
Well, I just saw some chucklehead is pushing Huckabee to run again. Wonder who he will be stalking horse for this time?
Huckabee isn't a 'Social Conservative', he is a Nanny-Conservative
-
Huckabee isn't a 'Social Conservative', he is a Nanny-Conservative
EXACTLY... his spending record on Arkansas is terrible.
-
What the author doesn't come to realize that most so-called 'social' issues are actually just poorly sold liberty issues. If we give up issues like abortion, it takes a philosophical foundation out of Conservatism. If you give up on the fundamental right of an individual to exist, for example, then what is the point of any other right?
We don't need to give up any of our values, we need to sell them better and realize we can't just preach to the choir. We need to sell them in a way that tells people even if they don't agree with anything, the foundation is in their best interest and it should be considered. We need to sell them this isn't just some old fashioned idea but a timeless idea that defends the individual over the system.
The views you are saying to "sell" to these people have already been rejected by them. They are not interested in being "true conservatives" as presently defined.
They are libertarian on social issues. Previous "selling" failed. What have conservatives got, that will persuade them now, that did not before?
-
The views you are saying to "sell" to these people have already been rejected by them. They are not interested in being "true conservatives" as presently defined.
They are libertarian on social issues. Previous "selling" failed. What have conservatives got, that will persuade them now, that did not before?
Actually not. Specifically abortion, Gen X through the Millennials are more pro-life than their baby-boomer parents.
http://www.birthmotherministries.org/for-volunteers/millennials-today-s-most-pro-life-generation.htm
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/generation-y-the-pro-life-generation/
-
The results from the Virginia election says just the opposite of this article.
The result from the Virginia election was the social conservative LOST. Trying to spin a LOSS into a positive is denial of the highest order.
-
The views you are saying to "sell" to these people have already been rejected by them. They are not interested in being "true conservatives" as presently defined.
They are libertarian on social issues. Previous "selling" failed. What have conservatives got, that will persuade them now, that did not before?
A "true" conservative? There is no such thing as a "TRUE" Conservative.
-
The result from the Virginia election was the social conservative LOST. Trying to spin a LOSS into a positive is denial of the highest order.
You are trying to convince yourself that he lost because he is a social conservative, the after-election analysis states otherwise........ but the question remains. Why in this day and age with the 3D Ultrasound technology are you so hot to trot to push abortion?
BTW Hannity had a panel of Millennial voters two weeks ago Friday on his show - and they overwhelmingly were against abortion... The generation which pushed this on society under the guise of woman's right to choose is the older, dying generation... Sandra Fluke is just that a fluke - the younger generation is more pro-life.
-
There are essentially libertarian arguments to be made by conservatives on social issues, and I believe they ought to do so.
Mandated Federal funding for abortion and contraception ought to be opposed by libertarians, as should the Democrats' attempts to force state governments and private entities to recognize gay marriage.
If you believe that people ought to make their own decisions about their own lives and property, then the Progressive/Democrat preference for state control and regulation ought not sit well with you.
Additionally, I think that Republicans need to learn the language with which to make arguments about moral and ethical issues to audiences of people not used to hearing them (largely, our younger citizens). This implies both a knowledge and understanding of first principles as well as an ability to employ reason instead of emotion
in making one's case, while using real world examples that make one's ideas understandable on a personal level.
-
There are essentially libertarian arguments to be made by conservatives on social issues, and I believe they ought to do so.
Mandated Federal funding for abortion and contraception ought to be opposed by libertarians, as should the Democrats' attempts to force state governments and private entities to recognize gay marriage.
If you believe that people ought to make their own decisions about their own lives and property, then the Progressive/Democrat preference for state control and regulation ought not sit well with you.
Additionally, I think that Republicans need to learn the language with which to make arguments about moral and ethical issues to audiences of people not used to hearing them (largely, our younger citizens). This implies both a knowledge and understanding of first principles as well as an ability to employ reason instead of emotion
in making one's case, while using real world examples that make one's ideas understandable on a personal level.
A good Libertarian argument against 'gay marriage' would simply ask if they trust the government keeping lists of names of those who are gay. I find it shuts down the support very quickly.
Of course, the standard Libertarian position isn't to support or oppose gay marriage but to get the government of the marriage business.
I do agree we need to work on our language on the issues. Much of what I have seen regarding the marriage issue is asinine. Stupid slogans like 'Adam ad Steve' etc. There are ways to sell it and ways to come across wrong. We too often lean towards the latter.
-
A good Libertarian argument against 'gay marriage' would simply ask if they trust the government keeping lists of names of those who are gay. I find it shuts down the support very quickly.
Of course, the standard Libertarian position isn't to support or oppose gay marriage but to get the government of the marriage business.
I do agree we need to work on our language on the issues. Much of what I have seen regarding the marriage issue is asinine. Stupid slogans like 'Adam ad Steve' etc. There are ways to sell it and ways to come across wrong. We too often lean towards the latter.
I pretty much agree. I happen to support civil unions and oppose gay "marriage" because it is an impossibility. Just the same, I would prefer that government be constrained to approving voluntary personal unions (and the legal rights and duties that flow from them) while leaving marriage to the sanction of appropriate religious bodies. I think that would help clarify the issue, as when government authorities attempt to force religious organizations to act in opposition to their faith as regards whether or not to sanction voluntary, personal behavioral choices.
-
You are trying to convince yourself that he lost because he is a social conservative, the after-election analysis states otherwise........
Your post election analysis states he lost by less, but he LOST nonetheless.
You could spin Goldwater's, McGovern's, Dukakis' losses, as a victories!! Cuccinelli got a lower percent, than Dukakis !!
-
Your post election analysis states he lost by less, but he LOST nonetheless.
You could spin Goldwater's, McGovern's, Dukakis' losses, as a victories!! Cuccinelli got a lower percent, than Dukakis !!
You are stuck on he lost. I am discussing the analysis showing what gave him his last minute surge.
Apples and Oranges.
What the analysis showed was - contrary to the spinmeisters post-election claims that it was Obamacare driving his last minute surge it turns out it was actually abortion which drove the last minute surge in the right direction.
In fact... he backed off abortion because people told him it was a losing proposition. Analysis indicates backing off was a bad move and staying with it could have changed the outcome of this election. since his return to it at the very end drove the numbers in the right direction....
The fact is you learn things even from LOSING elections - if you had actually read the article I linked here you would see this is the crux of the article - to learn something about what voters really think - not what the spinsters claim.
-
...
In fact... he backed off abortion because people told him it was a losing proposition. Analysis indicates backing off was a bad move and staying with it could have changed the outcome of this election. since his return to it at the very end drove the numbers in the right direction....
Who told him it was a losing proposition? Does he believe what he believes or does he believe what fits an image? Perhaps he should jettison the advisors and think about what is important to him. People can see a phony from a mile a way.
-
Who told him it was a losing proposition? Does he believe what he believes or does he believe what fits an image? Perhaps he should jettison the advisors and think about what is important to him. People can see a phony from a mile a way.
Frankly I think it is the advisers who are causing more damage than good in our elections - look at Romney. His own wife and son finally said enough of the advisers - let Mitt be Mitt... these advisers don't care if these candidates win, they only care which candidate has the deepest pocket they can pick for a few months to a year or more....
-
You are stuck on he lost. ....
How stupid and unsophisticated, for me to not appreciate the analysis and nuance of losing.
Sorry, I AM stuck on he lost. I want Republicans to defeat democrats. I don't want to fail in that pursuit, because the Republican is viewed as too far away from the mainstream, and/or allows himself to be so portrayed.
-
How stupid and unsophisticated, for me to not appreciate the analysis and nuance of losing.
Sorry, I AM stuck on he lost. I want Republicans to defeat democrats. I don't want to fail in that pursuit, because the Republican is viewed as too far away from the mainstream, and/or allows himself to be so portrayed.
Fine then you stick to the line that served Karl Rove so well in losing a lot more elections in 2010 and 2012 than the Tea Party you love to hate.
-
Fine then you stick to the line that served Karl Rove so well in losing a lot more elections in 2010 and 2012 than the Tea Party you love to hate.
You're trying to read minds again, without a license. I'll speak for myself.
I liked the original intent of the Tea Party movement-sticking to fiscal issues period. I did not like some of the candidates that screwed things up, or the fact it is now screwed up, because of their unpopular social positions.
Analyze that.
-
You're trying to read minds again, without a license. I'll speak for myself.
I liked the original intent of the Tea Party movement-sticking to fiscal issues period. I did not like some of the candidates that screwed things up, or the fact it is now screwed up, because of their unpopular social positions.
Analyze that.
That is just it. The Tea Party has not morphed into taking social positions. However CONSERVATIVES are naturally conservative - both fiscally and socially - thus many conservatives also consider themselves Tea Party because of the Tea Party fiscal conservatism. Social positions are unpopular with you, they are not to the majority of conservatives. Most of us think it abhorent to murder babies and while many of us are in favor of civil unions many of us do not support "marriage" between gay couples and the post-election analysis in Virgina says abortion was a positive - not a negative - in the race.. and it was such a negative for McAuliff that it came very close to actually costing him the election.
You still haven't answered why you are down with abortion and why it it such a major issue with YOU.
-
You still haven't answered why you are down with abortion and why it it such a major issue with YOU.
There are a range of abortion positions which have been held over the years, and I listed six (6) candidates that held abortion should not be legal EVEN in cases of rape. They all lost.
I stated that position was way, way at odds with public opinion, in which by 77% to 22& people think abortion should be legal.
Now if you tell me over and over, try to read my mind, analyze for me----that the GOP will come out well with such positions, I'll object.
Plain and simple, that is it.
Hopefully the Obamacare screw-ups by the administration will prove to be a windfall for the GOP, if they don't screw up themselves and change the dynamics between now and Nov. 2014.
-
Hopefully the Obamacare screw-ups by the administration will prove to be a windfall for the GOP, if they don't screw up themselves and change the dynamics between now and Nov. 2014.
The GOP is going to blow itself up by pushing through amnesty. All the positives it is gaining from OCare will be blown out of the water.
Actually the pro-life and pro-choice crowd pretty much zero each other out. The illegal under most circumstances carry the majority here
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b1tknbxezu-afxekhpvmta.gif)
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3v-w8idaiewwzqsgkkjpfq.gif)
-
This is the poll I find appalling........
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/poll-50-percent-of-all-catholics-support-abortion-in-all-or-most-cases
Poll: 50 percent of all Catholics support abortion in ‘all or most cases’
by Johanna Dasteel
Thu Jul 25, 2013 19:46 EST
(http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/WashPostABCPollJuly2013-543px-543x305.jpg)
Co-written with Ben Johnson.
July 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Half of all Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a poll commissioned by The Washington Post and ABC in the wake of the murder convictions of Philadelphia House of Horrors abortionist Kermit Gosnell.
Fifty percent of Catholics said they believed abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 45 percent say it should be illegal in the same circumstances. That was only moderately more pro-life than the American public as a whole, which favored abortion 55-41.
However, the poll reported that white Catholics were somewhat less pro-life, with 55 percent favoring legalized abortion in most cases and 43 percent opposing it.
The finding confirm a previous Pew poll from February showing that Hispanic Catholics are more likely to oppose abortion than their white brethren.
LifeSiteNews.com contacted Priests for Life asking if this poll indicates a greater need for priests to speak up on the topic of abortion, but did not receive a response by press deadline.
Final results revealed a deep religious division that grows wider as the respondents grow less religious.
White mainline Protestants support abortion by a far greater margin, with 66 percent of them preferring few or no restrictions.
Two-thirds of evangelicals, on the other hand, oppose abortion in all or most cases.
The group most in favor of unrestricted abortion on demand are non-religious Americans, of whom 73 percent support legal abortion in all or most cases.
The poll also found recent bills that ban abortion after an unborn child can feel pain, roughly at 20 weeks, enjoy wide support.
While the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade stipulated that abortion could not be restricted before the point of viability, at 24 weeks gestation, 56 percent of Americans say they would prefer abortions be restricted to the first 20 weeks of gestation.
The outpouring of support comes shortly after both the U.S. House of Representatives and the state of Texas have passed bills restricting abortion at 20 weeks. Governor Rick Perry signed the Lone Star State's fetal pain bill into law, while the national ban has yet to be introduced in the U.S. Senate.
The Washington Post-ABC poll's results are more noteworthy, as Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the poll by a wide margin; 31 percent of respondents identified with the Democratic Party, while only 21 percent said they were Republicans.
-
The majority of the conservative base is conservative.
What needs to be Dialed Back are the RINOs and idiots, eg "Boner" as exhibit A.
-
The GOP is going to blow itself up by pushing through amnesty. All the positives it is gaining from OCare will be blown out of the water.
Actually the pro-life and pro-choice crowd pretty much zero each other out. The illegal under most circumstances carry the majority here
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b1tknbxezu-afxekhpvmta.gif)
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3v-w8idaiewwzqsgkkjpfq.gif)
On page 3 off that Gallup survey, you will find the 77% to 22% statistic, favoring legal abortion in cases of rape.
That is why I acknowledged there are a range of variations on being for or against legal abortion. The VERY MOST extreme case is the point I have made.
-
On page 3 off that Gallup survey, you will find the 77% to 22% statistic, favoring legal abortion in cases of rape.
That is why I acknowledged there are a range of variations on being for or against legal abortion. The VERY MOST extreme case is the point I have made.
Yes, but go back and look at what you wrote... you didn't state due to rape... this is what you said to back up your percentages....
I stated that position was way, way at odds with public opinion, in which by 77% to 22& people think abortion should be legal.
-
Yes, but go back and look at what you wrote... you didn't state due to rape... this is what you said to back up your percentages....
I made the mistake of not completing the sentence with "in cases of rape." Sorry.
I also believe I wrote it out completely and correctly several other times.
My mistake doesn't alter the substantive point that these Tea Party candidates held a very unpopular position, and they lost their elections.
-
How stupid and unsophisticated, for me to not appreciate the analysis and nuance of losing.
* * *
:bigsilly:
-
I made the mistake of not completing the sentence with "in cases of rape." Sorry.
I also believe I wrote it out completely and correctly several other times.
My mistake doesn't alter the substantive point that these Tea Party candidates held a very unpopular position, and they lost their elections.
They lost because they were poor candidates, not because they were Tea Party. Same with the candidates Rove bet the farm on (who lost badly) - like the guy running up in Montana who should have won easily and didn't.........
........and yes I agree Sharon Angle was a terrible candidate as was O'Donnell.. but that didn't excuse Rove going after O'Donnell the very minute Hannity announced on the air she had won the primary. IF - as you often post - we are supposed to swallow hard and support the candidate in a race then it applies to Rove and Company as well and he did everything he could to see to it she lost in DE. Just because she had defeated the guy paying Rove to run his campaign didn't excuse Rove not either shutting up or offering her some helpful advice. You do realize if Rove, McCain, Cornyn had their way the GOP senator today would be Charlie Crist - not Marco Rubio.
Also I thought then and still do that Missouri should have elected Steelman in the primary - she could have defeated McCaskill easily.... McCaskill WANTED to run against Akin and spent a ton of money to be certain he was her opposition. The pathetic thing here is the RNSC should have offset that in MO and helped the female in the race - but she WAS Tea Party so never mind she would have been the best person to oppose McCaskill heave forbid the good ole boys in the GOP support a candidate who had the chance to win. Bruener might have stood a chance to win, but Steelman had the best chance against a candidate like McCaskill.
and for the record NO ONE wanted Akin to stay in the race and if the man had a shred of love for his country or the party he would not have stayed in the race.
-
The fundamental problem with many of the policies proposed under the rubric of social conservativism is that they are radically antithetical to the fundamental principles of individual liberty and freedom that are supposed to undergird conservativism in general.
To put it bluntly, the policies social conservatives wish to enact with respect to abortion are about as statist and controlling as a lot of democrat/socialist policies are, such as Obamacare. This is particularly so at the federal level: conservatives insist, in the abstract, that the federal government be cut back to the limited range of powers they believe the Constitution gives to the federal government - based on a fairly narrow reading of the Constitution - but when it comes to concrete policies social conservatives throw that belief out the window. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to get involved in social issues like abortion. Period. End of discussion. And yet social conservatives consistently want to use the power of the federal government to prohibit abortion.
One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too; social conservatives can either have a limited federal government that exercises only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, or they can have an unlimited federal government that exercises whatever powers the party in power wishes to exercise, without regard to what the Constitution says. They cannot have both. If social conservatives really do believe in the former - that the federal government is limited - then they must accept the fact that they cannot use the power of the federal government to prohibit abortion; if social conservatives belief the latter - that they can have the federal government ban abortion notwithstanding the Constitution - then they are no better than the democrats/liberals whom they criticize for ignoring the limits on the federal government and enacting a comprehensive federal regime of social engineering.
That is the policy level of discussion; it's fairly academic, but it does expose the essential hypocrisy of social conservatives when it comes to issues like abortion. Millenials appear to be becoming disenchanted with the hypocrisy of the democrats/liberals, so it beggars the imagination why anyone would think they'd be attracted by another equally hypocritical social regime.
At the practical, real life, level, most younger women (of my generation and younger) - as has been explained to me by my wife, in no uncertain terms - do not see abortion as a desirable thing, as something to do on a whim, but neither do they want to feel trapped by the fear that if, for some unforseen, godforsaken, reason they should become pregnant, such as by being raped - which would include being sexually abused by a family member - they would have no other alternative than resorting to the sort of dirty backroom abortions that were the only sort available to most women prior to Roe v. Wade. It is the sort of existential fear that is not completely rational but which cuts to the core nonetheless. It is for that reason, and for many women that reason alone, that they do not want abortion to be eliminated. As such, they will not support someone who constantly threatens to ban abortion, even if they would otherwise agree with that same person on many other issues. Existential fears can be like that; they must be assuaged before anything else can be considered.
With respect to younger men, the existential fear isn't there - getting pregnant just isn't an option for men - but they do have an interest in responding to the fears of women, and at least some of them can empathize because they too have existential fears.
Social conservatives' constant threats to prohibit abortion - both at the federal and/or the state level - trigger that existential fear and thus chase off a lot of women - and men - who might otherwise agree with them on a range of other issues.
This is not to say that social conservatives should simply shut up and pretend that they don't care about abortion anymore; they shouldn't. However, it does mean that they should stop trying to use the wrong tools - the punitive, coercive, violent force of the government - to address abortion and should start finding better tools, such trying to convince others that abortion is wrong and to be avoided at all costs solely through the power of persuasion - of testifying to The Truth, if you will. In other words, private action, not government action, is more likely to constructively address abortion. After all, if you've managed to persuade everyone that abortion is wrong, then there is no need to have any laws that prohibit abortion.
Until social conservatives can come to terms with these two basic facts - at the least - they will continue to marginalize themselves and, by extension, the GOP.
A similar argument applies to the strident, sometimes xenophobic, views of many social conservatives on immigration.
-
I made the mistake of not completing the sentence with "in cases of rape." Sorry.
I also believe I wrote it out completely and correctly several other times.
My mistake doesn't alter the substantive point that these Tea Party candidates held a very unpopular position, and they lost their elections.
While I am not unsympathetic to your implied conclusion, I do have to point out that mere correlation - holding an unpopular position and losing an election - is not proof of causation - that holding an unpopular position caused the election loss. No doubt, however, holding an unpopular position does contribute to an election loss.
-
"No doubt, however, holding an unpopular position does contribute to an election loss."
I suppose we're speaking only about Pubbies here because O B A M A has proven that not to be the case.
-
"No doubt, however, holding an unpopular position does contribute to an election loss."
I suppose we're speaking only about Pubbies here because O B A M A has proven that not to be the case.
Really? You're drawing the same false conclusion. Just because holding an unpopular position has a negative effect on one's polling results does not automatically mean that one will lose the election. Very, very few elections hinge on only one issue. Furthermore, much in politics is relative, as in life, and if one's opponent holds positions that are more unpopular than one's own unpopular positions, then the net result is that one's unpopular positions are unlikely to be a detriment.
-
It does not surprise me. The one thing the Catholic church likes to do is instill a feeling of guilt in a person growing up. Once that child has grown they tend to go to the opposite side of the spectrum to that which the church kept talking about being sinful trying to get rid of that guilt bestowed on them. Instead of making sure a child knows why we should believe abortion to be wrong they pound at it being a sin. I explained to my children that the life a person is responsible for starting should be considered every bit as important as their own. That the child that grows inside us is a separate human being not an extension of ourselves that we can kill because it is an inconvenience or not the right time in our lives to have one. The person who chooses to have sex and then got pregnant is directly responsible for their actions and how they treat this other human being and it is pretty easy these days to use birth control so your odds of getting pregnant go way down. I never mention sin because it brings up negative reactions. I talk about the responsibility they need to be thinking about when they have a sexual relationship whether in or outside of marriage. I think the church talks about venial and mortal sin way to much when they need to be talking about what is good for us to do or what is evil for us to do because we are suppose to be responsible human beings who care about others not just ourselves. They also have way to many sermons on collection money needed for the church instead of sermons that feed the soul of it's members. I have experience having gone to mass every day but Saturday during my 12 years at a catholic school so don't say I have no knowledge of what I am talking about. I am a conservative and I vote with my conscience if more people did we would have fewer crooks in leadership positions. I am not going to change due to the republicans now being more democratic in their issues. We don't need a one party system and I do know there are many of us out here who think that and many have given up on voting at all.
-
The fundamental problem with many of the policies proposed under the rubric of social conservativism is that they are radically antithetical to the fundamental principles of individual liberty and freedom that are supposed to undergird conservativism in general.
To put it bluntly, the policies social conservatives wish to enact with respect to abortion are about as statist and controlling as a lot of democrat/socialist policies are, such as Obamacare. This is particularly so at the federal level: conservatives insist, in the abstract, that the federal government be cut back to the limited range of powers they believe the Constitution gives to the federal government - based on a fairly narrow reading of the Constitution - but when it comes to concrete policies social conservatives throw that belief out the window. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to get involved in social issues like abortion. Period. End of discussion. And yet social conservatives consistently want to use the power of the federal government to prohibit abortion.
One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too; social conservatives can either have a limited federal government that exercises only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, or they can have an unlimited federal government that exercises whatever powers the party in power wishes to exercise, without regard to what the Constitution says. They cannot have both. If social conservatives really do believe in the former - that the federal government is limited - then they must accept the fact that they cannot use the power of the federal government to prohibit abortion; if social conservatives belief the latter - that they can have the federal government ban abortion notwithstanding the Constitution - then they are no better than the democrats/liberals whom they criticize for ignoring the limits on the federal government and enacting a comprehensive federal regime of social engineering.
That is the policy level of discussion; it's fairly academic, but it does expose the essential hypocrisy of social conservatives when it comes to issues like abortion. Millenials appear to be becoming disenchanted with the hypocrisy of the democrats/liberals, so it beggars the imagination why anyone would think they'd be attracted by another equally hypocritical social regime.
At the practical, real life, level, most younger women (of my generation and younger) - as has been explained to me by my wife, in no uncertain terms - do not see abortion as a desirable thing, as something to do on a whim, but neither do they want to feel trapped by the fear that if, for some unforseen, godforsaken, reason they should become pregnant, such as by being raped - which would include being sexually abused by a family member - they would have no other alternative than resorting to the sort of dirty backroom abortions that were the only sort available to most women prior to Roe v. Wade. It is the sort of existential fear that is not completely rational but which cuts to the core nonetheless. It is for that reason, and for many women that reason alone, that they do not want abortion to be eliminated. As such, they will not support someone who constantly threatens to ban abortion, even if they would otherwise agree with that same person on many other issues. Existential fears can be like that; they must be assuaged before anything else can be considered.
With respect to younger men, the existential fear isn't there - getting pregnant just isn't an option for men - but they do have an interest in responding to the fears of women, and at least some of them can empathize because they too have existential fears.
Social conservatives' constant threats to prohibit abortion - both at the federal and/or the state level - trigger that existential fear and thus chase off a lot of women - and men - who might otherwise agree with them on a range of other issues.
This is not to say that social conservatives should simply shut up and pretend that they don't care about abortion anymore; they shouldn't. However, it does mean that they should stop trying to use the wrong tools - the punitive, coercive, violent force of the government - to address abortion and should start finding better tools, such trying to convince others that abortion is wrong and to be avoided at all costs solely through the power of persuasion - of testifying to The Truth, if you will. In other words, private action, not government action, is more likely to constructively address abortion. After all, if you've managed to persuade everyone that abortion is wrong, then there is no need to have any laws that prohibit abortion.
Until social conservatives can come to terms with these two basic facts - at the least - they will continue to marginalize themselves and, by extension, the GOP.
A similar argument applies to the strident, sometimes xenophobic, views of many social conservatives on immigration.
Hear! Hear!
-
To put it bluntly, the policies social conservatives wish to enact with respect to abortion are about as statist and controlling as a lot of democrat/socialist policies are, such as Obamacare. This is particularly so at the federal level: conservatives insist, in the abstract, that the federal government be cut back to the limited range of powers they believe the Constitution gives to the federal government - based on a fairly narrow reading of the Constitution - but when it comes to concrete policies social conservatives throw that belief out the window
Your entire argument is based on an a priori assumption that is in error. You dismiss the humanity of the unborn child (based on what I have no idea). Abortion destroys a human life every time no matter what the stage of development and protecting human life is definitely a concern and obligation of the government of the United States.
-
To attract millennials, the GOP needs to not dial back on anything, but rather to emphasize the positive advantages of more individual liberty and Federalism.
It needs to paint a stark difference in the future of a nation weighed down by progressive statism, beholden to and dependent on government with the ability to want and achieve a better life stunted by the oppression of a leviathan central planning government.
They need to paint a positive picture of a better world under conservative ideals of less government and more freedom. The GOP needs to talk about jobs, fiscal responsibility, independence. How allowing States to decide how to run things is a far better solution than the oppressive boot of the Federal government on our collective necks.
Don't adopt any ideas from the Democrats, adopt ideas from the founders and run on Federalism.
Tell the young ones that the only true hope for change lies with them, not with the government, and that the best thing that the Federal government needs to do is get the Hell out of their way.
Let them know that the GOP believes in them, and that we know that given a choice between liberty and dependency, they will chose liberty, and that all we want to do is to clear the way for them.
Tell them to go and own the future.
Be a cockeyed optimist who sees that there is greatness in them, because they're born from greatness.
Over the years—I won't count if you don't—nothing has been so heartwarming to me as speaking to America's young, and the little ones especially, so fresh-faced and so eager to know. Well, from time to time I've been with them—they will ask about our Constitution. And I hope you Members of Congress will not deem this a breach of protocol if you'll permit me to share these thoughts again with the young people who might be listening or watching this evening. I've read the constitutions of a number of countries, including the Soviet Union's. Now, some people are surprised to hear that they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional?
Well, the difference is so small that it almost escapes you, but it's so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: We the people. In those other constitutions, the Government tells the people of those countries what they're allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the Government what it can do, and it can do only those things listed in that document and no others. Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters and government is their servant. And you young people out there, don't ever forget that. Someday you could be in this room, but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best—because here in America, we the people are in charge.
Just three words: We the people—those are the kids on Christmas Day looking out from a frozen sentry post on the 38th parallel in Korea or aboard an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. A million miles from home, but doing their duty.
We the people—those are the warmhearted whose numbers we can't begin to count, who'll begin the day with a little prayer for hostages they will never know and MIA families they will never meet. Why? Because that's the way we are, this unique breed we call Americans.
We the people—they're farmers on tough times, but who never stop feeding a hungry world. They're the volunteers at the hospital choking back their tears for the hundredth time, caring for a baby struggling for life because of a mother who used drugs. And you'll forgive me a special memory—it's a million mothers like Nelle Reagan who never knew a stranger or turned a hungry person away from her kitchen door.
We the people—they refute last week's television commentary downgrading our optimism and our idealism. They are the entrepreneurs, the builders, the pioneers, and a lot of regular folks—the true heroes of our land who make up the most uncommon nation of doers in history. You know they're Americans because their spirit is as big as the universe and their hearts are bigger than their spirits.
We the people—starting the third century of a dream and standing up to some cynic who's trying to tell us we're not going to get any better. Are we at the end? Well, I can't tell it any better than the real thing—a story recorded by James Madison from the final moments of the Constitutional Convention, September 17th, 1787. As the last few members signed the document, Benjamin Franklin—the oldest delegate at 81 years and in frail health—looked over toward the chair where George Washington daily presided. At the back of the chair was painted the picture of a Sun on the horizon. And turning to those sitting next to him, Franklin observed that artists found it difficult in their painting to distinguish between a rising and a setting Sun.
Well, I know if we were there, we could see those delegates sitting around Franklin-leaning in to listen more closely to him. And then Dr. Franklin began to share his deepest hopes and fears about the outcome of their efforts, and this is what he said: "I have often looked at that picture behind the President without being able to tell whether it was a rising or setting Sun: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun." Well, you can bet it's rising because, my fellow citizens, America isn't finished. Her best days have just begun.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
January 27, 1987
-
To attract millennials, the GOP needs to not dial back on anything, but rather to emphasize the positive advantages of more individual liberty and Federalism.
It needs to paint a stark difference in the future of a nation weighed down by progressive statism, beholden to and dependent on government with the ability to want and achieve a better life stunted by the oppression of a leviathan central planning government.
They need to paint a positive picture of a better world under conservative ideals of less government and more freedom. The GOP needs to talk about jobs, fiscal responsibility, independence. How allowing States to decide how to run things is a far better solution than the oppressive boot of the Federal government on our collective necks.
Don't adopt any ideas from the Democrats, adopt ideas from the founders and run on Federalism.
Tell the young ones that the only true hope for change lies with them, not with the government, and that the best thing that the Federal government needs to do is get the Hell out of their way.
Let them know that the GOP believes in them, and that we know that given a choice between liberty and dependency, they will chose liberty, and that all we want to do is to clear the way for them.
Tell them to go and own the future.
Be a cockeyed optimist who sees that there is greatness in them, because they're born from greatness.
:amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen:
-
To attract millennials, the GOP needs to not dial back on anything, but rather to emphasize the positive advantages of more individual liberty and Federalism.
It needs to paint a stark difference in the future of a nation weighed down by progressive statism, beholden to and dependent on government with the ability to want and achieve a better life stunted by the oppression of a leviathan central planning government.
They need to paint a positive picture of a better world under conservative ideals of less government and more freedom. The GOP needs to talk about jobs, fiscal responsibility, independence. How allowing States to decide how to run things is a far better solution than the oppressive boot of the Federal government on our collective necks.
Don't adopt any ideas from the Democrats, adopt ideas from the founders and run on Federalism.
Tell the young ones that the only true hope for change lies with them, not with the government, and that the best thing that the Federal government needs to do is get the Hell out of their way.
Let them know that the GOP believes in them, and that we know that given a choice between liberty and dependency, they will chose liberty, and that all we want to do is to clear the way for them.
Tell them to go and own the future.
Be a cockeyed optimist who sees that there is greatness in them, because they're born from greatness.
There are many social conservative to whom liberty is anathema.
-
There are many social conservative to whom liberty is anathema.
Sadly true.
-
To attract millennials, the GOP needs to not dial back on anything, but rather to emphasize the positive advantages of more individual liberty and Federalism.
It needs to paint a stark difference in the future of a nation weighed down by progressive statism, beholden to and dependent on government with the ability to want and achieve a better life stunted by the oppression of a leviathan central planning government.
They need to paint a positive picture of a better world under conservative ideals of less government and more freedom. The GOP needs to talk about jobs, fiscal responsibility, independence. How allowing States to decide how to run things is a far better solution than the oppressive boot of the Federal government on our collective necks.
Don't adopt any ideas from the Democrats, adopt ideas from the founders and run on Federalism.
Tell the young ones that the only true hope for change lies with them, not with the government, and that the best thing that the Federal government needs to do is get the Hell out of their way.
Let them know that the GOP believes in them, and that we know that given a choice between liberty and dependency, they will chose liberty, and that all we want to do is to clear the way for them.
Tell them to go and own the future.
Be a cockeyed optimist who sees that there is greatness in them, because they're born from greatness.
Luis... you can piss me off with the best of 'em... but, I am damn glad you are around. (That's a compliment, btw...)
-
Luis... you can piss me off with the best of 'em... but, I am damn glad you are around. (That's a compliment, btw...)
A sentiment that I pray is shared by Mrs. Gonzalez.
-
To attract millennials, the GOP needs to not dial back on anything, but rather to emphasize the positive advantages of more individual liberty and Federalism.
It needs to paint a stark difference in the future of a nation weighed down by progressive statism, beholden to and dependent on government with the ability to want and achieve a better life stunted by the oppression of a leviathan central planning government.
They need to paint a positive picture of a better world under conservative ideals of less government and more freedom. The GOP needs to talk about jobs, fiscal responsibility, independence. How allowing States to decide how to run things is a far better solution than the oppressive boot of the Federal government on our collective necks.
Don't adopt any ideas from the Democrats, adopt ideas from the founders and run on Federalism.
Tell the young ones that the only true hope for change lies with them, not with the government, and that the best thing that the Federal government needs to do is get the Hell out of their way.
Let them know that the GOP believes in them, and that we know that given a choice between liberty and dependency, they will chose liberty, and that all we want to do is to clear the way for them.
Tell them to go and own the future.
Be a cockeyed optimist who sees that there is greatness in them, because they're born from greatness.
What can I say?? Bravo!
:beer:
-
A sentiment that I pray is shared by Mrs. Gonzalez.
:beer: