What would happen if the GOP goes Libertarian?

[Dan the Roman]

The GOP would be a distant third party. Libertarians here have not realized the basic truth that people from Hashami Rafsanjani in Iran to Ronald Reagan in the US have grasped; there is no electoral constituency anywhere in the world for economic conservatism. Everyone wants government money, they just disagree about who else should get it and what it should be spent on. So Economic Conservatives are forced to borrow someone else constituency.

You can chose economic liberals who care enough about social conservatism they are willing to put up with a nutty economic policy, or you can care so much about individual social freedom you go with the democrats despite their economic views.

Or of course you can win your 8% or 9% of the vote and feel all nice and pure.

[Dan the Roman]

The GOP would be a distant third party. Libertarians here have not realized the basic truth that people from Hashami Rafsanjani in Iran to Ronald Reagan in the US have grasped; there is no electoral constituency anywhere in the world for economic conservatism. Everyone wants government money, they just disagree about who else should get it and what it should be spent on. So Economic Conservatives are forced to borrow someone else constituency.

You can chose economic liberals who care enough about social conservatism they are willing to put up with a nutty economic policy, or you can care so much about individual social freedom you go with the democrats despite their economic views.

Or of course you can win your 8% or 9% of the vote and feel all nice and pure.

I would definitely like some proof.

The proof is that even people who promote economic conservatism and are elected don't govern that way. They give handouts as much as their predecessors, they just simultaniously cut taxes and borrow money to do both. Reagan is a great example.

The only legitimately economically conservative administration in recent times was that of Thatcher in England. She was immensely lucky. In her enemies, in that the opposition, which had majority support was split in two, and that she had good timing for elections. The aftermath of the Falklands war, and after her enemies had overplayed their hand with the miners strike. If you look below she was deeply unpopular throughout her tenure.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/media-centre-voting-intentions.php

[Dan the Roman]

In sort of an addendum to what Duke said, I think that Social Conservatism is not a loser. On the contrary, it is a winner provided it is inclusive rather than exclusive. Focusing on traditions, family, and community have appeal to almost all groups. The problem Social Conservatives have currently is that they exclude groups like Gays from that vision.

This is not a necessity. One way the US has avoided class conflict is by steadily expanding the definition of who was elite. In the early 19th century, Italians and Jews did not count as white, and Jews and Catholics would have been excluded from any definition of religious social conservatism. Now we have Jewishconservative promoting Palin and a majority Catholic block on the Supreme.

By the same token, embracing Gay Marriage does not require abandoning social conservatism or even opposition to a "homosexual agenda" generally. It can be seen as an acknowledgment that society as a whole benifits from having people in stable relationships, and at the point at which same-sex couples will be adopting and raising children it makes sense to give as positive an environment as possible. In this sense you could win over a large portion of the Gay Community, even if you continued to find Pride Parades indecent or Hate Crimes laws discriminatory.

Personally I think this is a more likely direction for the GOP than libertarianism. It allows them to keep social conservatives by opening just enough to maintain the potential for a majority.

[Dan the Roman]

In sort of an addendum to what Duke said, I think that Social Conservatism is not a loser. On the contrary, it is a winner provided it is inclusive rather than exclusive. Focusing on traditions, family, and community have appeal to almost all groups. The problem Social Conservatives have currently is that they exclude groups like Gays from that vision.

This is not a necessity. One way the US has avoided class conflict is by steadily expanding the definition of who was elite. In the early 19th century, Italians and Jews did not count as white, and Jews and Catholics would have been excluded from any definition of religious social conservatism. Now we have Jewishconservative promoting Palin and a majority Catholic block on the Supreme.

By the same token, embracing Gay Marriage does not require abandoning social conservatism or even opposition to a "homosexual agenda" generally. It can be seen as an acknowledgment that society as a whole benifits from having people in stable relationships, and at the point at which same-sex couples will be adopting and raising children it makes sense to give as positive an environment as possible. In this sense you could win over a large portion of the Gay Community, even if you continued to find Pride Parades indecent or Hate Crimes laws discriminatory.

Personally I think this is a more likely direction for the GOP than libertarianism. It allows them to keep social conservatives by opening just enough to maintain the potential for a majority.

It seems like modern day racial minorities would be the most obvious application of this by far. Many of them are socially conservative but don't vote GOP because they don't feel included.

That could work, but I think race is a much bigger factor than even sexual orienation. If you look at American history there is only one group that has failed to assimilate and that is African Americans. A large part of that is racism, but the fact is that in order for their to be a good, moral, conservative, hard-working society there has to be an antithisis, and while its no longer explicitly racial, when someone complains about welfare, crack whores, gang killings, its clear who they mean.

The current battle in the GOP right now is not over whether there should be an other. That goes with out saying. Its who it should be. Fiscal Conservatives, many of whom are from wealthy backgrounds and cities and have lots of Gay friends would like it to be those scary black people in Harlem/Mexicans in East LA. Social Conservatives, seeing their power slipping, would rather coopt those Blacks and Hispanics into a Christian identity where liberals and gays would be the enemy.