Why do Social Conservatives get blamed for GOP losses?

[Keystone Phil]

And it also seemed like pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq War Catholic pols were getting a free pass from the Church because they were pro-life.  That to me says selectivity. 

Even I use that as a reason why the Church can't make Pro Choicers outcasts.

I'm glad you think that way.  Unfortunately, not all of the clergy do.

In their defense, I think they may view the murder of innocent babies as a tad more important than the murder of a convicted serial killer

Yeah, exactly.

[pbrower2a]

This ties in with the ridiculous 'elitist' theme that the Republicans have been pushing, with various degrees of success, against Democratic candidates.

No one thinks they're voting for someone who isn't an elite. When poor, undereducated, rural whites in the South and Appalachia vote for an Ivy League-educated conservative, they're not under some illusion that they're voting for someone just like them. It's about being part of an in-group and self-validation. Certain peoples are less psychologically capable than others, and their weaknesses naturally lead them to an incapability for self-reliance and individualism.

However, they don't want an ordinary "shlub" just like one of them as much as they want someone willing to pay homage to what they self-identify as. Obama and Clinton had middle class roots, the Bushes, McCain, and Reagan did not. But the Republicans in that line-up were certainly against the right people; they spoke to their 'values', nebulous and socialistically-defined as they are.

Our electoral process is costly enough that the sorts of people who work at a plant, fix cars, sling hash, or do hair can't go far in the political order. But if the common man has no chance of electing a common man, then the common man can elect the one who most defers to his sensibilities. What such deference can bring in tangible improvements in people's lives is beyond rational explanation.

So how does the political process reach the common man? With the same methods that it uses to sell him something so banal as beer.  Pretend that his lack of formal learning is a virtue in that it keeps him from being corrupted by crazy professors and campus radicals. Pretend that his gut feelings are more reliable than the distant decision that some 'educated elitist' makes in an error that the common man would never make. Thus show the menacing and ugly face of Willie Horton whom Mike Dukakis let out on a "Take a Lifer to Lunch" furlough. Folk wisdom is more reliable than systematic learning.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We get to choose between the high-brow and the low-brow, and in recent elections the low-brow wins unless the genuinely high-brow candidate capably conceals his offending intelligence. Pork rinds win; the symphony loses. (How much do you want to bet that Barack Obama is a fan of classical music? Surely he had something to hide). Voting for creationism is a vote against the science teacher in whose class one chafed and got a D+ in; a vote for the candidate who promises school prayer is a vote against the English teacher who insisted that one not drop the g's in present participles and the social studies teachers who told kids the 'unpatriotic' idea that socialism isn't all evil.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This lust for revenge, this ressentiment, eats away at the weakling's sense of worth; he castigates pride as sinful, and with it goes his ability to think and will as an individual. And so he turns dour and rotten, and begins to look with an evil eye upon those who he sees as behaving in a way he could not - as a fully-formed, cohesive, individual unit.[/quote]

Until such faux-populists like George W. Bush betray him by exploiting his patriotism and gullibility by starting a war for the gain of war-profiteers and the glorification of himself and promising that everyone can own a home so long as he commits his life to paying off loan sharks. But even in 2008 I suspect that much of the vote against Obama was strongest where people drop their g's in present participles. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, did it! Dubya was the Presidential candidate apparently least "corrupted" with book-learning since at least Calvin Coolidge. (Truman had no college education, but he was certainly well-read and showed no enmity toward any "brain trust").

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You ought to see how similar the electoral map for Bryan is to that of the GOP in recent years. Partisan loyalties in America have practically flip-flopped. It's hard to believe that before the Reagan landslides, such states as Michigan, Illinois, and California typically voted for GOP nominees. But such is so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also gives the GOP no coherent appeal -- and that could be big trouble.

[Scam of God]

And it also seemed like pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq War Catholic pols were getting a free pass from the Church because they were pro-life.  That to me says selectivity. 

Even I use that as a reason why the Church can't make Pro Choicers outcasts.

I'm glad you think that way.  Unfortunately, not all of the clergy do.

In their defense, I think they may view the murder of innocent babies as a tad more important than the murder of a convicted serial killer

Then they are hypocrites of the lowest rank order, not to mention facile idiots who project not only moral values, but degrees of valuation where no reasonable measuring-scale for such things exists.

The social conservative is not concerned with logical integrity or intellectual consistency; a social communist like StatesRights would happily vote for a William Jennings Bryan or a Woodrow Wilson if it meant a return of segregation and prayer in the schools. Their chief and sole concern is the execution of their lust for revenge on the higher orders of man, and to level out like socialists the vast disparity in culture and prowess between him and his social superiors.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In their defense, I think they may view the murder of innocent babies as a tad more important than the murder of a convicted serial killer

Of course they do.
Serial killers won't perform sexual favors to them.

[Lunar]

[??????????]

And it also seemed like pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq War Catholic pols were getting a free pass from the Church because they were pro-life.  That to me says selectivity. 

Even I use that as a reason why the Church can't make Pro Choicers outcasts.

I'm glad you think that way.  Unfortunately, not all of the clergy do.

In their defense, I think they may view the murder of innocent babies as a tad more important than the murder of a convicted serial killer

Then they are hypocrites of the lowest rank order, not to mention facile idiots who project not only moral values, but degrees of valuation where no reasonable measuring-scale for such things exists.

The social conservative is not concerned with logical integrity or intellectual consistency; a social communist like StatesRights would happily vote for a William Jennings Bryan or a Woodrow Wilson if it meant a return of segregation and prayer in the schools. Their chief and sole concern is the execution of their lust for revenge on the higher orders of man, and to level out like socialists the vast disparity in culture and prowess between him and his social superiors.

If you think I support Woodrow Wilson then obviously you have no clue about my political positions, moron.

And comparing segregation to prayer in schools is LOLOLOL, to say the least.

[Keystone Phil]

In their defense, I think they may view the murder of innocent babies as a tad more important than the murder of a convicted serial killer

Of course they do.
Serial killers won't perform sexual favors to them.

Stay classy, troll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As I've said before, Phil reminds me of the Asian girl in Juno.

[Keystone Phil]

As I've said before, Phil reminds me of the Asian girl in Juno.

Because anyone that is Pro Life and vocal about it = Asian girl from Juno

...or BRTD just wants to bring up a movie he likes whenever possible.

[Landslide Lyndon]

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, as Einzige said, social conservatives took over the party and drove out the very large and original GOP base, North-Eastern and mountain west fiscal conservatives. These people were pro-business, well educated, and very reasonable on foreign policy. But when social conservatives became prominent in the party, they turned the party against their original base on social issues and foreign policy. Notice how support for Republicans immediately drops off in the 1996 elections, and then flat lines. The fact that Obama won every north eastern state by ~10% or more is no fluke.

The party has a dilemma, either buck social conservatives and risk losing the south, while becoming competitive everywhere else in the country and possibly solidifying the mountain west, or keep the social conservative base, but be geographically locked out of the northeast, pacific west, and, increasingly, the upper mid-west. I personally would buck social conservatives, but that's my opinion.

Simple, soncise, and 100% true.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yes, as Einzige said, social conservatives took over the party and drove out the very large and original GOP base, North-Eastern and mountain west fiscal conservatives. These people were pro-business, well educated, and very reasonable on foreign policy. But when social conservatives became prominent in the party, they turned the party against their original base on social issues and foreign policy. Notice how support for Republicans immediately drops off in the 1996 elections, and then flat lines. The fact that Obama won every north eastern state by ~10% or more is no fluke.

The party has a dilemma, either buck social conservatives and risk losing the south, while becoming competitive everywhere else in the country and possibly solidifying the mountain west, or keep the social conservative base, but be geographically locked out of the northeast, pacific west, and, increasingly, the upper mid-west. I personally would buck social conservatives, but that's my opinion.

Simple, soncise, and 100% true.

Agreed.

That being said, I don't think its such a blunt "choice" for the Party.  Its not like there is some sort of toggle switch at RNC HQ where such a decision would be made.

Social Conservatives need to either recruit a whole lot more people to their causes or understand that they are only effective as a part of a broader coalition.

[Lunar]

As I've said before, Phil reminds me of the Asian girl in Juno.

Juno isn't cool enough of a move to reference more than twice a year.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, go ahead and "buck" social conservatives. Brilliant. As if there aren't social conservatives in the regions you think you'll suddenly pick up. 

I also like how there's this willingness to totally say "Fuck you" to social conservatives just to be competitive (not necessarily win) certain regions. You're ready to throw away a reliable group of voters just to have a chance with another.

Certain people here need to stop preaching about a big tent while, at the same time, calling for the punishment/banishing of those that don't agree with them on social issues.

We win with both economic and social conservatives. We can't be just a populist party and we can't just be a libertarian party.

[Mint]

We can't be just a populist party

Actually as much as I would hate that, I think you can be. An socially conservative/moderate, economically moderate/liberal platform would still play well in the south and better in a lot of the midwest. Just ignoring the issue of entitlements (re: social security; medicare/medicaid) would win you votes with a lot of older Democrats and minorities.

[RI]

Well, the simple truth is that the Republican Party can win again with its current coalition under the right conditions. However, long term, this coalition is shrinking in population, or at least changing in several ways, and, as such, it will eventually result in more defeats than victories.

Or, some new set of issues will come along and the conservatives will once again become dominant. Who knows?

[Citizen James]

In part, unlike economic responsibility and pragmatism (two things the GOP abandoned to pander to both the religious right and engage in cronyism with buddies/donors), the position of social issues is a moving target.

1860's:

Conservative - pro-slavery
Liberal -anti-slavery
Ultra-radical - racial equality.

1960's
Ultra-ultra-reactionary - pro-slavery
Conservative - Jim Crow laws, segregation.
Liberal - equality, or at least desegregation.

2000's
Reactionary - return to segregation/Jim crow laws
Conservative - NIMBY/De facto segregation but not legal segregation.
Moderate/conservative - equality
Liberal - equality for race, gender, and sexual orientation.

What is considered socially liberal at one point often moves into mainstream, and even slips into being comfortably conservative (Though I suppose we do still have a few reactionaries around here who would demonize MLK, I think most modern moderate conservatives respect him - but he was quite controversial back in the day).   What was once the conservative view slips into reactionary territory, and from there into nutcase territory.

Conservatism does have a place in terms of caution - change often has unintended consequences and moderating the rate of change can help society to adjust to those changes as well as sort out the wheat from the chaff.   But when it gets to be too rigid on ideology, stuck to old ideas whose time it is to die, a certain brittleness sets in.

The problem is that this ideological rigidness, which is coupled with a loss of pragmatism, which turns people away in days when there are serious problems that need to be addressed.

If I were to make my own ideological compass, I might consider an axis for pragmatism/idealism.   One of the big reversals over the past half century is the way the parties have shifted on this - in the 60's the Democrats tended to be the idealists, conservatives pragmatists, now most of the Dems in power tend to be pragmatic, which many in the GOP seek to cast out anyone with even a lick of sense in the name of ideological purity.

[Keystone Phil]

We can't be just a populist party

Actually as much as I would hate that, I think you can be.

Well, whatever the case, I don't ever want to be a purely populist party.

[Scam of God]

Yes, as Einzige said, social conservatives took over the party and drove out the very large and original GOP base, North-Eastern and mountain west fiscal conservatives. These people were pro-business, well educated, and very reasonable on foreign policy. But when social conservatives became prominent in the party, they turned the party against their original base on social issues and foreign policy. Notice how support for Republicans immediately drops off in the 1996 elections, and then flat lines. The fact that Obama won every north eastern state by ~10% or more is no fluke.

The party has a dilemma, either buck social conservatives and risk losing the south, while becoming competitive everywhere else in the country and possibly solidifying the mountain west, or keep the social conservative base, but be geographically locked out of the northeast, pacific west, and, increasingly, the upper mid-west. I personally would buck social conservatives, but that's my opinion.

Simple, soncise, and 100% true.

Agreed.

That being said, I don't think its such a blunt "choice" for the Party.  Its not like there is some sort of toggle switch at RNC HQ where such a decision would be made.

Social Conservatives need to either recruit a whole lot more people to their causes or understand that they are only effective as a part of a broader coalition.

No; what needs to happen is that you, and other moderates and libertarian-leaners like you, need to man up and resist the social conservatives. Social conservatism is fundamentally at odds with any love of liberty; you betray your own ideological integrity the longer you tolerate their presence in your Party.

Conservatism and libertarianism are fundamentally at loggerheads; Ronald Reagan was wrong in proclaiming libertarianism the "heart and soul" of conservatism. As per Thomas Wood's introduction to Rothbard's Betrayal of the American Right:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I - and presumably you, though you seem to have long forgotten - belong to a tradition which far predates 'movement' conservatism; our roots are wholly separate from the whining of the South in the 1960s, and are much older and run much deeper than that. There is no more reason for an Old Rightist to be attracted by the mewlings of the anti-abortion activists than for us to have voted for Lyndon Johnson. And the sooner you recollect this distinction, the better.

Of course, it seems that some here, chiefly Mint, are more than happy to cooperate with the theocrats provided it fattens their wallets. I do not believe for one second, however, that a principled libertarian/classical liberal can sacrifice the sociological underpinnings of his belief system for instant gratification and retain any semblance of honesty or character in his political activities.

In short: leave conservatism in the dust, where it belongs.