Why the GOP is "perceived" to be out of touch

[courts]

Of course the rich northeastern protestants learned their lesson and repackaged themselves as
"conservatives" while basically keeping their core views. Case in point: the entire Bush family.

[TJ in Oregon]

Getting back to the actual topic, I'm getting sick of hearing certain people whine about social conservatives. Yes, the economy is issue number one, yes the deficit and debt are important. However, if you truly believe that abortion is the killing of a child, then by all means, why wouldn't it be an important issue? If it's killing, and I believe it is, then why should I remain silent about it? Hmmmm??....

That issue doesn't really correlate as much as you'd think with other attitudes, particularly with our generation.

Ghost_white is absolutely correct: our generation has moved significantly to the left on many social issues, but not abortion. We aren't much different than past generations on abortion.

[TJ in Oregon]

http://www.publicreligion.org/objects/uploads/62/Millennials_Abortion_and_Religion_Survey_Report.pdf

Here is a poll that discusses the relationship between age, religion, abortion, and same sex marriage. You'll notice that the age breakdown of abortion and gay marriage are totally different. Oddly enough, while the overall support for abortion is not a function of age (except for the elderly), Millenials are a bit less likely to hold the view that abortion is morally wrong but should remain legal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course they're out of touch, but so is Obama.

[J. J.]

An overreliance on social issues combined with a willingness to push for tax cuts for the super rich.

They're not just willing to give the super rich tax cuts. That's their entire raison d'etre.

Well, some just said it would a good idea, and you complained about it.

Seriously, it is because everyone flocks together.  Liberals and conservatives don't really want to hear new ideas; the only want echo chambers.

Of course they're out of touch, but so is Obama.

Probably, we don't mean the same things, but I think there is an element of truth in it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Seriously, it is because everyone flocks together.  Liberals and conservatives don't really want to hear new ideas; the only want echo chambers.

While this is true in general, it's not the Democratic Party that has been purging its ranks of moderates.

[specific_name]

Getting back to the actual topic, I'm getting sick of hearing certain people whine about social conservatives. Yes, the economy is issue number one, yes the deficit and debt are important. However, if you truly believe that abortion is the killing of a child, then by all means, why wouldn't it be an important issue? If it's killing, and I believe it is, then why should I remain silent about it? Hmmmm??....

It makes perfect sense to attack them, because they are wrong and distracting from the real issues which are almost entirely economic. Unless you want to fall into the abyss of relativism, and I sure as hell don't, I will challenge my opponents and not simply leave them content to believe what they believe (what you are advocating here).

You may perceive it as an unfair attack on your privately held belief, but let's face it all these social beliefs no matter how private or individual have some impact on how we deal with each other in the larger sense. So yes people will continue to whine about the distraction that social cons present and they're right in doing so.

[Dereich]

Seriously, it is because everyone flocks together.  Liberals and conservatives don't really want to hear new ideas; the only want echo chambers.

While this is true in general, it's not the Democratic Party that has been purging its ranks of moderates.

They don't need to. The Republicans have been purging their moderates, especially in the south, for them.

[J. J.]

Seriously, it is because everyone flocks together.  Liberals and conservatives don't really want to hear new ideas; the only want echo chambers.

While this is true in general, it's not the Democratic Party that has been purging its ranks of moderates.

They don't need to. The Republicans have been purging their moderates, especially in the south, for them.

This is true, but we have seen this on Democratic side.  Joe Lieberman, the talk of primaring Evan Bayh.  We're seeing "liberal litmus tests."  Bush chose as his Secretary of State someone who was noted to be pro choice.  How many pro lifers are there in the Obama cabinet?  Any?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Seriously, it is because everyone flocks together.  Liberals and conservatives don't really want to hear new ideas; the only want echo chambers.

While this is true in general, it's not the Democratic Party that has been purging its ranks of moderates.

They don't need to. The Republicans have been purging their moderates, especially in the south, for them.

This is true, but we have seen this on Democratic side.  Joe Lieberman, the talk of primaring Evan Bayh.  We're seeing "liberal litmus tests."  Bush chose as his Secretary of State someone who was noted to be pro choice.  How many pro lifers are there in the Obama cabinet?  Any?

Gates is a Republican. Geithner is no liberal. Obama appointed Huntsman.

[izixs]

On the left the 'purging' has been to rid us of folks that pretend they're in some imaginary third party called 'centrist' that's more about moving to what ever center the Republican party says there is. Which is one of the reasons the dialogue gets shifted so hard right in this country these days despite most folks wanting something different. Lieberman and company were and are intending on following the Republicans off to the right so they can claim to be moderates when in the end they were becoming nothing of the sort.

As for the actual topic, the answer is painfully simple. When the number one priority is jobs to the American people and you have a party talking tax cuts for the rich which no one who is out of work is buying as a solution, then you have a party that looks more interested in helping their friends then working on the actual problem. And the more you move into social issues the problem just gets worse. Instead of looking to solve problems that people want solved they're trying to do things that people are at worse ambivalent about but for which there is only strong passion about in a small segment of society. And that segment of society is outnumbered by the people who want a better economy. So it starts to look kind of ridiculous.

"Help us out!"
"Ok, tax cuts!"
"Uh... I don't have a job, that doesn't work for me."
"Tax cuts and people will hire you!"
"Yeah, tax cuts for the corporations who defrauded everyone."
"Corporations are people!"
"What? Are you insane?"
"Next topic, ban science!"
"What? What about real solutions to fix the economy?"

[Reaper]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

The point is that the country is moving towards becoming more accepting of gay marriage, especially the younger (18-34) generation.  A 17 point uptick to 70% since last year.  According to gallup and several other polling agencies since 1996 the support for gay marriage has gone from ~27% to 54% this year.  The fact that the GOP has been taken over by religious zealots that placate that their fundamentalist base AS the country as a whole is becoming less religious and more socially liberal, suggests that today's GOP is out of touch and simply the last strings of extremism.  These strings will either tear in the 2016 election or the GOP has no chance of having another president in office.

An overreliance on social issues combined with a willingness to push for tax cuts for the super rich.

^ This

[Lief 🗽]

Of course the party that only cares about the well-being of the top 1% is going to be out of touch with the other 99%. If anything, the fact that the party also has a bunch of theocrats and economic cranks/conspiracy theorists (Ron Paul), masks this "out of touchness", as those two groups surely comprise a good 20-40% of the U.S. population.

[specific_name]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

[Gustaf]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

The kind of people who want to work in media tend not to be right-wing. At least I think that would be the main explanation.

[CJK]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

Only a typical out of touch coastal wannabe radical would make this "argument". I guess you think anything short of Castro's Cuba is basically "rightwing" but almost nobody would agree with that.

[tpfkaw]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

The media is left-wing and the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known became the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known due to left-wing policies.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

Only a typical out of touch coastal wannabe radical would make this "argument". I guess you think anything short of Castro's Cuba is basically "rightwing" but almost nobody would agree with that.

Nope. MSNBC has a liberal bias, but it's a flimsy one and really more based on sensationalism, because Palin stories get ratings and therefore money. FOX is not only right-wing and creating useless stories (like that Common thing) in order to try and bring down the president, but is the largest and most influential. Obama would have won an extra 2 or 3 states if not for their propaganda and Rove's blatant lies to get Democrats out of the voting booth (remember recently when the Wisconsin GOP sent absentee ballots with instructions to send them back after election day?)

[CJK]

Getting back to the actual topic, I'm getting sick of hearing certain people whine about social conservatives. Yes, the economy is issue number one, yes the deficit and debt are important. However, if you truly believe that abortion is the killing of a child, then by all means, why wouldn't it be an important issue? If it's killing, and I believe it is, then why should I remain silent about it? Hmmmm??....

It makes perfect sense to attack them, because they are wrong and distracting from the real issues which are almost entirely economic. Unless you want to fall into the abyss of relativism, and I sure as hell don't, I will challenge my opponents and not simply leave them content to believe what they believe (what you are advocating here).

You may perceive it as an unfair attack on your privately held belief, but let's face it all these social beliefs no matter how private or individual have some impact on how we deal with each other in the larger sense. So yes people will continue to whine about the distraction that social cons present and they're right in doing so.

Why are the "real issues" only economic? Leftists want to push a homosexual agenda on the country that would discard basic values held for literally thousands of years. The irony for the left here is that they push hard on these social issues while saying in the same breath that it really isn't important and the right should just shut up. Why do they push so hard on something that supposedly isn't important?

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd like to point out that the Democratic controlled Congress spent most of last December debating the Repeal of DADT (and the START Treaty) rather then passing a budget. Clearly, homosexual rights is just as important an issue to the left as it is to the right.

Most of the push on this issue right now is by the left. Efforts have been to grant legal recognition to relationships currently not recognized and very little if anything has been done to remove sexual freedoms already guarenteed. The status quo here is the conservative  position and to ask for anything else does require a touch of activism.

According to Wikipedia: Activism is "intentional efforts to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change".

[afleitch]

I'd like to point out that the Democratic controlled Congress spent most of last December debating the Repeal of DADT (and the START Treaty) rather then passing a budget. Clearly, homosexual rights is just as important an issue to the left as it is to the right.

I would have thought that DADT and START were military/defence issues, no?

[Bull Moose Base]

I think this is backwards.  I think the current perception of the GOP is less out of touch than extremist and it's primarily because of economic issues.  And I think Perry's presidential campaign will surely be focused on economic issues in the long run (if it is a long run), though it may mix in more social issues to try to secure wins in Iowa and South Carolina.

[courts]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

Only a typical out of touch coastal wannabe radical would make this "argument". I guess you think anything short of Castro's Cuba is basically "rightwing" but almost nobody would agree with that.

Nope. MSNBC has a liberal bias, but it's a flimsy one and really more based on sensationalism, because Palin stories get ratings and therefore money. FOX is not only right-wing and creating useless stories (like that Common thing) in order to try and bring down the president, but is the largest and most influential. Obama would have won an extra 2 or 3 states if not for their propaganda and Rove's blatant lies to get Democrats out of the voting booth (remember recently when the Wisconsin GOP sent absentee ballots with instructions to send them back after election day?)

GE got stimulus and government contracts in Iraq so it's understandable MSNBC would have certain biases. Take of that what you will.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd like to point out that the Democratic controlled Congress spent most of last December debating the Repeal of DADT (and the START Treaty) rather then passing a budget. Clearly, homosexual rights is just as important an issue to the left as it is to the right.

I would have thought that DADT and START were military/defence issues, no?

START was (it was also still a pointless waste of time in my opinion but that's neither here nor there). I just mentioned that because they spent a lot of time on it as well. You could call DADT a defense issue, but it is a defense issue about LGBT issues.

[TheGlobalizer]

Because "they are."