I was reading a recent article off Reuters called "If McCain loses, what next for Conservatives?"
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49P1SE20081026
The main argument was - as usual - against the social conservatives. "Focusing on social conservatism alienates moderate and mainstream voters and will consign us to 160 House seats in the South and the mid-west," said Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans which stresses social tolerance and fiscal conservatism.
The problem is, I don't believe it. I'm liberal and pro-choice, but I'm old (38). I was in my teens during Reagan and the PTL years and in my 20s when Roe v Wade was at risk due to two court cases, Missouri v. Reproductive Board of Health, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. My mail was dominated by letters from NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood. And my grandmother had PTL on alll day in my childhood. In short, socon = pro-life.
The point is, I believe we are nowhere near the SoCon Dominance of the Republican Party. Under Reagan and Bush 41, socons were part, but never sucessfully pushed for anything. The two abortion cases were actually individual cases dealing with state rights v. federal rights, a very commonplace issue in the courts. Bush 41 did not actively seek the overturn of RvW, unless you count all of his picks on the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas and David Souter).
If only by a stretch can you put W in the socon court - Terry Schiavo and the HHS letter. And to me, both are tepid compared to Bush 41 years. The Schiavo case was bouncing around Florida for at least TEN YEARS. Eventually it was going to be a national case as both Terry's husband and parents refused the courts' decisions. And since the Supreme Court punked out of their responsiblities, Congress and W came in. In retrospect I agree with them; Michael Schiavo was not the dutiful husband the media invented - he had a common-law wife and kids by her while Terry was comatose, and Terry's "humane death" was far from - she was purposely withheld food and water until she physically died. People are sent to prison for treating dogs like that.
The one - and only one - connection between Republicans and Social Conservatives is a letter from HHS director Michael Leavitt supporting W's belief that doctors and medical personnel who do not believe in supporting abortion or abortifacents should lose their jobs. It sounds fair to the average schmoe, but this would also include people who believed that certain forms of birth control (such as IUDs) were abortifacents. This should have been a big toodoo but the press kept it so under the radar that one would have to be a poliblog geek like myself in order to find it. I thought this would be on the covers of Time and Newsweek (was it?)
The real problem of the Republican Party? FiCons. Yeah you heard me. Fiscal Conservatives. Of my 4+ years reading blogs I have come to the conclusion that ficons are the most hard nosed dissatified group of people. For one, ficons always blame the socons for the demise of the Republican Party, when they are no where in power compared to the 80s and 90s. I would be happy to argue that socons never had the power or influence that ficons claim they have. If W is the socon's represenative, they got ripped off. Apart from the Faith Based Initiatives, they don't have much to show for it.
(warning: I'm channelling my Berkeley hippie liberal thing...)
Ficons are also purists. It' s one thing to want a balanced budget, it's another to totally ignore the concerns of citizens and their needs when the market does not provide them or provide them at an affordable costs. Like schools and medicine, ie NCLB and Medicare Part D. The Dems constantly succeed in votes because they tap into the needs and concerns of the people. Yeah it costs. Yeah one gets deficits. But people need things. And Ficons seem to have a fit if you spend one dime over what they think is wrong. I'm not talking about earmarks; I'm talking about programs that Americans want.
Ficons also worship Reagan the way the Dems worship Obama. Ficons forget that Reaganomics was seen just as costly back then as W is now.
So at least for two years, Republicans will get a leave of absence for two years. And for those two years they will be blaming the smallest subset out of the group, the socons. While Ficon's own behavior in the Republican party may still keep it in the wildernes even after 2010.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I read the article too, Rachel. Fairly interesting, but much of it seems to be wishful thinking on the part of its writer.
That's one of the primary problems I have with the MSM, it is overwhelmingly populated by well-bred, half-educated pseudo-elitists, who "simply can't understand why everyone doesn't agree with them."
I say "half-educated," because I KNOW that journalism schools are primarily populated by english, history and humanities majors, most of whom have taken little or no math and don't understand the relationship between math and logic. In short - they can't make an argument, and worse still, they have little patience for any arguments that run counter to their ingrained beliefs.
America remains a Center-Right nation with (and this according to a very generous Newsweek poll) self-proclaimed Conservatives (40%) outnumbering self-proclaimed Liberals (20%) by 2 to 1. I think that's slightly generous to the Liberal side, but I'll accept it as close enough.
You say that Social Conservatism = anti-abortion, but there are a number of issues that define social Conservatism - gun rights, race/gender preferences, Capital Punishment, abortion, illegal immigration, "hate crimes" legislation, etc.
I've looked at the abortion issue and have come to accept an arbitrary compromise. I support first trimester abortion without restriction, as does about 65% of Americans. I oppose (ironically enough, like another 65% of Americans) late term abortion, in my view, because "once a child can survive outside the womb (and infants as young as 21 months have survived as preemies) that self-sustainable life is self-owning and cannot be morally terminated at the "convenience" of another human."
I understand that religious people (who believe "life begins at conception") won't accept that, and if their religious views run counter to that, they SHOULDN'T be asked to.
There are over 50 MILLION members of the so-called "religious Right," who are socially Conservative on varying issues to varying degrees, though probably 90% of more of those people are anti-abortion.
While I disagree with that core principle ("life begins at conception"), I accept that that means that THAT issue will never be politically "satisfied" to such people until such time as the law "ceases to condone what they consider to be infanticide."
On the other issues, Social Conservatives ALWAYS come down on the side of Liberty.
Gun Rights = the natural (innate/inborn) right to self-defense, the violent defense of one's self and/or property. Without that, one is NOT a "self-owning" (free) being.
They oppose "political correctness," as an example; "An Obama image hung in effigy is a "hate crime," a Palin image hung in effigy is not."
The reason that that kind of "political correctness" is wrong and corrosive is that it seeks to restrict expression based on "favored group status," which violates one of America's Founding precepts - "equality before the law."
Likewise, "hate crimes" are, in essence, "thought crimes," as the accused's motives are sought to be as punishable or more so than the action, and that too is wrong because it treats the same crime (ie. assault) differently due to a perceived motivation - again, it violates the basic American concept of "equality before the law."
To most social Illegal Immigration is seen as criminal issue, rather than a human rights issue. They are correct, since there is no "human right" of people to move freely across borders. There are consequences to such movement. In First World nations, like the U.S., many of those consequences are economic and they are overwhelmingly negative - illegal immigrant migrant labor lowers the wage floor and the social costs (education, criminal justice, social welfare costs) far outweigh any benefits of the "cheap labor" offered. Actually the social costs are conservatively estimated at $19,000 per U.S. citizen over the course of their lives.
Social Conservatives overwhelmingly oppose race/gender preferences because (1) they violate the concepts of “equality before the law” and “equality of opportunity” (that all be judged by the same standards) and (2) they elevate incompetence over merit by rewarding preferences based on “disparate impact” – more of one group fails an exam than those of another.
If the proponents of race/gender preferences hadn’t wanted to stigmatize the recipients of those preferences, while surrendering the moral high ground on the topic, they probably SHOULD’VE championed proportionalism – the view that no group should be more or less represented in a given area or field than in their numbers in society. That would’ve, in effect, removed the stigma of preference by merely stigmatizing the entire process.
I’m actually glad they didn’t do that, as it would’ve been far more difficult to fight the pernicious and liberty-eroding effects of that kind of process.
The ONLY issue on which Social Conservatives don’t base their position solely on individual Liberty is on Capital Punishment.
People can argue that they feel “all life is sacred” (IF they accept that that would probably HAVE to include all prenatal life), but it’s clear that America’s Founders did not agree, as they had at least thirteen crimes in which the death penalty could be applied. Moreover, some of the most heinous crimes cry out for such an ultimate punishment and that is generally how it is applied today.
As far as fiscal Conservatism goes, “ficons,” as you call them, is NOT Reaganomics/Supply Side economics.
You COULD BE, at least theoretically, a fiscally Conservative socialist by merely advocating a large welfare state without deficit spending to fund it.
The thing I don’t get, is why so many people have trouble understanding why tax cuts tend to INCREASE tax revenues.
That doesn’t seem at all counter-intuitive to me, but then again, I’ve taken a fair share of math in my time.
When the Gingrich Congress forced the Capital gains tax reduced from 28% down to 20% the revenues from that tax INCREASED and when that rate was further reduced to 15% the revenues from that tax INCREASED again!
Same with the income tax – revenues from the income tax tend to INCREASE as the rates of that tax are reduced, down to approximately the 20% level. THAT should be even easier to understand. Since the top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of the income taxes, it stands to reason that higher income tax rates just incentivize savings (in the form of deferring more of one’s income).
When income tax rates rise, more higher income earners tend to defer more of their income tax deferred to avoid the larger tax bite – it’s just common sense. When the group which pays 70% of the income earners defer more of their incomes, those tax revenues can’t be made up by those who pay the other 30% and that’s why income tax revenues decrease when rates go up.
Look at “Ireland’s economic miracle.” In 1990 Ireland was an economic basket-case. Among other things, Ireland had the world’s highest corporate tax in the world at 42%. The corporate tax is really just a stealth consumption tax, as the corporate tax is ultimately “just another cost of doing business, to be passed on to the consumer.”
When Ireland slashed its corporate tax down to 12%, it literally became an economic powerhouse (attracting businesses to that country and making goods and services cheaper for the citizenry) overnight.
As I recently showed, when you compare Misery Indexes around the globe, the most free market (which really means “the most LIGHTLY regulated) economy, is almost certainly Hong Kong’s, while the most Keynesian (“the most highly regulated”) economy is probably Venezuela.
While Hong Kong has a Misery Index of 6.0, Venezuela has a MI of 27.2!
It should also be noted that America’s lowest Misery Index in over 40 years was 1998’s 6.05, forged by the Gingrich Congress having forced significant federal spending cuts and a reduction of the Capital Gains rate from 28% down to 20%.
While I believe that people can have valid differences of opinions on many of the social issues, I think there’s really no case to be made against fiscal conservatism , nor in favor of Keynesianism (“more government social spending can be good for the economy”).
While Hong Kong has a Misery Index of 6.0, Venezuela has a MI of 27.2!
ouch!
The thing about ficons is that they are needed!! They are like the spouse who's responsible for the budget for the family; they have to look at the savings/debt ratio at the end of the month.
But having them condemn Socons is like condemning the children for using their allowance to buy ice cream rather than the spouse that just HAD to buy that new dress/golf clubs, and anything else.
That's why on Stubborn Facts, I suggested that if O wins, now would be the perfect time for all the conservative representatives to come together and create a New Contract for America.
I agree, but the GOP OR Conservative Democrats need a new Gingrich – a transformative figure, with a clear vision and the salesmanship needed to move those ideas forward.
After Gingrich, the DeLay and Hastert Congresses abandoned Gingrich’s smaller government policies and became, just another set of pigs at the trough.
Here’s the problem, to put it simply, “When all you have is a hammer, EVERYTHING begins to look like a nail.”
That’s why government’s inertia ALWAYS is in the direction of MORE government, MORE programs, MORE studies and MORE regulation and intervention – government officials (both elected and career Civil Servants) tend to see government as the “right tool for every problem.”
Which is probably why figures like Gingrich and Reagan are so rare.
We DO need a new contract with America, BUT I think we’re going to have to make the egregious mistake of Carter-styled big government first.
While I have grave doubts as to Barack Obama’s vision and judgment, I have no doubt that he is an effective communicator for some very wrong-headed ideas – that government is the solution to all, or at least MOST problems.
Post a Comment