Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
What happened between "Permanent Republican Majority" and now.
By birdmojo Posted in Miscellanea — Comments (146) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There's been a spate of diaries recently that talk about doom/gloom, etc. (For the record, I was pretty much in agreement with this assessment until the California ruling a couple of days ago.)
I'd like to point out that it wasn't so long ago that folks were talking about a Permanent Republican Majority.
And so I'm wondering... what happened?
Exactly what happened between then and now that changed "We'll be riding high forever!" into "there will be a permanent Democratic majority"?
Well... I'm one of those Libertarian nutballs so I'm sure that my viewpoint is probably skewed. But I'll look at various viewpoints that I've seen (mostly paraphrased from various posts on this website) and explore what could have been done differently.
What sticks out most in my mind was a post by... I wanna say Alexham... on the night of the Iowa Caucus. It was celebrating Huckabee's victory in Iowa and the content was something to the effect of "Hurray! Now the Republican Party knows that they have to treat Social Conservatives with respect!" Moreover, there were a handful of people who responded with something to the effect of "Amen!"
Well, at the time, my head darn-near exploded. I wanted to start yelling at the monitor "WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!! THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS GIVEN YOU NOTHING BUT FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS!!!!"
But... after my blood went down... I said to myself, "Jaybird. You totally need to take a deep breath." I got a degree in philosophy, you see. One of the things I was trained in was in understanding that there are many different perspectives for any particular issue and to automatically assume that your opponent is bad/venial/crazy is, at its very best, lazy. At worst, it's bad/venial.
So I sat down and thought... what in the world could inspire someone to post such a thing given the last 8 years?
So I went to the Waffle House and sat down with a strawberry waffle after putting a buck in the jukebox and thought about it.
The main thing that struck me as a plausible explanation was that the Social Conservatives were dissatisfied. They were still thirsty... and with that insight, I looked at it through what I figured their eyes were. Abortion was still going on. Gay marriage had been shut down in various states, but it was still going on in Massachusetts. We were no closer to an FMA. We were no closer to an HLA. At best... a person could say that Bush had held the line. No progress had been made... but Bush held the line.
That post sticks in my head as part of what probably went wrong between "Permanent Republican Majority" and now.
Another typical post has been written by more than one person on this site.
Someone posts something critical about this senator or that one, about this congressman or that one, about this spending bill that Bush signed or that one... and the response comes: The Only Thing That Matters Is The War On Terror.
More than one person posted something with this fundamental message... and it was a good response to people complaining about fiscal issues or social issues. "Hey, I'm married, I have a child, my parents fly a lot, The Only Thing That Matters..."
Quite frankly, I found this unpersuasive. I mean, my mom is one of those sweet old ladies you've seen a million times. Pleasantly plump in such a way that you know that she knows how to cook. Quick to smile. A Kentucky twang... and yet my mother always seems to be pulled aside to have her bags tossed at the airport. Once upon a time, I accepted the argument that they had to pull aside a pleasant old lady at security so that when they pulled Ahmed aside and he started screaming "RACISM!!!" they could point to my mom and say "hey, we pulled that lady aside too. Please emotionally prepare yourself for a body cavity search." But my mom gets pulled aside and Ahmed doesn't.
This got pulled from not only Afghanistan (which, let's face it, 95% of the country actively supported) but to Iraq as well (which... well, let's not talk about Iraq).
Perhaps this, by itself, wouldn't be such a big deal... but this statement has been offered in response to the complaints given by folks complaining about such things as the budget, earmarks, and other things that fiscal conservatives are prone to complain about ad nauseum.
Noticing these two categories of post, I've come to the conclusion that this present crisis (namely, that there are serious discussions regarding the permanent democratic majority) could have been avoided with a small tweaking on the part of the Republican Leadership.
Keep the stance on Social Issues... but change the framing. Communicate that "We are holding the line. The democrats want to change where the line stands... BUT WE WILL HOLD THE LINE!!!"
This has the added benefit of pretty much forcing the new nominee's hand. Will he hold the line? Just ask the question. "Will you hold the line?"
This will keep the Social Conservative leg of the stool happy.
Regarding the Hawkish Conservative leg of the stool, the thing that strikes me primarily is a fundamental willingness to defend various silly things so long as the War on Terror is being fought effectively.
Which brings us (finally) to what happened between "Permanent Republican Majority" and now.
As you may be able to tell from the above insights... the Social Conservatives would not have been actively pleased with anything short of an overturning of Roe v. Wade. The Hawks, on the other hand, would have been pleased with more or less anything else that went on so long as the War On Terror was being actively waged on anything approaching a Jacksonian level.
I've suggested a minor tweak that could have been done on behalf of the Social Conservatives before. I've noted that the Hawks had their main issue pretty much covered... and yet, we're still wondering how we got here.
And we come to the issues of the Fiscally Conservative. Ah, the poor fiscal conservatives. What with the steel tariffs, the Farm Bills, the earmarks, the bridges to nowhere, the drug benefits, the no children left behind... well, it's enough for them to say "you know what, I think that if someone says 'The Democrats would be worse!' to me, I'm going to not believe them."
Which, I believe, is much of what happened in the past few years.
I've gotta say, I used to think that Bush did nothing but pander to the Social Conservatives... until I put myself in their shoes and I saw that, no, at best all he did was hold the line.
Then, I thought about the Hawks and came to the conclusion that, maybe, they'd be just as happy if we had pulled out of Iraq on the day of the whole "Mission Accomplished" banner thing that those people completely not associated with the administration put up... and left a note on Saddam's old throne that said "hey, next guy who sits here? Don't make us think it's worth the effort.", but, even so, they were happy enough as it was. Hey. The Democrats would be even worse.
But the Fiscal Conservatives were betrayed, betrayed, and betrayed again. When they raised objections, they were greeted with two basic responses. The Social Conservatives said something to the effect of "we're not happy either" (which confused the heck out of the fiscal conservatives, I reckon... it sure confused the heck out of me) or "the only thing that matters is the war on terror" (which, let's face it, is an argument that has diminishing returns).
An aggravating factor for why the Fiscally-minded wandered off the reservation is that doing so was *NOT* personal. It was business. Gridlock? Well, that's good for business. Well, better than a government that can't stop meddling and adding new and interesting laws, anyway. Certainly better than one that responds to stories of Reagan vetoing a highway bill because it had 150 earmarks by being told "it's a different time now, do you really think a President would want to have every budget bill he vetoes overturned by the House and Senate?"
And now... we're in a situation where there are diaries titled, of all things, "Marx Was Right" because they look to a dang-near permanent Democratic Majority.
We're in a situation where Fiscal Conservatives agree with Ralph Nader's statement that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties.
Now, as a Libertarian nutball, I look at the two parties and I see two parties who take a great, yet equal, interest in telling me how I ought to live my life. Perhaps they focus on different aspects... but both parties assert that they have the power to intrude.
And the arguments that worked so well way back when are failing in their ability to persuade anymore.
The Hawkish argument results in a person thinking about how, whenever they fly, they're dealing with TSA agents who know that you know that they know that you aren't a terrorist... and yet you're asked to toss your toothpaste anyway. Into a trashcan. Filled with the potential binary explosives tossed by others.
Any major step taken that one would think would be seen as a major victory by the Socially Conservative (e.g., the veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research) is framed as not a victory for the SoCons but as something that should thrill the FisCons (who are, instead, thinking "it took you five years to veto a bill and *THIS* was what inspired you to take it out of the inkwell???).
And, yes. I suppose we could argue about how the Fiscally Conservative need to have different, and better, priorities...
But they don't. And we're now discussing, seriously, the possibility of a Permanent Democratic Majority.
And why? Because, when the Republicans had a Permanent Republican Majority, they treated a significant portion of their base poorly.
Hosea 8:7.
Now. How can this be mitigated, if not reversed?
Well, you need to shore up with the SoCons. "We'll hold the line!" Shore up with the Hawks as well. "We'll hold the line!" works well here too.
Which brings us to the FisCons. There must be an effort made to reach out to the FisCons once again. Seriously, a reaching out. Not a "do you seriously think the Democrats hate you less than we do?" phrased question, but a legitimate apology for having treated one's benefactors poorly. A serious discussion of what happened and what was wrong. Acknowledgement that there were a handful of issues with Social Conservatives who happened, in their personal lives, to be using politics as personal therapy rather than as a way to make those of us who were willing to work for it better off.
Heck, something as simple as "Acknowledgement that such things as Frist's bill against gaming *DID* look like he was in the pocket of Abramoff rather than how he was trying to protect The Children" would be a good start.
Without a serious effort in this vein, gridlock (or the wilderness) will seem a preferable outcome to the third leg of the Republican stool.
Now keep in mind that I am one of those Libertarian nutballs who does not have a horse in this race and, as such, all of the above ought to be taken with as much salt (or wine) as you think appropriate.
But I've been thinking about how we turned from "Permanent Republican Majority" to "MARX WAS RIGHT!" and the above is what I came up with.
Tom Petty - Walls (live)
by St. Louis Conservative
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I probably played "Brothers In Arms" by Dire Straits, "Human Nature" by Michael Jackson, and "Rocky Mountain High" by John Denver.
Whenever I see those songs on a jukebox, they end up getting played.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Not bad for one waffle. I
by Flagstaff
Not bad for one waffle. I don't care what anybody else says, you're not a crazy nutball.
Whether your details are right or not, you make a good case that it's the fiscal conservatives who have the most reason to feel abandoned.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
Not exactly the point I was
by birdmojo
Not exactly the point I was going for.
If anything, I was pointing out that pretty much each group has reason to feel lukewarm even as they think that the other legs of the stool should be happier about their lot.
Strangely enough, I'm kinda reminded of Clinton's last days when he pardoned Marc Rich.
I had hardcore (HARDCORE!) Democratic friends who just... well, gave up when they saw that. They stopped defending the guy. Folks who fought tooth and nail against Republicans during the impeachment trials and whitewater and "Ron Brown Was Assassinated!" and absolutely everything... well, when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, they just looked at the last 8 years and saw what was really accomplished.
An Assault Weapons Ban that was going to sunset.
Two Supreme Court Seats.
And that's it.
This is true for the hardcore NOW Pro-Choicers who supported Clinton to the "We Need To Be More Like Switzerland" Socialist Dems.
I'm wondering what Bush's "Marc Rich pardon" will be, actually.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I guess I misread your
by Flagstaff
I guess I misread your emphasis. Either way, there isn't much to argue with. It just seemed to me that if "the line was held" in the other instances, it certainly wasn't held for FisCons. But in reality, the support for all three legs was lukewarm, which did result in lukewarm support.
I don't think you meant to wonder about pardons, literally, but I do hope that Bush pardons Ramos and Campeon, and Libby completely. Seems to me that there's a third Border Patrol agent who also deserves a pardon, too.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
Nice job
by johnCV
I think you covered the bases well. I would also add that Arrogance has a role to play. The stunning and visceral arogance of dismaissal of we 'subjects' (from both parties) is palpable from DC. The difference between the D's and R's is that their gang tend towards marxism (which is acceptable to libs) and our gang has tended towards socialism (which most definately is not acceptable to conservatives or libertarians).
While GWB initiated the New Tone out of an honest desire to bring a level of civility back to DC, it was used as cover by the squishes (who need to be stroked by the DriveBy's as one of the 'Good Guys') to bash the core of their own party (maverick is the term of endearment). Many R's view this as a betrayal of those who sent them there. The face of the party has become that of Specter, Mccain, Snowe, Warner, Blunt, Cole and Graham. These are the types of politicians that appeal to Moderates and Swing Voters but are repellant to conservatives. They elicit no loyalty from the party base, nor do they inspire activism which is necessary for victory. In reality, theie actions suppress the activist spirit.
Until we again get leadership that actually belives in, articulates and acts upon in the principles of Conservatism (all three legs), the R's will have a rough go of it.
What happened? Two words
by jackbenimble
Two words: compassionate conservatism
Two more words: George Bush
TANSTAAFL
by birdmojo
Once upon a time, Republicans knew this.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Hang on there
by Ezekiel
It wasn't compassionate conservatism that lost us ground and it wasn't W the man. GWB has been excellent, IMHO even better than Reagan. GWB put two conservatives on the SCOTUS--Ronald Wilson Reagan didn't even do that. For SoCons like me it's all about judges.
Iraq lost us ground. While I understand the reasons and support our troops and President, too few of us do, even within the party. That is the reason, not compassionate conservatism.
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
Pull your head out into the fresh air.
by mbecker908
What part of NCLB, not vetoing CFR, immigration "reform", not vetoing even ONE spending bill in his first term, providing absolutely no leadership to the party, Medicare prescription drugs, and NewTone™ don't you get.
Bush will be remembered for four things:
1. The outcome of Iraq, over which he has yielded all control a long time ago.
2. Not standing up to the Democrats when they demonized him, the Republican Party and our military.
3. Unchecked spending.
4. The destruction of the Republican majorities through no leadership.
And, the problems we are having related to Iraq, can be layed in large measure to Compassionate Conservatism - NewTone™ and all.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Left out a few
by SteveLA
mbecker
You left out a few things on that list El Jefe Bush will be remembered in History for.
Katrina and "Brownie"
The hunt for the missing WMD's
The failed hunt for Osama
Sadly I voted for the man twice, I would not vote for him now and if anyone other than "Magic Hat" Kerry had been running against him, I probably would have only voted for him once.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
It's Pres. Bush not El Jefe Bush, SteveLA
by pilgrim
You and mbecker908 have also left out that Pres. Bush nominated John Roberts to Chief Justice and Sam Alito to Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. It's probably more fun for some people to bash our President, and that's just the way it is.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
You're right.
by mbecker908
I normally give him credit for two things:
1. Roberts and Alito. (And thank God he got the message on HM)
2. The War. It was/is the right thing to do. His conduct of it, especially his refusal to make the case and fight the Democrats is inexcusable.
Bottom line, if Iraq turns out well, he'll likely be remembered in the top quarter of Presidents. If it doesn't, he'll be right in there with Jimmy Carter.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Agreed and I'll add one.
by Ezekiel
My family has benefited greatly from the Bush tax cuts. We are firmly middle class, btw, and not wealthy, which the media claim were the only ones whom the tax cuts helped.
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
You have a point
by Nick Haynes
It just would have been nice if, instead of roll over to the pandering Congress who has to buy their districts, he had grown a pair and said, "Here's the line. You'll have to push your way over it."
We all know McCain initially opposed the tax cuts due to "unfairness", but his covering his trail was actually correct-it's kind of hard to go for tax cuts 24-7 if there are no spending cuts as well.
In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead. (Rule #11 of the public policy process)
The key phrase here
by SteveLA
pilgram
The key phrase here, "Remembered by History".
President Bush will not be remembered for the good he did with the two Supreme Court appointments, probably tainted to some extent by Harriet Meyers miss-steps, no it will be the other things.
Unless you have some special supper duper power to effect History, the failures of a Presidency are what is remembered, not the successes. I don't know how you spin the list above as anything but abject failures in one form or the other.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
History won't be kind
by Ezekiel
Sadly, history won't be kind to GWB. Mostly because of the liberal hacks who write the history books. Schoolkids will someday learn about the two Bush presidencies that featured wars in Iraq and poor economies--and that they bookended an impeached president.
But our kids and grandkids will take their freedom and their rights for granted--due in part to an unpopular but right war and two constructionists on the Supreme Court. I will remember GWB fondly, but historians won't.
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
History likely won't be kind
by mbecker908
to GWB simply because he was, at best, a very mediocre President.
Like his dad, he had real issues with "the vision thing". He provided absolutely no leadership or direction to the Republican Party, which is one of the major reasons we,ve got the problems in the Congress that we've got today.
To exapand on two points, I don't give him much credit for the tax cuts, because he allowed them to be sunsetted. With respect to judges, he gets credit for R&A - begrudgingly because of Hm - but that is offset greatly because he would not fight for his lower court judicial nominees, see Estrada, etal. That was simply shameful.
Overall, I'll be very glad to see GWB ride off into the sunset. I won't be happy with his replacement, however.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
5*5*5*5*5*5*5*5nt
by aceintx
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Agreed on every point and I will even add
by ZootSuit
It was because Bush was unwilling to fight for his lower court nominees that we got the "Gang of 14" deal. I distinctly remember the Bush Administration saying that it's filibustered lower court nominess were a "Senatorial issue" and that they would not get involved.
I will even say that, unlike most people here, I think the "Gang of 14" deal was a good thing for Republicans. Not only was it doubtful that there were the votes to beat the filibuster, the deal did get very good nominees such as Janice Rogers Brown confirmed. Indeed, I also remember the daily Kos crowd sreaming "betrayal" and doom and goom that the conservatives were going to take over the Judiciary as a result of the deal. The problem was that Bill Frist proved absolutely gutless and would not push for the confirmation of other nominees after the deal was made.
But despite Frist's gutlessness, and despite the fact that I think that the "Gang of 14" deal was in the best interest of conservatives at the time, I still ultimately blame Bush for not being willing to fight for his nominees.
*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!
named Hussein form Iraq. I just hope McCain can make sure the current Hussein threat never gains power.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Where are those, by the way? n/t
by SteveLA
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
And one of them wouldn't
by sturner
And one of them wouldn't have been nominated if the conservatives in this country hadn't jump with outrage at the Harriet Miers nomination.
It tells me that if the base had complained about, say, horrid fiscal decisions with one voice... maybe stuff might have been different.
Then again... if my aunt had basketballs, she could play basketball.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
or you uncle...LOL
by aceintx
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
re: Left out a few
by Vuk
You left out a few things on that list El Jefe Bush will be remembered in History for.
And now we'll be able to add "Vetoed the new GI Bill". I really hope McCain thinks it over carefully before supporting the veto.
It wasn't compassionate conservatism that lost us ground and it wasn't W the man. GWB has been excellent, IMHO even better than Reagan. GWB put two conservatives on the SCOTUS--Ronald Wilson Reagan didn't even do that. For SoCons like me it's all about judges.
That wasn't what "compassionate conservatism" meant.
You think it meant "Conservatives who support Christian values." That was a different concept--"faith-based conservatism."
What "compassionate conservatism" really meant was "Conservatives who are comfortable with Big Government social engineering."
"Compassionate conservatism" is a euphemism for "Big Government Conservatism"--the kind of progressivism that we used to get from Teddy Roosevelt, not Ronald Reagan.
"Compassionate conservatism" was the antithesis of libertarianism.
55
by Doc Holliday
It was a rejection of Reagan Goldwater, it was/is a "conservative" sect that came out of some Evangelic churches. It was FDR meets GOD.
Go see the Department of Education, and the eyesore fake old style school house entrances they have. That probably cost a cool million or our money.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Hold on...I was around when Compassionate Conservatism started being pushed by the Kemps, Doles, Bushes, Bakers etc. It's cheif spokesman at the time was none other than Adrianna Huffington when she was play acting at being a Republican on CNN's Crossfire. It wasn't and never has been a major part of the evangelical Republican wing!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
You're partially correct
by ZootSuit
I don't think it's fair to say that "compassionate conservatism" was started by the Religious Right or evangelical Christians, but they have bought into it more than anyone else. Far more.
Case in point is Mike Huckabee. I do not doubt his commitment to the pro-life cause and the Second Amendment but aside from that, when you look at his campaign rhetoric and his record as governor of Arkansas, he was and is -- and Fred Thompson said -- a liberal. Yet, he is still the "hero" of many (though definitely not all) conservative Christians.
There was even a recent book by a former Bush (43) Administration official who is a noteworthy in the Christian conservative movement who argued that conservatives should embrace big government as the solution to societal ills. Moreover, he was making the explicit argument that that was what "compassionate conservatism" is and should be. Sorry but that's neither conservative nor compassionate in my book.
Unfortunately, I do not remember the author or his book and I am not at home or where I can look it up. But I believe the National Review wrote a rather scathing (and, IMHO< accurate) review of the book when it was released a few years ago.
*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!
I'm familiar with the book....
by aceintx
I'm familiar with the book, and like you, I don't remember the title or author...for what it's worth, as a rock ribbed SoCon, I think it's garbage. I also acknowledge that there are some evangelicals....particularly in the leadership we have in the evangelical community that have bought into the idea of expanding government to accomplish SoCon ends...but it's part of a larger movement to use expanded government to accomplish Conservative ends in general. There are factions from all legs of the stool in that movement and they are all wrong.
Compassionate Conservatism is not a movement that is exclusively a SoCon movement...it never has been...the K street project was a part of it and it represented the Gaming industry and many other big government initiatives that lights fires in SoCon Pants....at least mine!
As for Huckabee...I'm sorry to say, I supported him in the primaries as the lesser of 8 or 7 evils in my eye!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
there is some truth to that
by Doc Holliday
but be careful not to confuse moderate Republicans with Compassionate Conservatives. Bush made the term famous, he ran on the term and theory. Bush was the put forth by Evangelists. Heck, their is now a growing green movement among many Evangelicals.
I am not talking about Evangelicas or fundamentalists in general, I am talking about a significant part of our base that thinks government should do their will, not just get out of the way.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I wouldn't say Moderates are all "Compassionate Conservatives but I would classify all Compassionate Conservatives as Moderates...
It sounds silly but there is a difference!
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Bush put two conservatives on the Court AFTER the revolt from the base...I've NEVER been so mad as I was when W put up Miers.
It was GWB's Compassionate conservatism that gave us the prescription drug bill, no child left behind and the rest of the rot that's ruined the brand.
I's not all W's fault, I agree with you there....but he's not blameless and he's no Reagan. Reagan didn't have 7 years of Republican Congresses and accomplished more for Conservatives than W
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
for some kind of secret action but I guess I have no real reason to believe it was anything other than what they said it was. W has often had a tendency to just choose someone in his circle to fill a position, much as he chose Cheney for VP after Cheney had been helping him vet other prospects.
Nader stole this
by Jack Savage
"We're in a situation where Fiscal Conservatives agree with Ralph Nader's statement that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties."
Stolen from George C. Wallace - around 1968, as I recall.
Recommended
by Neil Stevens
So you'll just talk about this here and get it out of your system, heh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
It'll probably come up again.
by birdmojo
Probably the next time people start arguing with Fiscally Conservative people on the fence and someone points out that Democrats would be worse.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Nice diary birdmojo
by DGaines
I think you captured well the current situation. As a socon I am disappointed in the last eight years but not horrified. As a moderate hawk I am ambivalent. I wish it could have gone better and I think we had some missteps but I don't want to shrink the military and become the world's biggest superwimp.
However as a Fiscon/libertarian I detest the last eight years and the fact that the party has entirely screwed up what I used to consider a foundational commitment to smaller government. - Not just at the Federal level but at the state as well.
Unfortunately the definition of the "middle" or "moderate" continues to drift left. It's one of the reasons why words are indeed important. Because of this a candidate whose positions on the right seemed "conservative" twenty years ago, seem "extreme" today. This is the nature of modern societies to drift left.
The war is unpopular. Social issues work better in certain states and certain regions. We should lead nationwide with new proposals on fiscal, small government, privacy issues and bring the other issues along. -- Much like the Democrats are trying to lead with the war and bring their social and fiscal policies in behind it.
Recommended, with a bullet.
by Socrates
Iowahawk's take.
by birdmojo
Devestating.
Every time I thought about laughing, I instead got depressed.
Brilliant.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That would be funny if he wasn't so right.
by Joliphant
Oh well
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Tears
by simpson316
That was so devastatingly accurate. It's amazing how the reformers went to Washington and lost.
Now also found at The Minority Report
Preach it, brother
by ulape
If someone asks what happened to the Conservative Coalition, GWB spent the last 8 years sawing one leg off the stool.
Not one leg, two legs
by sinz52
Bush also replaced Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" with "War with Weakness."
A major war launched with insufficient force and a total underestimation of the enemy's capability.
And he embraced Wilsonian nation-building at the point of a gun--after having run against that concept in 2000.
Bush's foreign and military policy was closer to Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson than to Ronald Reagan.
The only leg of the stool that's fully intact is social conservatism. And for SoCons, Bush has been an absolute delight.
If your read the op
by Xraxnd Caracarn
You would know you were wrong about social cons.
Thats kinda the point noone is delighted.
Hardly!
by aceintx
The only leg of the stool that's fully intact is social conservatism. And for SoCons, Bush has been an absolute delight.
CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”
Nice post bird
by Vegas Rick
I agree 100% about Fiscons. I support all three legs of the stool, but this is where I feel most betrayed. And they STILL haven't gotten the message!
I think your view of the GWOT may be a little narrow, the TSA is NOT the front line. :)
Recommended
Indeed, it's not.
by birdmojo
But creation of new government bureaucracy is one of the things that folks were asked to stomach.
We need a Department of Homeland Security. And we need to make all of the employees unionized! And a TSA! And this! And that!
Oh, by the way, if you're opposed to this? You're not really helping us fight The War On Terror (which is, mind, the only thing that really matters).
So the Fiscons Step up and support it grudgingly.
And now they are throwing their toothpaste into a 55-gallon drum full of potential binary explosives that the TSA guys aren't treating as potential binary explosives but merely like a 55-gallon drum full of toiletries.
It's not that the TSA is the front line... it's that folks were told that they had to support such compromise measures lest they hand the democrats a domestic victory... which would be providing aid/comfort to The Enemy.
If, in the future, you wonder why people don't respond well to the argument that The War On Terror Is The Only Thing That Matters, think about that 55-gallon drum full of toothpaste at your local airport.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Does DHS do anything useful ?
by Joliphant
As far as I can tell everything it is supposed to do used to be handled by the FBI prior to the church commission. The rest is just waste.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Well...
by zroxx
They stimulated the economy by increasing duct tape and Visqueen sales...
What the FBI doesn't do...
by Oscar98
the National Guard picks up the rest of the slack on much of the rest. Funny, because the National Guard didn't need DHS to do their job for 225 years. And they still don't.
That said, FBI is still a crime solving culture as opposed to an intel analysis culture.
Another thing that really bothers me is the Director of National Intelligence. The Director of Central Intelligence (CIA Chief) used to be the primary intel advisor to the president. As 9/11 and WMDs showed us, it wasn't perfect. But, the DNI still doesn't have any teeth, but we've layered another level of bureaucracy on top of the intel community. And as far as I can tell, his only function is to be a fall guy.
Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org
Reality.
It takes something very huge to give a party a majority status over the long haul:
1. Civil War
2. Great Depression and World War II.
We've had nothing like that. The 1970s stagflation and foreign-policy debacles, and Reagans's subsequent success levelled the playing field, but did not give Republicans the "natural" dominance that the Democrats enjoyed from the 30s to the 70s.
Right now, the numbers look good for Democrats, as good as they looked, say, in the early 90s, but there is not crisis great enough, nor any remedy grand enough, to give them some sort of permanent status.
As to social conservative and fiscal conservatives' satisfaction.
1. Why social conservative reacted as they did in Iowa. It was less George Bush than the fact that ALL the seeming frontrunners--Giuliani, Romney, and McCain--seemed to be hostile, indifferent, or unreliable as to protecting the unborn and traditional marriage. ALL of them seemed in that respect decisively worse prospects than Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
2. Fiscal conservatives disappointment I think is understandable, but fails to appreciate three facts.
First, Bush did NOT "betray" us--he promised a very modest tax cut, and voila, but he also promised a new entitlement program, and voila. Similar things could be said on immigration, et al.
I remember watching the 2000 Republican convention and nearly threw up listening to his wife, and he, enumerating all the goodies that "he" would deliver (with no regard to federalism, separation of powers, etc.). But I knew that in some small respect his administration would mark an improvement--i.e., tax cuts, but that otherwise, it was a choice between one new fat entitlment, and five new fat entitlements (with tax increases).
Two, political reality. Just as we social conservatives had to learn in the 80s that no, you sure as heck ain't gonna get a constitutional amendment banning abortion (anytime soon), some fiscal conservatives have to give up the dream of abolishing the Department of Education, Medicare, etc. We went down that route in 1995-96, and got burned badly.
The good news is that thanks to Reagan, the Democrats can't go too far either--as they learned in 1993-94. Of course one great threat from this election is that Obama and his friends will try, and partially succeed.
Third, and a related point--Bush did go to the mat for fiscal conservatism in his social-security plan, and got burned. In retrospect, I think, a waste of political capital.
For good or for bad, it seems to me politically we remain at the statis of the 90s--no great new society's, and no great overhaul of taxation, spending, is likely.
Similarly for social conservatives, some progress seems possible--very significant if you think that every less abortion is a life saved, and traditional marriage can be preserved in the vast majority of the states--UNLESS the federal government and courts fall into the unchecked hands of opponents of the rights of the unborn and traditional family.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
The problem with the "reality" argument...
by birdmojo
Is that it would have been theoretically possible to veto a spending bill here or there in the first term of office.
It would have been theoretically possible for Delay to say something other than "there's no fat in the budget to cut".
It would have been theoretically possible for Frist to not pass through a bill making internet poker illegal in the weeks following the Abramoff scandal.
There were a *LOT* of unforced errors.
That's the "reality".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
terri schiavo
by LiberalLurker
That one hurt y'all a lot.
A principled debate on right to die issues is one thing. Congress rushing to pass a bill overturning a judicial decision and intruding into the private affairs of a family is something else.
Yes it did
by Joliphant
I would still have us do it again though.
I doubt I could explain why to you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Another perspective
by TomlinsonDouthat
I think you've got a good approach to things here, but I disagree with you in a couple of respects.
First, I think it needs to be remembered that the categories of SoCon, FisCon, etc. are mostly constructs. Few real people fit neatly into any of those categories, but most conservatives fit into all of them simultaneously (if with different emphases), and most moderates (libertarians included here) sympathize with the usual conservative positions in some of these categories, while sympathizing with the usual liberal positions on others.
Second, I disagree with your assessment of where holding the line would be sufficient.
From the social conservative perspective, holding the line is all that's being asked on most issues. But on abortion, holding the line would be completely inadequate. Merely saying that we're no further away from overturning Roe than we have been means that the death toll is still rising by around a million a year. Pro-lifers need forward progress, and no amount of reframing will change that.
Likewise from the hawkish perspective, holding the line is insufficient. Merely not losing in Iraq does no good; we need to win. And until victory is assured, there's not much for anybody to be happy about on this front.
On the other hand, holding the line might have been sufficient from the fiscal conservative perspective. Cutting spending, reducing regulations, cutting taxes permanently would have been nice, of course. But as long as these weren't getting any worse, and the economy was still chugging along, then one could have coped. But things, as you point out, were and are getting worse, so that things look just as bad from the fiscal conservative perspective as from the others.
Now let's take this back to the individual level:
If you're an all-round conservative, then you're unhappy in every way. And if you're particularly interested in one area of policy, then you'll be particularly unhappy in that way. There's no way that the Democrats would be better, but you're prone to loud complaints and a deepening pessimism.
On the other hand, if you're a moderate—someone with sympathies both to conservatism and to liberalism in different aspects of policy—then you'll be particularly unhappy with whatever areas you take the conservative side on. In fact, you might be liable to give up on these altogether. However, you are probably hopeful in the areas that you take the liberal side on, since the political party that takes that side has been mostly out of power since 1994, and might be coming back.
And it's these voters—moderates, sympathetic to conservative position on some matters, but not necessarily fiscal matters—that the GOP seems to have been losing over the past few years.
Yet somehow Republicans have gotten it into their head that the way to win these moderates back is by being more like liberals. This leads to more dissatisfaction from conservatives, and it gives even more kinds of moderates reason not to vote Republican, which leads Republican politicians to creep even further to the left to try to win them back, which will fail and start the cycle over again.
I think that you've hit on exactly the right question: how we got from the triumphalism of a few years ago to the doom and gloom of today. And I think that it's the cause of that triumphalism—the idea that a permanent Republican majority could be built by making more concessions to liberal policy, particularly in fiscal matters, while merely holding the line in others—that, having failed, is the direct cause of today's gloominess.
The line wasn't just held its been pushed forward
by Joliphant
Judges gave us Roe V Wade
Judges will take it away.
We have done well on judges and would have kept on doing well. It took the libs 40 years to get the court system they wanted. We aren't going to get ours in less.
The FMA and HLA would have just wiped out the party in fighting for them that is the bottom line.
The people that went nuts over Huckabee didn't have the vision to realize they were voting themselves into irrelevance. They gave the opposition a personalization of their enemy. What's more everyone who voted for the Huckster said "I don't care about what you want at all and I will shove a load of crap into your face to prove it". So yes the Nat Sec Cons, the Fisc Cons, the Good Government Cons, the Immigration Cons just through up their collective hands and said sometimes a carrot is nothing but an orange colored shaft.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In a sense
by TomlinsonDouthat
The line probably has been moved forward in a sense. In 1973, there were two Justices against Roe. In the period between the appointments of Thomas and Ginsberg (who replaced White), there were four votes against. Today there are two certain votes against, and two possible votes against.
It's unlikely that both Roberts and Alito would be votes in favor of Roe, so the line has probably been moved forward relative to 1973. But even if they are both votes against, then the line is unchanged from where it was in 1993.
But none of this matters until there's a fifth vote. If things are stalled at four votes or fewer, then pro-lifers will have given decades of support to the Republican party for absolutely nothing in return. And if it doesn't look like a fifth vote is in the offing, then the pro-life movement will probably be forced to completely alter their political strategy, and probably not to the benefit of the Republican party.
There is no way to sugar-coat it
by Aurelian
The GOP's record on Sup Court picks since Nixon has been a disaster. Even if we skip Nixon and Ford, and go to Reagan, the record is still terrible. Reagan was 1 for 3, and while there may be some excuse for Kennedy, there is none for O'Connor. Reagan made a stupid, and leftist-style promise to put a woman on the bench, thus limiting his choices with his first pick. The result, of course, was O'Connor, and she was not a good justice, and she's proven since retirement to be an arrogant judicial supremacist.
Bush the Elder was 1 for 2. What else can be said about Souter? He's a horrible justice, and the rumors that Edith Jones was the second choice only makes it that much harder to take.
Based on the evidence so far, W is 2 for 2, but as you say that leaves us with only four. That leaves us with only four when we should have 5 or 6. Roe should have already been overturned. Insane Establishment Clause rulings should have already been ceased. Property rights should have been respected. And we should be in a confident state about the pending Second Amendment case and any near-future attempt to have the Sup Court impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation.
Instead, we are left in the position of hoping for multiple things; (1) that Anthony Kennedy cares more about the actual Consitution than the praise of the NYTimes and European elites, (2) that Antonin Scalia remains healthy and desirous of staying on the Court, and (3) that McCain some how pulls it out in November, and doesn't stab us in the back if he gets to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, and possible Kennedy and Scalia as well.
Considering what should have been, we are not in a good position.
5 n/t
by Ezekiel
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
Technically, there were 7
by Menlo
Technically, there were 7 votes against Roe in 1992. Roe was overruled sub silentio with Planned Parenthood v Casey. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a "do-over" by changing the basis of the ruling, throwing out part of one of Roe's provisions, and unilaterally thinking up a new ad hoc standard of review never before and never since used in other areas of law. It left a lot of people on both sides too dissatisfued to acknowledge it. This is why I say she is more to blame more than any other justice that it was upheld.
It is no longer about overruling Roe but overruling Casey (and perhaps Doe v. Bolton). We saw this time and time again in senate hearings, judicial confirmations, and discussions with legal experts and judges and justices themselves. It will be paeticularly difficult to overturn since most of the opinion was dedicated to the need to follow precedent and actually serves, even in other areas of law, as the precedent for when to overrule precedent.
Even so, five votes to overrule Casey won't matter without four votes to grant cert. The latter would probably be a far tougher obstacle. I don't believe we have more than two to do either, and we'll probably be down to one in ten years no matter who the next President is.
I think you make an excellent point here Joliphant
by simpson316
We (in all categories of conservatives) have lost the sense of patience that a political movement needs. The liberal movement worked tirelessly for a very long time to get both the courts and enough popular support to keep court decisions from being overturned.
We have to take the same approach. We have to reverse the courts (much of which we have done...the courts are increasingly conservative) and get to work on changing people's minds with respect to the conservative philosophy. It won't be easy, but it is necessary work.
Now also found at The Minority Report
Please go into more detail.
by birdmojo
"And it's these voters—moderates, sympathetic to conservative position on some matters, but not necessarily fiscal matters—that the GOP seems to have been losing over the past few years."
Socially Conservative-minded moderates are leaving the party because the GOP isn't good enough?
Hawkish moderates are leaving the party because the GOP isn't good enough?
This boggles me.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Glad to
by TomlinsonDouthat
Instead of speaking of socially conservative-minded moderates, let's talk about pro-life moderates, since there's better polling about who's pro-life than about who might be considered a social conservative.
Around 40% of the country is pro-life, and in recent years, the Democrats have been getting a quarter of these votes, or 10% of the electorate, without even trying. There are two possible reasons for this unlikely 10%: 1.) they don't really care that much about the abortion issue, relative to other issues on which they sympathize with the Democrats, or 2.) they're cynical about the GOP's sincerity in promising to do something about abortion, and hence vote for the Democrats with whom they sympathize on other grounds.
And such cynicism is understandable, because the GOP has been in control of the White House for all but 12 years since 1968, since around the time abortion rose to the surface as a national issue, and because these Republican presidents (not all of whom were pro-life, but all of whom relied on the votes of those opposed to abortion: consider McGovern's unofficial campaign slogan in 1972) appointed ten of the twelve Justices who joined the Supreme Court over this period, to no effect whatsoever.
Until these facts change, I think that it's inevitable that the numbers of Democratic voters in the second category will increase at the expense of the Republicans, since no one will be disabused of his cynicism under the present state of things, but many will come to notice how long it has been since anything happened on this front, and some segment of these will have preexisting sympathies with the Democrats on other fronts.
And the Democrats seem to have been making a concerted effort to get these sorts of voters over the last couple of years: in the recent election in Mississippi, Casey in Pennsylvania, Shuler in North Carolina, and other pro-life Democrats. It's impossible to say whether the voters actually trust these Democrats to follow through on their stated pro-life stance, but it's probable that they'd be no less cynical of the Republican. And if so, then there's no harm in supporting the Democrat, since you agree with his party in other ways.
And if there's enough of these voters that the Democrats will make such an effort to go after them in certain districts, then they must exist in other districts in smaller numbers, but possibly still large enough to make a difference.
And hawkish moderates, too. The Democrats are careful to say that, though they're going to withdraw from Iraq, they're going to do it relatively slowly, and that they're going to put a lot of those troops to work in Afghanistan to pursue the "real" war. They might not mean this, but by doing this they're trying to go after moderate voters who care about the war, and in a hawkish way, but are cynical about Republican strategy and/or competence. From the polls, it's clear that there are a lot of those people who, having voted for Bush in 2000 on the grounds for their support for his strategy and execution in Iraq, are now likely to vote for the Democrat this year.
In neither case, I think, is it really a matter of moderates thinking that the Republicans aren't good enough on the matters on which they sympathize with them; it's a matter of them thinking that the Republicans just aren't any good, aren't significantly better than the Democrats, and hence deciding their vote on other matters, on which they might tend to agree with the Democrats. And the Democrats, seeing this opportunity, are trying to seem less bad on the matters that alienated these voters from their coalition to begin with.
The only way for the Republicans to win such voters back, and to keep similar ones from leaving in the future, is for the party to win their trust on the matters on which they have a preexisting sympathy with the conservative position, just as I take you as arguing (quite rightly) that the GOP needs to reach out to and earn the trust of moderates/libertarians with sympathies to fiscal conservatism.
Regarding the abortion thing...
by birdmojo
It strikes me that the country is spectacularly ambivalent.
Polls, as I understand them, say that the majority of the country is opposed to abortions that occur after the first trimester ends. This is quite regularly touted as reason to describe the country as "pro-life". However, these same polls find that the majority of the country thinks that the first trimester should have legal abortion. This exact same poll is then cited by pro-choicers as reason why the country is pro choice.
As for the rest of it... yeah. Good point.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Public opinion on abortion
by Aurelian
What you say is true, and it is one reason why Roe should be overturned, so that this layered public opinion on abortion can be worked out via the democratic process.
The other, bigger reason, is of course that Roe is a decision w/o a shred of Consitutional merit.
Umm... 5!
by Oscar98
Highly recommended. I started out this administration as an unabashed Hawk and fiscal conservative, but found out along the way I might be a libertarian. I was as guilty as anyone about the primacy of the GWOT, but no more... at least not since the GOP bailed on social security reform.
Support libertarian Republicans here and here.
www.rlc.org
www.fairtax.org
As I've written probably too
by Flagstaff
As I've written probably too many times, the GWOT is not the most important issue at hand. Fiscal responsibility is, and under that heading I place non-comprehensive immigration reform, tax rate reduction (or for gawsh sakes hold the line), spending reduction, Social Security reform, and the need for more Roberts/Alito style justices. (Yes, there is an argument to be made why every one of those items is important to fiscal responsibility).
If we don't get our fiscal house in order, we won't be able to fight the GWOT.
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
Great post birdmojo, I hope
by sturner
Great post birdmojo, I hope you continue to make diaries. I think we have similar political views, and have enjoyed your posts. I'm a fiscal conservative too, and my libertarian leanings made me never care much about social issues. I just want both sides to leave me alone
Fiscal conservatives have been spurred this decade, and the rebuttals we receive are laughable. I hear "the Democrats want to socialize this whole country" as Republicans line up for farm subsidies bills and enormous Medicare packages. I'm told Democrats want to interfere with business while we bail out investment firms with taxpayer dollars. Democrats are supposed to spend this country into bankruptcy, but that's essentially what we've been doing under Republican control.
Besides the FisCons that have been burned, I think you also really have to look at corruption as a key role in this too. The Republican party was supposed to stand for principles, values, etc. Every other day we were hearing about a scandal or seeing a mugshot from a party leader. Yes politicians are crooks, but I was most disappointed at the fact that the party was more interested in sweeping it under the rug instead of exterminating the infestation.
Anyways, thanks for speaking up for the FisCons. Doesn't seem like there are many of us left in the party.
Apparently about a 1000 posters at the NRCC Blog..
by From ME to you
are actively voicing their frustrations! I just scanned another 200 or so posts and I found only 1 to be moderately negative! I wonder what Sen. Cole's office phones will be like come Monday morning!!
Superb post!!! Stuff like this is why I prefer RedState to all others.
Semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbium
If it weren't for a few areas
by Darin H
I would be a nutball Libertarian too. First, great blog, recommended.
I think we had a little more than just holding the line on the SoCon issues as mentioned above w/r/t judges, but we won't see the fruit of that for many years. And if we don't work to elect John McCain to the presidency, we will lose ground again were we really have a shot to replace a lot of the Carter-era judges. As far as other forward progress on issues, we forget things like The Mexico City Policy (which is both Fis and So con, and why I don't particularly care for the actual labels) or on partial birth abortion.
President Bush will always be a mixed bag, there are areas that he's great in and other that he's not so great (there really isn't much in between with him), such as:
Fiscal policy: tax cuts - good, just about everywhere else - horrible.
Judges: Mostly good, but with a Harriet Miers thrown in there. Probably the best area in his presidency.
Foreign policy: Good, bad & the ugly from both sides (can't please anyone by splitting the baby like he's done).
Social policy: Again, mostly good and I think better than you portray as just holding the line.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
There are no permanent majorities, just problems.
by streetwise
If the perfect FisCon were to arrive, he would just as likely lose as not, with the other factions throwing the brickbats at HIM!
look like our majority of 2006. The mercurial and brilliant Gingrich gave way to the more plodding Hastert (after several sexerruptions), the solid Dick Armey to the game-oriented Delay, etc. And of course, the GOP did succeed in electing a president in 2000, who became the defacto party leader, and making the majority vulnerable to the almost invevitable sixth year slump.
Time erodes all majorities. They get tired, complacent, fond of DC's high life and just plain incompetent and corrupt. The GOP majority experienced all of this. The Democrats are doing so now.
Poor Nancy. She thinks that only the yang gets whacked.
I fought this from day one
by Doc Holliday
"Heck, something as simple as "Acknowledgement that such things as Frist's bill against gaming *DID* look like he was in the pocket of Abramoff rather than how he was trying to protect The Children" would be a good start."
I fought this from day one, with little or no support, other than that Mike Dondero guy (where did he
lesterblog.blogspot.com