Commenter Neil makes this point in a comment on Eric’s No Other Single Policy…
Changing that would require libertarians to get along with social conservatives…
In electoral politics it is the least committed faction that sets policy. Contra what social conservatives believe. You constantly hear “we are the majority, we are the base, without us you can’t win elections.” As if that is an inducement to those not used to winning elections or who have alternatives. “Democrat social policies or Republican fiscal policies? Which is more important this election?” Gay drug legalizers or balance the budget and then reduce the debt? What social conservatives don’t get is that if they can’t ATTRACT enough support outside their base they can’t win elections either.
So the proper phrasing is: “Changing that would require social conservatives to get along with libertarians…” When gathering votes you need to be attractive. The Democrats generally get this. They craft their lies to attract those for whom the truth is unpalatable.
For the Republicans it is always purge time. Getting rid of the RINOs is a constant theme. RINOs being those who can win elections in purple districts or States.
The Republicans are generally less liberal with the truth than Democrats. That is a good thing. But Republicans believe that the right laws can make us more moral. That might work if Americans were in the habit of obeying laws they don’t like. But as friend of mine likes to say, “You can do anything with laws except get Americans to obey them.” Social conservatives have yet to come to terms with that fact. And they have a habit of not wanting to see themselves as others see them. Their assumption being that “God is on our side”. That may be good when fighting a war. But in electoral politics numbers count. Fervor does not.
Comments
24 responses to “It Is Actually The Other Way Around”
A slight correction: In electoral politics, numbers at the polls count. Fervor matters because fervor motivates.
My point was that in order to change things, social conservatives and libertarians would have to meet halfway and vote for the same candidates. Thus far, socons have shown a willingness (even excitement) to vote in large numbers for tea party candidates who at the very least de-emphasize social issues.
Libertarians, so far, seem to hold out for “perfect” at the expense of “good enough”.
Rand Paul is a social conservative. A LOT of libertarians and Libertarians would vote for him.
An argument inside the cattle car on the tracks to political oblivian! This is what counts 2000 latino vote7% of total vote gore wins popular vote and republicans on supreme court have to stop recount vote in florida to steal election for bush. 2004 latino vote 8% of total vote kerry unions ambivelent about immigration issues bush gets 40% of latino vote wins popular vote! 2008 latino 9% of total vote. Their vote not black vote elects Obama also their vote in non caucaus states keeps hillary in primary race. 2012 latino vote 10.5% of total vote re-elects Obama! Only states that change indiana north carolina small latino population. Latinos make difference in california colorado florida iowa nevada new mexico ohio wisconsin and virginia!
Simon: That’s true. So what makes him acceptable, where so many libertarian-leaning socons are not?
The mormon vietnam war draft dogger chicken hawk coward got 61% of white vote same as reagan in 1984 landslide win! You have got all the white votes you can get and 61% of white vote is not enough now! the other 39% are not gettable to you as they hate republicans as much as the minorities do! Every month 100,000 minority kids turn 18 voting age if you add undocumented dreamers thats 15,000 more each month thats 4,000,000 new votes for Mrs Clinton in 2016! Latinos will be 11.5 % of 2016 vote! By the way minorities are always getting hasseled about their id’s so they are more lkely to have them! Here in the republican fascist police state of arizona(but not for long thanks to mexican birth rate!) the gop tried to pass a law that if one of your parents is illegal you can’t vote even if you were born here :but it failed thanks to 1070 boycott! This is what I mean in 2000 racist shariff arpaio got 61% of vote in 2004 57% in 2008 53.5% in 20012 50.7% despite massive voter surpression of mexican americans such as sending their voter registraion cards the day after the election. Telling them election would be held a week later in official state voter mailings and closing polls in latino districts at 7:00 with voters standing line to vote which they had legal right to vote if they were in line at 7:00 and told they would be arrested if they didn’t leave with out voting! Google voter surpression in arizona for all the sordid details such as trying to make latino voters take provisional ballots so their votes could be thrown away and not counted! It does not matter we will crush them in 2016!
Neil,
Except for abortion Rand espouses the idea that you can’t legislate morality. He takes the lesson of alcohol prohibition to heart.
It is not the social conservatism per se that is the problem. It is the associated nanny state attitudes. Moral socialism. Something I harp on here all the time.
The socons have not yet faced the fact that they are dying off as a political force. By 2020 they will be a rump rather than a serious faction.
You can only legislate morality when you don’t need to (broad general agreement). When that agreement fails the legislation fails.
The phase lag for government is generally 90 degrees – about the limit of stability for political systems. Once the phase lag is above 90 degrees you get instability. We are near 180 for pot prohibition. Totally unworkable.
So what is to be done? Limit the size and scope of national government – i.e. revert to the original design.
Let me add that the TEA Party of today is not the TEA Party of 2009. It has been co-opted by social conservatives.
Simon–you keep making the claim that the tea part has been co-opted, but I’m not sure why. Perhaps you are right, but the “tea party” candidates that I have observed the last two years have at the very least avoided talking about social issues. They run on fiscal liberty and don’t want to talk about much else. They’ve given up on legislating morality, in your words.
It’s true that some of the politicians claiming to be “tea party” have espoused socially conservative positions in the past (maybe even the recent past) which costs them libertarian votes when the Democrats point that out.
But doesn’t that just prove my point?
So Rand Paul’s social conservatism is limited to a single issue. If that’s the limit of what libertarians will tolerate, then that also proves my point.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that social conservatives should simply get out of politics, and vote for libertarians.
Which was my point all along.
“…As far as I can tell, you are saying that social conservatives should simply get out of politics, and vote for libertarians…”
Instead of Libertarians getting out of politics and just voting for Social Conservatives?
Remind me again, what are Republicans supposed to support?
Neil,
Social conservatives ARE getting out of politics. I did a post on it a while back. The grim reaper is taking them elsewhere.
guy,
I’ll give Neil a clue. Republicans are supposed to stand for smaller government. There is no “except for social issues” caveat that I am aware of. At least not officially.
===========
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/11/those-damned-libertarians-wouldnt-eat-our-tasty-shit-sandwiches/
Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism
>The grim reaper is taking them elsewhere.<
the annual "march for life" is scheduled for the end jan. 2014. get back to us on the demographics of that rally.
>Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism<
demographics is destiny. the proggtards are into uncreation unlike the muslims and the soc cons. dude it is a numbers game billy marrying joe don't cut it.
But jaun getting teenage maria pregnant can and all three will be voting for the democrats tax the rich feed the poor tax the rich till they ain’t rich no more! Adios conservatives! I don’t expect you to anwser because you have none! The most frightening sight to conservatives a pregnant mexican woman pushing a stroller with twins in it!
>The most frightening sight to conservatives a pregnant mexican woman pushing a stroller with twins in it!<
planned "parenthood" eugenic clown.
> The most frightening sight to proggtards
conservativesa pregnant negromexican woman pushing a stroller with twins in it</strike!<newrouter,
It is true the socons are having kids. (I helped raise 4 myself – 3 of the 4 are libertarians, I’m working on the 4th) But the kids are socially liberal.
BTW if you had read the link it is not me saying that. It is social conservatives. I just happen to agree.
tax the rich till they ain’t rich no more
You have stated your problem quite clearly. What will you do when you run out of other people’s money?
The reason more and more voters identify as independents is that they are tiring of the authoritarian models of governance that have defined political discourse and policy over the last century or so. They don’t identify with the economic authoritarians on the Left nor do they identify with the moral authoritarians on the Right. The party that best meets their concerns will get their votes.
In order to enact policy, you have to win elections. In order to win elections, you have to appeal to more voters than your opponent. In today’s political landscape, that means you have to appeal to the increasing number of independent/moderate voters in order to win and win consistently. These independents are fiscally moderate and socially liberal. The immoderation of the socon element in the Republican party prevents political moderates from consistently voting for Republican candidates. The Captain Ahab-like moral obsessions of the socons are unattractive to these voters and are therefore easy targets for the Left and their media allies.
Fiscal moderation and responsibility along with policies that enable economic growth are winning issues with broad appeal. Obsessing about restricting the private voluntary actions of others doesn’t have the same broad appeal.
Everyday we get stronger you get weaker! As the kleons say revenge is a dish best eaten kold!
captain*arizona,
Au contraire. As the Republicans become more libertarian social issues will be coming off the table.
That leaves arithmetic. And the left is notoriously bad at arithmetic.
simon you will still need a social conscience minorities want health care and social security. Help those who need help and leave those who don’t alone that you can sell to voters!
cap,
The problem again is arithmetic. TANSTAAFL.