One of our commenters asked:
OK, the Democrats did the “vote for us, get free stuff” thing first and aren’t going to quit. Given that nobody wants to be told to eat their vegetables, what’s left for the GOP to offer?
“We will leave you alone, totally.” has considerable appeal. See Colorado. See Washington State. See Massachusetts.
And see Eric’s point about the Right To Lifers.
The Dems’s promise. “We will steal you blind”. The R’s promise “We will hunt you down and treat you like the dogs you are.”
Which has more appeal? Well it was close but being robbed seems to be the national preference.
Comments
20 responses to “The Partys Made Promises”
You seriously think “you’re on your own” can beat “Free Stuff”? That’s what people hear when libertarians talk, and that’s why 1% is a great showing for a libertarian candidate.
It’s true that people don’t want a candidate moralizing about their personal behavior. But without the conservative tradition of churches and local voluntary organizations (and yes, giving back to the community) as a replacement for overbearing federal regulation, freedom is going to sound like the law of the jungle to most people.
I’m a small-l libertarian by nature, so I had to learn this the hard way. But libertarianism by itself cannot offer a real alternative to the nanny state. If you think you can get anywhere without getting conservatives on board, think again.
If the Republicans were *actually* offering to leave people alone that would be pretty compelling.
That would mean giving up the pro-life, anti-drug, anti-sex morality issues that the religious right has been pushing, and I don’t see the current Republican Party as strong enough to fight that addiction successfully.
Neil,
“Conservatives” are a dying lot. And yes bringing them on board is a good idea. But when they get aboard you have a Progressive Party. And Progressive Conservatives are a pretty ugly lot.
And BTW wasn’t the message of Jesus – “The State can’t solve moral problems.” His essence? Or did I miss it?
Conservatives ran away from abortion and other social issues about as hard as they could this year. I don’t believe I ever heard anybody say they intended to push for laws against abortion (except possibly Akin, although his statements were rhetorically quite confusing), or any other socially-conservative law. Whatever their personal beliefs, the Republicans were in no way asking for a mandate to impose their social beliefs on the country.
The only time it came up was when conservatives were asked their opinions about what behavior is right and wrong. Those statements were then trumpeted to the rafters. Apparently, you don’t wish to have any political allies whose opinions about behavior differ from your own.
That sounds pretty lonely to me.
I keep thinking after every loss, and the tea party movement, the GOP would take an unmistakable turn toward libertarianism.
I see some of that happening here and there, but not nearly enough.
Become the party of the future already and get in front of the issues–we can own them before the Democrats do.
Drug legalization; gay marriage (perhaps too late for that one); smart immigration; a sane, coherent foreign policy…
Neil,
Most R candidates I looked at had an ABORTION section on their www sites.
If the Rs really wanted to run away from social issues and REBRAND why didn’t they champion med pot? Favored by 70% to 80%.
When asked about right and wrong the proper answer for an R is: “It is none of government’s business.”
Gay marriage? “It is none of government’s business.”
Pot smoking? “It is none of government’s business.”
Abortion? “It is none of government’s business.”
That is how you rebrand. Affirmatively.
Can’t anyone play this game?
I tend to agree with your positions, although as we have learned more I’m not against a few restrictions on abortion (along with 70% or so of the country). But I also recognize that very few of the people who hold those views will ever vote for economic freedom. They aspire to theft.
You can’t get what you want without convincing conservatives to make common cause.
Neil,
Opposing abortion (I do) does not = government involvement. Going from the first to the second is a leap of faith. Some do want government involved. Some don’t.
And conservatives don’t win national elections because they are not conservatives. They are just another brand of progressive. “Government should….”. And economic progressives are more popular than moral progressives. Nationally.
We don’t really have conservatives any more. We have two flavors of progressive politics.
Look at what the conservatives of 1900 thought about politics. We would call them libertarian today.
That’s fine, I’m not arguing with your characterization of conservatives or your position on abortion.
I’m just pointing out that the attitude “‘Conservatives’ are a dying lot…Conservatives are a pretty ugly lot.” is going to end with you in chains. (Hopefully figurative chains, but who knows–you don’t think the leftists will give up so useful a tool as the drug war do you?)
Conservatives are the people who can be convinced to vote your way, but you’re to have to put it to them in terms of a compromise.
As long as progressivism rules the roost I will be in chains no matter who wins.
I’ll take economic chains thank you very much.
Conservatives can be convinced to change? Look at what they did to Ron Paul supporters. Look at how they drove Gary Johnson from the party.
On the Latino vote – the answer to that – “let us do as much as we can to turn the folks who want it into Americans”
On the women’s vote – “I dislike abortion. It is none of government’s business. The government should stay out of the private lives of citizens.”
There are no conservatives. Only folks who believe “government should….”
But OK. What compromise do I have to make? “OK. I’ll accept vagina police if you call off the drug police” ?
The only compromise I’m interested in is theirs. That they stop enabling the economic progressives by being moral progressives.
Obviously, the compromise is “social policy is not the business of the *federal* government”. Federalism is the compromise. Alabama is free to outlaw abortions, if they wish, and suffer the consequences. Coloradans can smoke pot, and Californians can confiscate 100% of all income over $150K. “Move to Alabama and knock yourself out” is very different from “Conservatives are ugly”.
But don’t forget–your message is a loser, for the reason I’ve already explained: “We’ll leave you alone” can be taken two ways, and it sounds like “you’re on your own” to most people.
The only way to make it palatable to a majority is to say “the government will leave space in our life for civic organizations that are more effective than government.” But that requires a feeling of obligation–to give back to the community. The conservative emphasis on personal virtue provides that obligation without the progressive desire to make it a law.
The Christian Democrats are losing ground even in places the call home. Colorado is a harbinger.
“We will leave you alone, totally.” has considerable appeal. See Colorado. See Washington State. See Massachusetts.
I’m not so sure this is the case. I think what we actually have is a “spoiled child” electorate. The syndrome of the spoiled child is characterized by “excessive, self-centered, and immature behavior”. I think what voters, particularly younger voters, are saying is: provide for my needs and wants, but leave me alone to play with my toys – and don’t you dare ask me to live up to any standards of behavior or do my chores.
Two things in particular lead me to believe this is the case. Part of my work involves teaching children (age range is about 6yrs – 13yrs). Spoiled, ill behaved children are the norm these days. Responsible children with a strong work ethic are the very rare exception.
I also teach and employ young adults. I have not had a single adult male employee, under 30 years old, who showed any real discernible work ethic. Because of my role as a teacher, many of these employees see me as somewhat of a mentor, yet that doesn’t stop them from being irresponsible employees. And not always because they don’t respect me. I think years of being coddled, in school and at home, has left them without personal initiative or the capacity for hard work.
I also teach adults – nearly all of them men between the ages of 18 and 35. It was amazing to watch some of the conversations between them on election night. There was a solid contingent who seemed absolutely gleeful over the marijuana referendums and not at all concerned with the other election result. They actually seemed little concerned with what Obama’s re-election meant for any other freedoms or for their economic futures.
My view was they would be perfectly happy to be in chains, with the world burning all around them, so long as they were permitted to numb themselves with cannabis.
Dave,
What ever you think of them you can’t win elections without their votes. Is maintaining pot prohibition worth losing a generation? Well some people like hanging on to the anchor when the ship is going down. It makes no sense but there you have it.
Personally I had quite a few people tell me unbidden that the Anti-Abortion Party was not an attractive proposition. And that in an environment most favorable to the Republicans in 30+ years.
Simon,
Don’t get me wrong, I am in support of the legalization of all drugs. My point was that we have already lost a whole generation or more – and the reality is that libertarians and Republicans have little to nothing to actually offer them.
Actual liberty, and the responsibility that necessarily comes with it, doesn’t really have any appeal with these once spoiled children who are now the adults that make up the younger portion of the electorate.
From what I see, what they craved at 13 is what they seem to crave at 30 from their government. They don’t want freedom, they want the handouts and coddling right alongside a lack of rules and standards. They want a “permissive parent” as government.
Dave,
The Republicans as now constituted offer beatings to the immoral and the Democrats promise theft.
Who wouldn’t choose irresponsibility over beatings?
When the Rs stop being Christian Democrats they will have a chance.
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/11/republicans-lost-liberty-won/
Simon,
I agree with you about the Republicans, but I just don’t see how the libertarian offer gets us that much further. Libertarians don’t threaten beatings, but they also don’t offer handouts and other assorted goodies. And if they want to remain libertarians they can’t. So how does a liberty minded party compete?
Now we have the advantage of offering a system that will actually lead to prosperity rather than bankruptcy, but good luck getting the proles to buy that one. Maybe it will sell after the country suffers a financial collapse but will you or I survive it and even be around or in a position to promote liberty? All in all I’ve just become very pessimistic regarding our chances to win this battle.
The liberty minded point out the beatings that the “we have free shit for you” party gives. The crack down on med pot dispensaries. The taxes.
Right now we have a two parties. One offers beatings without compensation. The other says – let me beat you and I will give you free shit.
If the Rs stop the beatings then people will look more closely at the deal the other party offers.