Keep Right by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online
In fairness, many people do describe themselves this way. Most of the time we simply call them “Democrats.” Those who call themselves Republicans should more properly be called “confused.”
A response from a disgruntled commenter to an entirely different thread at Reason Magazine:
Hit & Run > Tips for Republicans - Reason Magazine
Well, your post is definitely more cogent - and succinct - than Jonah Goldberg’s latest column. People who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal aren’t “Jackalopes” they’re libertarian, jackass.
I’m with the commenter. Goldberg’s a jackass on this one. And the GOP could do with a lot more of those “jackalopes.”
Let Goldberg and his ilk continue to fight a rear-guard battle against the future. They’ll fade away soon enough.
I think I am beginning to get a clear picture of where I - and I’ll bet a lot of other people would like to go. The Dems are fiscally and socially liberal. The GOP is fiscally and socially conservative. I suspect fiscal conservatism and social liberalism combines the most attractive aspects of both parties, and will be a winner with those who claim to be “independent.”
I think if we start pushing this notion, the GOP can either come to us, or fade away. I don’t expect much bleed-over from the Democrats, because their entire raison d’etre is grounded on fiscal liberalism. But I suspect there are a fair amount of Republicans who are willing to jettison their moonbat trogs in favor of liberty and a chance at winning an election again.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
That is how I describe my political philosophy, and there are many younger voters out there that would be open to this direction if the GOP went there.
When I talk to some of my libertarian-leaning friends who favor the Democrats, they invariably complain about “legislating morality” and SoCon overreaches in that vein. I had one conversation where we finally concluded that I thought Communists were the more urgent danger, and he thought theocrats were the more urgent, and that was the only major point on which we differed.
There’s a lesson in there.
Weird. That’s how I’ve been describing myself politically for years. Like WisCon, I hear that a lot from younger folks out there, especially women.
But here’s the thing… Fiscally conservative means smaller government; letting the free market work with a minimum of regulations and not spending like a drunken sailor. Socially liberal means smaller government; without the means to legislate morality and with the good sense to stay the hell out of our bedrooms.
The Republican Party, a presently constituted, is completely incapable of thinking in these terms. It either needs to change in this direction right smartly or just die and let a more sensible and principled movement take its place.
Chef,
And all God’s children said: “Amen.”
The problem with “Socially Liberal” is the “Liberal” part, and the SoCons and their enablers (Jonah) need some reassurance that protection of their civil liberties from state interference is important and in their best interest. The ACLU has dropped the ball on this (and Bush I forever tarred them also.) I don’t know of an equivalent organization, but something that models FIRE in academia is what I have in mind. As long as the organization was dedicated to protection of Churches and religion from the state, and not in any way associated with getting the state to implement something, we’d keep a major portion of “values voters” as part of the coalition.
I’ll throw this out there to the atheists reading. Clear rejection of the Michael Newdow agenda would also help with the SoCon group. Is that feasible?
I’ll throw this out there to the Christian conservatives reading. Clear rejection of attempts to impose their faith would also help with the non-SoCon group. Is that feasible?
Newdow is a moron, and I do not support his absolutist nonsense. If he had his way, he and his ilk would change the name of any city beginning with “Saint” or “San,” and remove any publicly displayed religious symbol, no matter what the context. I despise offense nazis as almost as much as health nazis. In fact, they are cut from the same cloth; pinheads who just can’t leave well enough alone. Marginalizing dimwits like Newdow is quite feasible.
This, on the other hand, I don’t see as feasible. One of the primary articles of the Christian faith, after all, is to spread the faith and gain converts. A clear rejection of the imposition of faith upon nonbelievers would be in complete contradiction to their basic tenets.
I think you misread The Great Commission aspect of Christian theology, Chef. There are strong theological roots in Christianity that separate Caesar’s world from God’s Kingdom. I think there are many religious folks out there who react to Judge Moore, the same way that you do to Newdow. I think the coalition should be clear in rejecting both agendas.
I’d also like to hear from the reasonable “pro choice” folks. There was a lurker (Laura?) awhile back who sounded quite reasonable on the subject and I’d like to, if feasible, include them. Under what scenario could they coexist with the “socially oriented to liberty” outreach to SoCons?
And while I’m on the subject, there’s an awful lot of testosterone in this place (not that I mind, that, ahem) but some Venusian viewpoints would also be welcome. AnnNY?
I understand that, Ray, in principle. But the practice has a spotty history at best.
I’m all for that. As an atheist, all I ask for in my association with the religious, is the same respect and manners I show to them. I have no desire or need to limit the free expression of religion. I have no need or desire to try and “convert” the religious away from faith.
What I do desire and need is for the religious to understand that when they participate in the polity, they are, within the context of the idea of the United States, operating within a secular environment; the realm of Caesar, so to speak.
Ray, how do you feel about how much the degree of fundamentalism of a sect plays in the practice of faith? Is there a line that should not be crossed within the polity? By what criteria would you exclude or admit the religious within a fiscally conservative/socially liberal political movement?
martinra says:
And that’s the whole story in a nutshell. With abortion as the litmus test, and the MSM running the narrative, and the liberal education machine in charge, the world is divided into two camps: Everyone in the entire world on one side (the good guys), against the Christers and Socons on the other (the bad guys).
Until people see big government, fascism, Islamism, terrorism, and cruel taxation for the huge threats to liberty that they are vs. the impotent threat to personal liberty the Christers are (I’ll leave the Socons out of this), they’ll continue to view the big government, blind eye to Islam-and-terror, huge tax fascists as the lesser evil.
So, on the one hand, I think you’re doomed, ’cause you’ll never be able to push abortion into the background. On the other hand, if you can get yourself ready, you might have an opportunity in the next four years, either during the Iran-Israel nuclear war, or when the Muslims explode one or more nukes in US cities.
Of course, there’ll be a few other distractions then.
I absolutely concur and an updated Cal Thomas or equivalent message would be the best way to achieve that.
I’m not a fundamentalist, and I reject literal interpretation of Scripture. I’m reluctant to speak to this issue as a representative of what it means to be Christian, because of my own personal doubts, and the lack of credibility my sexuality in and of itself, creates in the mind of that audience. I’m afraid that makes me a poor Christian, since I should have more trust in God’s Faithfulness to bear personal witness, regardless of audience or consequences. My Faith Journey has taken a rather meandering path, and I’m still trying to reclaim this wonderful something that I let be stolen from me.
For purposes of this discussion, however, the Cal Thomas book message should be good enough.
There’s a huge difference between proselytism and imposition. I’m all in favor of letting religious groups preach and convert wherever they want, so long as they are all required to play fair and can’t rig the government to benefit themselves and punish non-believers. Anybody else playing in the same space - environmentalists, New Age gurus, whoever - should also be free to do their thing. Association and speech have to be legal and as unimpaired as possible. Persuasion yes, coercion no - for everyone.
I think the message that might be inclusive in the area of abortion is one that emphasizes “Choose not to Kill” and and some real effort toward increasing its rarity. The problem with a legislative approach, is that I doubt it would actuall reduce the number of abortions that take place. The number of “DNC’s” would just go up. Federal funding for abortions, prohibitions against “late term” ones are perfectly legitimate. “Late term” definitions are increasingly in the favor of the pro-life side, based on medical breakthroughs and advancement of science.
I had another thought about Chef’s boundary question. One clear boundary line is the “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design” boundary. Rejection of the Discovery Institute agenda works for me. Home schooling, school vouchers for parents who want to send their kids to private religious schools and so on should be part of the message, and are consistent with limited government principles.
Newt is a controversial figure. But his current obsession-mission is to identify those ideas which have majority agreement within each political orientation: Dem, GOP, and Ind. The broad range of ideas that pass that threshold is amazing. It would certainly be instructive to ‘borrow’ much of that data.
I think we also might think about reframing the debate about “Judicial Activism”. 14th Amendment jurisprudence appears to be unsettled. Legislative assault on the Kehoe decision can be emphasized, for example. Here’s the thinking behind the idea. I also admit to too much ignorance to see the flaws. One flaw might be that it might increase, rather than lessen, SoCon concerns.
I do think that Randy Barnett and Eugene Volokh would be great judicial appointments.
“There are strong theological roots in Christianity that separate Caesar’s world from God’s Kingdom. ” Agreed.
I think that assertion is also essential for those of us very concerned with the ascendancy of Islam. As I understand it, Islam explicitly rejects the ‘render unto Caesar’ notion of religion separate from State.
This point has to be settled, and how it plays out in the actions of our governments, before we can build any alliance between fiscal conservative and social liberal.
I agree with Fûz. The ascendancy of Islam is very concerning. We should recognize that the PC left about this are the enemies. I was encouraged this morning by the sanity in this Washington Post editorial on the pending SCOTUS decision on the Seven Aphorisms.
A recognition of the history and traditions of our Western heritage with an honorable place for the “Judeo Christian” contribution is perfectly consistent with this approach.
Separation of Church and State as defined before is a Constitutional wedge between reasonable religious people and fatwah oriented Islam.
Enlisting Irshad Manji ideas appeal to me.
Herein lies the problem–SoCons are not ‘right-wing’. They are not friends of individual liberty and are more than willing to spend big on the programs that matter to them.
Like the communists that leapt into and now guide the Democrats, the SoCons leapt into the Republican party.
But they do not rest easy here, unlike their counterparts. They have not been able to cement an ideological hold–though the attempts can be seen in things like the anti-abortion plank and the furor over gay marriage.
We keep them around–and even rely on their support because excising them without a way to gain the fiscally conservative socially liberal Democrats quickly would leave the Republicans in a tiny minority.
Though now might be the time to move.
I consisyently point out that actual ‘right-wing’ measures never seem to get tried, they get bogged down as leftists snarl them up because leftists so easily adopt the language of individual liberty without any intention to allow individual liberty to flourish.
Worse, by attaching fear to the natural downsides of freedom–you CAN fail, you will only rise as far as you work for that rise, they are able to hold on to the Democrats who would folllow us–couple that with the statist ideas that we are forced to accept from the SoCons, and you appear to have a party that is against the types of ’social liberty’ that everyone can identify with–as well as one that wants to implement ‘fiscal conservation’ in ways that will hurt people.
But I said now might be the time to move.
We are in a really bad minority state already–we have little to lose.
Here’s a possible way to get this going.
Come up with a simple set of ideass that outline what we want–make sure they highlight social liberty FIRST. Leave out ANY explanations of a ‘downside’–but have responses ready.
Take these ideas to places where people might be interested and see what they say, get input and hone them.
Use them as a litmus test on ANYONE running for office–to show that we mean business, have each prospective candidate or candidates committe contacted multiple times(e and snail) with questions about how the candidate will follow any or all of those ideas.
Don’t use a name for this effort that contains the words ‘conservative’ or ‘party’. Try not to use the word ‘conservative’ at all. We ARE NOT conserving–we are trying to ’spend’ what we have in a way that will generate a better and more prosperous future.
If we are going to adopt ANY rhetorical quirks–adopt those of the left–’Is it FAIR that Jim has to work so hard to make ends meet while Bob can sit on his butt and watch his big screen TV and party whenever he chooses?’ “The government sponsors corporations whose only job is to see to it that the people pay more rent and have to pay higher prices for consumables’
We don’y have a party that’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal–and creating a third party is a fools game–but we do have people in ALL the parties who are both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Get them working together and you can make the country move in the direction you want without a ‘party’.