Tuesday, November 03, 2009

A National Party

I'm having a long conversation about the future of the Republican Party at The Other McCain. There is a lot of back and forth and if you go to the link you can follow the discussion. What I would like to present here is my conclusion. I was replying to a comment by BD.


Since you don't understand politics let me explain it to you. But first let me say that the Republicans have to get more in line with their fiscal conservative, limited government rhetoric.

But there are other considerations too. The limits of what are possible for a Presidential candidate are the swing voters. How far can a candidate go and attract enough swing voters to win a national election? Or even State wide elections.

One only need look at how social conservatives have destroyed Republican chances in California. Giving the State to Democrats who have destroyed the State. And why has Governor Arnie caved to the Democrat agenda? Well he was not very principled for one. But that is only part of the problem. He has no significant support in the legislature.

I don't see why Republicans can't take that message to heart.

The difficulty is that social conservatism is concentrated in the Southern United States. It may be 40% of the nation but 60 to 80% of that 40% is concentrated in the South. So the votes of social Conservatives are diluted every where else.

That means that outside the South the Party must become more libertarian to attract the swing voters. It is just like they say in the military. You can't win wars if you can't read a map.

And what does that mean overall? A National Party will likely be around 50% libertarian even if their percent of the party is only 30 to 40%.

I'm against big spending RINOs. I favor libertarian Republicans (fiscally conservative, socially liberal, strong on national defence) where only they can win. You know - California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, etc. Of course it will vary for Congressmen according to the district they represent. For Statewide offices (Senators, Governors, etc.) it is more important than for some Congressional Districts.

The party national platform should reflect that even if social conservatives are the majority of the party.

That is a basis for a national political party. And from what I can tell so far it is Palin's strategy. She is one very smart lady. She can read a map.
As Casey Stengel once said, "Can't anyone play this game?" Palin can. So far.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


unseen said...

I think you are close yet miss the point. Socially liberal is not the answer. the answer is a social conservative that does not want to use the power of the government to force his/her views on the nation. there is no problem with a person against drug use, abortion, teenage sex, pro church etc setting the moral example for the country by living a good honest moral life.

The problem arises when they want to force others to live like them. I have no problem with a social conservative using the bully pulpit to try to guide the morals of the country. I do have a problem with them trying to Force me to live like that with the threat of legal action if I do not comply.

I think the way to handle social issues is to give back power to the states. Palin goverened as the above. She was never ashamed of her social conservative views, she just never tried to make those views laws.

And I also disagree that social conservatives are concentrated in the South. Ca voted to ban gay marriage as well as many other purple states. I would contend that social liberals are concentrated in the Northeast and on the west coast. And it is they that are trying to pass their social views onto the rest of the country.

RavingDave said...

It has long been my contention that there is an illusionary boundary between Social Conservatism and Fiscal conservatism.

To assert otherwise is to believe that government should exhibit common sense only when it comes to money, and the rest of the time the government should behave like an imbecile.

The fallacy with this belief is that social effects have no impact on fiscal effects.

That is completely absurd. The bigger part of our Federal Budget is "entitlements," or if you prefer, variations on the theme of theft and slavery.

How did we get so many "entitlements"? Social effects.

What should the government do about people who have children but won't take care of them ?

I saw a comment the other day that sums things up succinctly.


every issue is a social issue

every issue is a fiscal issue

every issue is a defense issue

they have only been seperated in order to seperate us.

Posted by: shoey at November 01, 2009 07:07 PM (RxUMK) "

David said...

unseen said "I do have a problem with them trying to Force me to live like that with the threat of legal action if I do not comply."

That's exactly how I feel about the left in this country (e.g. environmentalism forcing us to NOT take advantage of our own natural resources, Cap and Trade, national health care (public 'option' ugh), anti-2nd Amendment type who want to take away my right to carry protection when where and how I see fit to protect me and my family, etc) The left in this country want to completely control how I live my life.

RavingDave said...

Conservatives mainly just want to be left alone, but they can't stand by and let others commit acts which are injurious to conservatives and others.

My favorite example is people who have children without being willing to take care of them. (I.E. feed, clothe and shelter them. )

Who pays the bill for this ? The responsible members of society.

The irresponsible are in effect "Thieving" from the responsible, so it becomes both a moral AND economic issue.

M. Simon said...


In an ideal world I would agree with you totally.

However, a lot of social conservatives at this time don't seem to be able to live like that. I'm trying to ease them into that by showing them the political advantages.

I agree about giving the power back to the states.

The deal in CA was that it was Black Social Conservatives in the Huckabee mold who turned the tide. They are mostly happy with the Socialist Party.

In any case what I'm attempting is to come up with a set of Republican core values that might attract enough voters to turn the tide against socialism.

M. Simon said...


Re: Illusory Divides.

I quite agree. The Drug War has empowered criminals and terrorists and costs $50 bn a year to herd junkies.

And then there is the public school system designed as indoctrination canters by Protestants against Catholics and Jews. Now taken over by Marxists and Union incompetents.

So yeah there are social effects from social conservatives pet causes. And they don't seem to be entirely positive.

Milton Friedman calls the Drug War a Socialist enterprise. Price supports for criminals. And the socialist impulse (government funding and control) of the school system is rather obvious. My contention is that socialism doesn't work.

Now if the socons want socialism in the areas they predominate, I think it ought to be allowed.

What I'm attempting to show is the political advantage of allying with libertarians so that Republicans can have a national presence again.

Once Obama is gone the social conservatives will not be so popular outside their core areas. We have already seen that evolution from 1994 to 2006.

I see no need to repeat that trajectory.

M. Simon said...


The socons just want to be left alone? It would be nice if they reciprocated.

Do unto others etc.

The American Taliban is rather apt. Not in terms of the culture they want to enforce but in the fact that they want to enforce culture.

I'm endeavoring to find a way out from that.

RavingDave said...

MSimon, with you, all roads lead to the "Drug War".

This seems to be with you, an area like the fellow who was hypnotized to forget the number seven.(7)

It looks right to you, but it looks strange to everyone else.

Most people are not fixated on the "Drug war." In my mind, it is a trivial aspect of our real problems, and I cannot fathom why you keep making it the centerpiece of your philosophy.

In any case, I agree with the both of you that the solution is Federalism. (i.e. letting each state set it's own social policies as befits it's own communities. )

This WAS the state of affairs before FDR and Truman had a cumulative 20 years to appoint left-wing kook liberal judges to the federal courts.

M. Simon said...

Of course most people are not fixated on the drug war. It is what has allowed this travesty to happen and has also wasted a trillion dollars over the last 20 years.

It has also contributed to the breakdown of the black family. The funding of Mexican gangs now at our borders and criminals in American cities not to mention the Taliban in Afghanistan.

All relatively minor effects no doubt. Not worth a look or any attention what so ever.

It is coming to an end. And when it does Republicans will be seen on the wrong side of it and thus it will give the socialist an electoral advantage for decades. Nothing to be concerned about. Pay no attention.

The Republicans will never need those votes. Might as well give them to the socialists.

RavingDave said...

I found this post over in the comments at Ace of Spades. Anyone disagree with this assessment?


The thing I think is being missed is the inherent assumption that "Conservatives" are always "anti-" whatever.

We're not. We're "pro-liberty."

I live in Texas. I don't care if people in Mass. have abortion on demand (well, okay, I do, but that's a different discussion)- it's not my business. I don't care if Oregon, or Mass, or Cali want to have socialized medicine- it's not my business.

But, since it isn't my business, my wallet shouldn't be on the line for it either. I think that is the one stance that all Concervatives can get behind and will pull in all the so-called Moderates. Call it "Federalism" or "Leave-me-the-f-alone-ism" or whatever, but I think that is the message that will ring true with most Americans and, if adopted as the message of the "maximalists" would pretty well end the debate on the Right- since its where we all agree.

Anyone who doesn't agree with that position is, by definition, a Big Government Liberal.

Posted by: Allen G at November 03, 2009 05:12 PM (hH7n9) "