Posted on Jun 3, 2016
How Conservatives Stopped Listening and Lost Control of the GOP
1.64K
33
25
4
4
0
Two parts in this article caught my attention:
"Gone is the pretense of finding proven political leadership or the resources needed for a serious independent bid. In its place is the urge to find anyone willing to run, even if it’s impossible to have any impact at all. It reduces conservatism to a stunt, a gimmick, and one that could do more damage than all of the good Kristol and French authentically hope to accomplish."
And
"If movement conservatives want to restore their influence, both within and outside of the Republican Party, they need to engage voters in their communities and on the ground. Those activists need to make conservative policies and principles relevant in the lives of voters, not through sound bites about values but through actual solutions to issues in their communities based on those values. That will make conservatism relevant, and its success will give voters a guidepost in national elections."
Nevertheless, as this recommendation come too late? Has the GOP become so enraptured with being "electable" that they aren't willing to bring realistic solutions to issues?
(And please, don't turn this into a "Well, their are some crappy Democrats out there,too" yarn. I'm genuinely curious to see if Republicans can return to the "Party of Lincoln" or have too many external factors sank that ship.)
"Gone is the pretense of finding proven political leadership or the resources needed for a serious independent bid. In its place is the urge to find anyone willing to run, even if it’s impossible to have any impact at all. It reduces conservatism to a stunt, a gimmick, and one that could do more damage than all of the good Kristol and French authentically hope to accomplish."
And
"If movement conservatives want to restore their influence, both within and outside of the Republican Party, they need to engage voters in their communities and on the ground. Those activists need to make conservative policies and principles relevant in the lives of voters, not through sound bites about values but through actual solutions to issues in their communities based on those values. That will make conservatism relevant, and its success will give voters a guidepost in national elections."
Nevertheless, as this recommendation come too late? Has the GOP become so enraptured with being "electable" that they aren't willing to bring realistic solutions to issues?
(And please, don't turn this into a "Well, their are some crappy Democrats out there,too" yarn. I'm genuinely curious to see if Republicans can return to the "Party of Lincoln" or have too many external factors sank that ship.)
How Conservatives Stopped Listening and Lost Control of the GOP
Posted from yahoo.comPosted in these groups: 
Politics
Republicans
Politics Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
The problem is that conservative is not a unified descriptor. I am a fiscal moderate, a foreign policy conservative and a social liberal. The GOP used to have a place for me, but since it went all extreme-religious And social conservative more socially moderate and progressive though fiscally or foreign policy conservatives were forced out of the party.
The GOP needs to decide if it cares more about the economy and foreign policy or about trying to regulate what people do in their bedrooms, who they can marry and which bathroom they use.
The GOP needs to decide if it cares more about the economy and foreign policy or about trying to regulate what people do in their bedrooms, who they can marry and which bathroom they use.
(4)
(0)
Maj John Bell
LTC (Join to see) - Those are wedge issues that will lose them seats. I am not defending Republicans. I AM saying that they are not as good at gamesmanship.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Andrew-Interesting points regarding "natural" monogamy-The point of whether or not marriage "belongs" to faith or society is one that hinges on one's beliefs, and how they frame these relationships...if not existence itself. Therefore, not a point I can "make", so I'll set it aside for the moment.
As regards "rights"...From a strict standpoint of what is "legal"; I can't honestly challenge your thesis. The Constitution was written prior to a great many things that have altered societies norms and mores...so I cannot claim that the ambiguity implies a mandate. However, the entire debate centers on this question (which ties back into the original post)...should those whose beliefs identify other's "rights" as moral wrongs be forced by law to accept those choices? We seem to agree that in the realm of personal opinion...that they should not. We also seem to also agree that when personal opinions conflict, the law steps in. My entire thesis could be stated simply thus; that conflict is necessary and vital to a free society, and is resolved via the representative government. For the time being, my "side" seems to be in the minority...it can always shift, both peaceably and legally.
As to Jefferson and Adams being proto-atheist/agnostics; I'm not as solidly convinced. I believe the preponderance of evidence suggests they were simply a bit more intelligent than most of us-I could be wrong. To my mind "Deist" is a term created by those who could not ideologically resolve the disparity between critical theological thinking...and the prevailing doctrines of the the ruling denominations. I believe that if the Apostles had been alive at the time, they, if not Christ Himself, would've been pursued by the Inquisition.
Great debate, and I've enjoyed the discourse.
As regards "rights"...From a strict standpoint of what is "legal"; I can't honestly challenge your thesis. The Constitution was written prior to a great many things that have altered societies norms and mores...so I cannot claim that the ambiguity implies a mandate. However, the entire debate centers on this question (which ties back into the original post)...should those whose beliefs identify other's "rights" as moral wrongs be forced by law to accept those choices? We seem to agree that in the realm of personal opinion...that they should not. We also seem to also agree that when personal opinions conflict, the law steps in. My entire thesis could be stated simply thus; that conflict is necessary and vital to a free society, and is resolved via the representative government. For the time being, my "side" seems to be in the minority...it can always shift, both peaceably and legally.
As to Jefferson and Adams being proto-atheist/agnostics; I'm not as solidly convinced. I believe the preponderance of evidence suggests they were simply a bit more intelligent than most of us-I could be wrong. To my mind "Deist" is a term created by those who could not ideologically resolve the disparity between critical theological thinking...and the prevailing doctrines of the the ruling denominations. I believe that if the Apostles had been alive at the time, they, if not Christ Himself, would've been pursued by the Inquisition.
Great debate, and I've enjoyed the discourse.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LCDR (Join to see) - Deist to me is someone who doesn't know how we got here, but knows it was the Judeo-Christian creation myth or any other of the known religious explanations. In short, a Deist believes in some kind of deity, but knows nothing about said diety whatsoever. One cannot be a Deist and a Christian any mor than on can b a Christian and a Hindu.
As for rights, the simplest way I can say it is that any one person's rights end right where another person's begin. You have the right to swing to your fists, but that right ends rights where my faith begins. Your right to prohibit pork ends where my right to eat pork begins.
In short, my right to eat pork outweighs your right to not be offended by my eating pork. George Takei's right to marry his husband outweighs your right not to effected by ot? Why? Because George's right only affects George, yours tries control and limit everyone else who offends YOU and YOUR beliefs. We are a diverse and plural society, EVERYONE's society, not YOUR society.
As for rights, the simplest way I can say it is that any one person's rights end right where another person's begin. You have the right to swing to your fists, but that right ends rights where my faith begins. Your right to prohibit pork ends where my right to eat pork begins.
In short, my right to eat pork outweighs your right to not be offended by my eating pork. George Takei's right to marry his husband outweighs your right not to effected by ot? Why? Because George's right only affects George, yours tries control and limit everyone else who offends YOU and YOUR beliefs. We are a diverse and plural society, EVERYONE's society, not YOUR society.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
By adding in the necessary "disclaimer" that MY personal beliefs obviously give me a much narrow range of "rights" than I possess as a citizen of a free country...I essentially agree. There truly is no "faith based" requirement (as a Christian at least) that I "insist" on everyone seeing it "my way". Frankly, in keeping with my beliefs...no one "answers" to me or any other person of faith (insert "clergy")...just God.
Now-the "rub" comes when something that pluralistic, admittedly free society accepts, is something my beliefs condemn me to participate in or advocate. Someone's sexual activities in private do not impinge on that, neither does their choice of "identity". However (and I'm not attempting to re-engage; you sufficiently presented the argument earlier-I merely need to keep "honest" regarding my position), should law force me to facilitate "sin"; i.e. provide support/services to it...then, it potentially forces me to choose between faith principles and civic duty. To my mind, it would be best if the law of the land remained neutral on these points (I assert is is required to), and those involved would exercise good judgement in dealing with other human beings...i.e., I don't think I'll be opening a wedding venue or a bed and breakfast any time soon, and I hope any LGBT person I know would either exclude me, or accept my polite regrets if invited to their wedding.
A great example involves my own wedding: I see nothing in the scriptures governing my faith that condemns the consumption of alcohol in moderation...but I know and love many fellow Christians who do. We therefore had a "dry" wedding...my guests who drink were quite polite about it, and I left a fridge full of craft-brew at my house for the groomsmen. If those friends visit the house, I don't serve alcohol, or consume it in front of them...I know it would make them "uncomfortable". In the same manner, though I drink on occasion, I usually vote "against" increased liquor easement in my city/county...because I believe placing a biker bar on our main street would be a negative influence. I don't however, have any desire to shut down every bar in the state.
In summation, I believe our laws were designed to give individuals the freedom to live in accordance with their principles...I sometimes fear we are moving away from that, and if so, I would like not to see either the return of an "Inquisition"...or it's inverse. I feel that preserving a "conservative" moral position in politics provides that counter-balance, and is a healthy thing for a truly free society.
Now-the "rub" comes when something that pluralistic, admittedly free society accepts, is something my beliefs condemn me to participate in or advocate. Someone's sexual activities in private do not impinge on that, neither does their choice of "identity". However (and I'm not attempting to re-engage; you sufficiently presented the argument earlier-I merely need to keep "honest" regarding my position), should law force me to facilitate "sin"; i.e. provide support/services to it...then, it potentially forces me to choose between faith principles and civic duty. To my mind, it would be best if the law of the land remained neutral on these points (I assert is is required to), and those involved would exercise good judgement in dealing with other human beings...i.e., I don't think I'll be opening a wedding venue or a bed and breakfast any time soon, and I hope any LGBT person I know would either exclude me, or accept my polite regrets if invited to their wedding.
A great example involves my own wedding: I see nothing in the scriptures governing my faith that condemns the consumption of alcohol in moderation...but I know and love many fellow Christians who do. We therefore had a "dry" wedding...my guests who drink were quite polite about it, and I left a fridge full of craft-brew at my house for the groomsmen. If those friends visit the house, I don't serve alcohol, or consume it in front of them...I know it would make them "uncomfortable". In the same manner, though I drink on occasion, I usually vote "against" increased liquor easement in my city/county...because I believe placing a biker bar on our main street would be a negative influence. I don't however, have any desire to shut down every bar in the state.
In summation, I believe our laws were designed to give individuals the freedom to live in accordance with their principles...I sometimes fear we are moving away from that, and if so, I would like not to see either the return of an "Inquisition"...or it's inverse. I feel that preserving a "conservative" moral position in politics provides that counter-balance, and is a healthy thing for a truly free society.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
They allowed themselves to alienate possible voters. They looked at Obama's second term win and knew THEN they needed to be more welcoming to minorities. They went out and got some that would seem solid an ex would be the SC Governor Nikki Hayley, Michael Steele, and the former LA Governor. But for each stride they took, in this election Trump managed to take them back six. Add to the fact there is a Grand Canyon sized split in the party itself, and you have the "Old Guard" GOP, RINO's, Tea Party, and God knows what else, and it shows a direct lack of a unified command. I firmly believe after this election cycle is over, along with congressional elections, the GOP will take a hard look at itself, and there will be some drastic changes. You don't have to like Ryan, but he seems the type to lay the hammer down, and this will be his true test of leadership. I believe he will slowly begin the process of unifying the party, and you'll see some of the more ignorant ones (Palinesque) move onto other areas or form another fringe party that will really mean nothing. I'm not expecting him to crack the whip immediately until all the elections are done, but at that point, Trump will be a distant memory, and they will look at their values list to see what went wrong past Trump. They'll see the Bengazi backstabbing, underhanded tactics (ala Cruz), and the desire of the GOP faithful to see new and younger blood sitting in those seats. You might suddenly see a stronger movement within the RNC to focus on minorities as members telling them this isn't the party of 2016, but the party of forever that wants them to be with and share in the future victories. I think more moderate conservatives will begin coming out, wanting to do more across the lines, but maintaining their values as conservatives. I would not be surprised if there is MORE democratic and republican meetings to get things moving after this election. They could be a force to be dealt with later, but they should be ready to loose everything they gained in 2014 for a few years. Take the time to rebuild, and be more inclusive rather than exclusive and we could suddenly see a shift with minority votes in maybe five to ten years? Courting the white vote is not going to gather them any favors in states where the biggest growing population is the Hispanics. So most of the western south would fall into that.
(3)
(0)
I see disfunction in both parties. To signal out conservatism is really disingenuous. The idea that the GOP needs to move back to "the party of Lincoln" may be a good approach. But these are different times. How well do you think President Kennedy would be perceived by the DNC today? "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
— John F. Kennedy, inauguration address, January 1961.
— John F. Kennedy, inauguration address, January 1961.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google