The guy with the big microphone weighed in on CPAC yesterday, in particular against the idea that the way to grow our movement is to jettison the social issues. The Left, he points out, never thinks like that.
But the problem is that the 'social issues' folks want to jettison Hispanics, Muslims especially and non-Christians generally, and gays. Which is ALSO something that Democrats don't do.
The question is--how do you placate the social issues folks, people who define themselves based on who they dislike--while also remaining open to all those people that the social issues folks, definitionally, don't like?
It's always easier to grow a movement when you have a positive identity--you define yourself by what you are, not what you are not. And that's the problem conservatives are always going to have.
Limbaugh missed the point. Nobody's talking about "jettisoning" social issues -- which aren't going to go away even if we want them to.
The point here is to focus intently on a clear and present danger, to unite around an urgent and existential threat.
Simply put: it's making a formal governing coalition from what the Tea Party already started. The Tea Party isn't for or against abortion. It doesn't speak to gay marriage.
Now, I imagine if you polled Tea Party supporters on these issues, we'd find that most of them hew toward the conservative positions. But the point is that this is not what *defines* the Tea Party.
I think Daniels is right: either we put together a different, and larger, governing coalition to tackle this spending problem, or it becomes the catalyst for our social decline.
I do not agree with jetisoning anyone from the GOP. There is no reason you can't have a big GOP tent for everyone, but you focus on your core values and do not compromise those values.
From someone who actually attended CPAC this year.
1.) The booing of Cheney and Rumsfeld came from one loud, obnoxious faction: the Ron Paul fans. His Campaign for Liberty paid a substantial amount of money to bus in every Paul fan they could find, and they were extremely obnoxious. They only attended speeches in order to worship Ron and Rand, and to harass anyone else (They were the ones primarily harassing Orrin Hatch as well). They left en masse as soon as the straw poll (which they threw) results were announced.
2.) Mitch Daniels did NOT insult Rush, Sean Hannity, or anyone else. From the context of the speech, it is clear that Daniels wants the party to appeal to those who simply aren't involved in politics (they flip by CSPAN on the way to Sportscenter). This is a welcome reminder at a conference filled with news junkies.
3.) Social Conservatives were not asked to abandon beliefs by Daniels. He is simply saying that until our fiscal house is in order, we can focus on nothing else. This is expected from a governor who is primarily identified with fiscal issues. We are going to have to attract Democratic votes in any scheme of entitlement reform. Pushing for a repeal of birthright citizenship or a federal marriage amendment would allow the left to demonize this president, and make it impossible for a Democrat to vote for anything he advocates. The top priority has to be putting our nation on a sound fiscal footing.
Riot's comment is one of the silliest I've seen on this site or elsewhere. No, conservatives don't want to jettison the folks mentioned, but it is an easy caricature that libertarians and leftists make in order to silence their opposition.
Conservatism is primarily a social and cultural philosophy. Get rid of that leg and you're left with something that is but a shell of its former self. And as Jim DeMint has said, jettison social conservatism and you probably do away with economic conservatism. After all, look at the likes of Schwarzenegger, Snowe, Collins, etc. Are they fiercer economic conservatives that Ryan, Coburn, DeMint, etc?
Mr. Daniels definitely does not want to jettison anyone. Rush is off base here--which is unusual.
Mr. Daniels is simply saying "WAKE UP! We are in hot water. There is time for squabble over values. There is a right and wrong that I believe in. BUT WAKE UP!"
Limbaugh was constructing his usual straw man narrative yesterday, repeatedly presenting the idea - which was to DE-EMPHASIZE social issues, not "jettison" them - as a sop to the LEFT.
This has never been about the LEFT, it's about independents. If Limbaugh sincerely believes there aren't substantial pockets of voters who are economically libertarian, yet turned off by hardcore so-cons, he's nuts. We're not talking about substantive platform changes, kicking so-cons out of the tent, or any such thing, we're just talking about modulating the rhetoric and not wearing this on our sleeve.
If voters are responding favorably to economic and fiscal messages, but many of them have shunned voting Republican for this one reason, why abrasively talk about something that turns these gettable voters off?
I respectfully disagree. And the respect is not simply because you have one of the awesomest monikers on the thread.
Social conservatives do not "define themselves based on who they dislike".
For one, we really like unborn children and would love to see them avoid senseless slaughter. The heart beats after only a handful of weeks, and these are the most defenseless among us.
And, contra a favorite Leftist meme, we also like the poor mothers and others who find themselves in difficult financial (and other) circumstances that make a pregnancy seem impossible to handle. (Which is why we fund perinatal and adoption clinics and support adoption ourselves).
In terms of "gay marriage", we simply recognize that there is something unique to heterosexual coupling (see also: birds and bees) that merits preservation.
I'm not sure what you have in mind vis a vis Muslims and Hispanics precisely. But for the majority of the former that aren't out to kill us, I think social conservatives have no problems there.
As for the latter, the issue stems not from race but from legality. You will hear conservatives speak against "illegals" but we recognize that's not synonymous with "Hispanic".
In fact, conservatives, I think, generally like Hispanics -- that is, when we're prompted to think in terms of groups rather than individuals -- since, as a group, they tend to share many conservative values.
If you think illegal immigration is bad, say so. Do not fear Hispanic backlash. Because you might find a lot of Hispanics and other recent immigrants who came here legally agree with you. If your policy position is correct, don't be afraid to say it because someone might call you a racist.
I would vote for gay marriage. But I do not think gay marriage should ever be judicially imposed. Let the states work this out. Others are against it because they think it should be limited to a man and a woman. You can hold either of those positions without being anti gay or homophobic. And the GOP taking a stand on what a plurality of its members thinks about it is fine. BTW, when Obama says things about gay marriage that are exactly the same as what George Bush said, I do not see him getting too much flack from his own party.
Social issues don't win elections in this country. Limbaugh is misled by the memory of 2000 when the country appeared 'socially' disgusted with Clinton personally as to hand the reins to a guy they saw as his polar opposite. The truth was closer to a desire for White House party change after eight years and a deeply flawed candidate in Gore.
By pulling this social-issues bait-n-switch after screaming themselves raw about jobs, jobs, jobs to get elected, all conservatives are doing is turning off independents who held their noses and voted with them.
And without those independents, a conservative-dominated Republican party will not take back the White House in '12, which is another blind spot Limbaugh and ilk don't like to mention.
He mentions "social issues" a lot, but in the context of such things as open borders, crime, and drugs. Gee, I didn't know the socons owned these issues. Who'da thunk it. But he only mentioned pro-life once, and didn't mention gay marriage at all.
Rush is a virtuoso at playing the dog whistle. He can fulminate all afternoon about "social issues" without taking a stand on any of them. That way, you can pick your favorite pet peeve and believe that he's talking to you about it, even when he's not.
And, as any regular listener knows, he won't touch gay marriage or other gay civil liberties issues with a ten foot pole. If a caller gets past Bo Snerdley and mentions it on the air, Rush ducks that call pronto.
I don't understand why Daniels' position is so often misunderstood. It's an oversimplification to say he wants to "jettison" the social issues. He's saying there is a major crisis that can only be solved with broad (i.e., more than 51 or 52 or 53 percent) support and that focusing on social issues often creates division that spills over into other issues. I care deeply about social issues but this seems entirely logical to me. I'd be happy to fight over the social issues once we aren't about to experience an economic collapse. But if we fight over them while trying to solve economic problems we risk alienating potential allies.
I agree with Shawn. The magnitude of the fiscal problem facing this country is staggering. That has to be our first priority, or everything else will get thrown out with the bathwater. If de-emphasizing social issues, or having a "truce," or whatever you want to call it, brings voters on board who are in agreement with fiscal conservatism but uncomfortable with social conservatism, then that's where we need to focus our efforts until we're past this crisis.
At least we'll be the most morally serious bankrupt nation on earth.
I'm socially conservative on marriage and abortion but some of the straw men that the socons employ in this debate is getting a bit absurd. Someone suggests not playing up the social issues and sticking to the fiscal issues and it is portrayed as surrender. All these people do is cry for Reagan - and while he was certainly very socially conservative he was hardly a firebrand. That's all I want, and unfortunately the brain dead fickle moderates don't respond well to brimstone.
We certainly need the social conservative one and two issue voters on our side, but it's come back to bite us to a large degree IMO. We spend so much time bragging about family values and about how morally superior we are, anytime a scumbag with an R next to his name makes a pass at a page or taps his foot in a stall it does political damage. Work our hardest to enact conservative, pro-family legislation but stop telling everyone how freakin morally superior we are and how evil the gays are. Far different from surrender.
GruffBear says, "He mentions 'social issues' a lot . . . . But he only mentioned pro-life once, and didn't mention gay marriage at all."
Your video firewall has deceived you, Gruff Bear. One of the first things he says is, "Most conservatives strongly oppose gay marriage and legalized pot."
I find the comments truly amazing. Without the nasty name calling, the opinions and views offered are truly in line with a lot of the kos and huffington post comments.
When you consider letting the abortion of a child continue while you attend to your financial house.....exactly what do you stand for? When institutions that have formed the backbone our country (marriage and family)have become some fashionable item to be put on or discarded or made to have no meaning at all.....exactly what do you stand for? If allowing your own house to fall in order to provide for people you do not know and have no responsibility for.....exactly what do you stand for? And exactly what is the definition of CONSERVATIVE in CPAC?
T McCabe says, "I don't understand why Daniels' position is so often misunderstood."
It's not misunderstood, although it may not be fully understood, because Daniels has been deliberately obscure.
I keep repeating myself, but *no one* is emphasizing social issues, and everyone understands that that is a good idea. The focus right now must be on the economy. We all get that.
However, Daniels is the only Republican politician to say, "Look at me; I'm not emphasizing social issues!" If that is not an announcement that he won't be there when we need him, I don't know what would do the job.
But the problem is that the 'social issues' folks want to jettison Hispanics, Muslims especially and non-Christians generally, and gays. Which is ALSO something that Democrats don't do.
The question is--how do you placate the social issues folks, people who define themselves based on who they dislike--while also remaining open to all those people that the social issues folks, definitionally, don't like?
It's always easier to grow a movement when you have a positive identity--you define yourself by what you are, not what you are not. And that's the problem conservatives are always going to have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLimbaugh missed the point. Nobody's talking about "jettisoning" social issues -- which aren't going to go away even if we want them to.
The point here is to focus intently on a clear and present danger, to unite around an urgent and existential threat.
Simply put: it's making a formal governing coalition from what the Tea Party already started. The Tea Party isn't for or against abortion. It doesn't speak to gay marriage.
Now, I imagine if you polled Tea Party supporters on these issues, we'd find that most of them hew toward the conservative positions. But the point is that this is not what *defines* the Tea Party.
I think Daniels is right: either we put together a different, and larger, governing coalition to tackle this spending problem, or it becomes the catalyst for our social decline.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRush is right on this. We need to stop trying to make liberals love us. If we are right, we are right.
And Michael Medved needs to stop worrying what his neighbors on Mercer Island, WA might say. They will never agree with you Michael. At least not that way. Worry about what is right and pursue that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do not agree with jetisoning anyone from the GOP. There is no reason you can't have a big GOP tent for everyone, but you focus on your core values and do not compromise those values.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom someone who actually attended CPAC this year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1.) The booing of Cheney and Rumsfeld came from one loud, obnoxious faction: the Ron Paul fans. His Campaign for Liberty paid a substantial amount of money to bus in every Paul fan they could find, and they were extremely obnoxious. They only attended speeches in order to worship Ron and Rand, and to harass anyone else (They were the ones primarily harassing Orrin Hatch as well). They left en masse as soon as the straw poll (which they threw) results were announced.
2.) Mitch Daniels did NOT insult Rush, Sean Hannity, or anyone else. From the context of the speech, it is clear that Daniels wants the party to appeal to those who simply aren't involved in politics (they flip by CSPAN on the way to Sportscenter). This is a welcome reminder at a conference filled with news junkies.
3.) Social Conservatives were not asked to abandon beliefs by Daniels. He is simply saying that until our fiscal house is in order, we can focus on nothing else. This is expected from a governor who is primarily identified with fiscal issues. We are going to have to attract Democratic votes in any scheme of entitlement reform. Pushing for a repeal of birthright citizenship or a federal marriage amendment would allow the left to demonize this president, and make it impossible for a Democrat to vote for anything he advocates. The top priority has to be putting our nation on a sound fiscal footing.
Who is trying to make liberals love us?
I might agree that McCain was guilty of that, certainly in the period between his two presidential campaigns. But who's doing that now?
I don't see it happening. So that's a strawman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiot's comment is one of the silliest I've seen on this site or elsewhere. No, conservatives don't want to jettison the folks mentioned, but it is an easy caricature that libertarians and leftists make in order to silence their opposition.
Conservatism is primarily a social and cultural philosophy. Get rid of that leg and you're left with something that is but a shell of its former self. And as Jim DeMint has said, jettison social conservatism and you probably do away with economic conservatism. After all, look at the likes of Schwarzenegger, Snowe, Collins, etc. Are they fiercer economic conservatives that Ryan, Coburn, DeMint, etc?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Daniels definitely does not want to jettison anyone. Rush is off base here--which is unusual.
Mr. Daniels is simply saying "WAKE UP! We are in hot water. There is time for squabble over values. There is a right and wrong that I believe in. BUT WAKE UP!"
DANIELS 2012
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLimbaugh was constructing his usual straw man narrative yesterday, repeatedly presenting the idea - which was to DE-EMPHASIZE social issues, not "jettison" them - as a sop to the LEFT.
This has never been about the LEFT, it's about independents. If Limbaugh sincerely believes there aren't substantial pockets of voters who are economically libertarian, yet turned off by hardcore so-cons, he's nuts. We're not talking about substantive platform changes, kicking so-cons out of the tent, or any such thing, we're just talking about modulating the rhetoric and not wearing this on our sleeve.
If voters are responding favorably to economic and fiscal messages, but many of them have shunned voting Republican for this one reason, why abrasively talk about something that turns these gettable voters off?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiotLibrarian,
I respectfully disagree. And the respect is not simply because you have one of the awesomest monikers on the thread.
Social conservatives do not "define themselves based on who they dislike".
For one, we really like unborn children and would love to see them avoid senseless slaughter. The heart beats after only a handful of weeks, and these are the most defenseless among us.
And, contra a favorite Leftist meme, we also like the poor mothers and others who find themselves in difficult financial (and other) circumstances that make a pregnancy seem impossible to handle. (Which is why we fund perinatal and adoption clinics and support adoption ourselves).
In terms of "gay marriage", we simply recognize that there is something unique to heterosexual coupling (see also: birds and bees) that merits preservation.
I'm not sure what you have in mind vis a vis Muslims and Hispanics precisely. But for the majority of the former that aren't out to kill us, I think social conservatives have no problems there.
As for the latter, the issue stems not from race but from legality. You will hear conservatives speak against "illegals" but we recognize that's not synonymous with "Hispanic".
In fact, conservatives, I think, generally like Hispanics -- that is, when we're prompted to think in terms of groups rather than individuals -- since, as a group, they tend to share many conservative values.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think illegal immigration is bad, say so. Do not fear Hispanic backlash. Because you might find a lot of Hispanics and other recent immigrants who came here legally agree with you. If your policy position is correct, don't be afraid to say it because someone might call you a racist.
I would vote for gay marriage. But I do not think gay marriage should ever be judicially imposed. Let the states work this out. Others are against it because they think it should be limited to a man and a woman. You can hold either of those positions without being anti gay or homophobic. And the GOP taking a stand on what a plurality of its members thinks about it is fine. BTW, when Obama says things about gay marriage that are exactly the same as what George Bush said, I do not see him getting too much flack from his own party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSocial issues don't win elections in this country. Limbaugh is misled by the memory of 2000 when the country appeared 'socially' disgusted with Clinton personally as to hand the reins to a guy they saw as his polar opposite. The truth was closer to a desire for White House party change after eight years and a deeply flawed candidate in Gore.
By pulling this social-issues bait-n-switch after screaming themselves raw about jobs, jobs, jobs to get elected, all conservatives are doing is turning off independents who held their noses and voted with them.
And without those independents, a conservative-dominated Republican party will not take back the White House in '12, which is another blind spot Limbaugh and ilk don't like to mention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't have access to the video across my firewall. But here's the full transcript of Rush opining on CPAC on The Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday.
He mentions "social issues" a lot, but in the context of such things as open borders, crime, and drugs. Gee, I didn't know the socons owned these issues. Who'da thunk it. But he only mentioned pro-life once, and didn't mention gay marriage at all.
Rush is a virtuoso at playing the dog whistle. He can fulminate all afternoon about "social issues" without taking a stand on any of them. That way, you can pick your favorite pet peeve and believe that he's talking to you about it, even when he's not.
And, as any regular listener knows, he won't touch gay marriage or other gay civil liberties issues with a ten foot pole. If a caller gets past Bo Snerdley and mentions it on the air, Rush ducks that call pronto.
Nice try, Maggie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't understand why Daniels' position is so often misunderstood. It's an oversimplification to say he wants to "jettison" the social issues. He's saying there is a major crisis that can only be solved with broad (i.e., more than 51 or 52 or 53 percent) support and that focusing on social issues often creates division that spills over into other issues. I care deeply about social issues but this seems entirely logical to me. I'd be happy to fight over the social issues once we aren't about to experience an economic collapse. But if we fight over them while trying to solve economic problems we risk alienating potential allies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Shawn. The magnitude of the fiscal problem facing this country is staggering. That has to be our first priority, or everything else will get thrown out with the bathwater. If de-emphasizing social issues, or having a "truce," or whatever you want to call it, brings voters on board who are in agreement with fiscal conservatism but uncomfortable with social conservatism, then that's where we need to focus our efforts until we're past this crisis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoCamels: Hear, hear!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt least we'll be the most morally serious bankrupt nation on earth.
I'm socially conservative on marriage and abortion but some of the straw men that the socons employ in this debate is getting a bit absurd. Someone suggests not playing up the social issues and sticking to the fiscal issues and it is portrayed as surrender. All these people do is cry for Reagan - and while he was certainly very socially conservative he was hardly a firebrand. That's all I want, and unfortunately the brain dead fickle moderates don't respond well to brimstone.
We certainly need the social conservative one and two issue voters on our side, but it's come back to bite us to a large degree IMO. We spend so much time bragging about family values and about how morally superior we are, anytime a scumbag with an R next to his name makes a pass at a page or taps his foot in a stall it does political damage. Work our hardest to enact conservative, pro-family legislation but stop telling everyone how freakin morally superior we are and how evil the gays are. Far different from surrender.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGruffBear says, "He mentions 'social issues' a lot . . . . But he only mentioned pro-life once, and didn't mention gay marriage at all."
Your video firewall has deceived you, Gruff Bear. One of the first things he says is, "Most conservatives strongly oppose gay marriage and legalized pot."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find the comments truly amazing. Without the nasty name calling, the opinions and views offered are truly in line with a lot of the kos and huffington post comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen you consider letting the abortion of a child continue while you attend to your financial house.....exactly what do you stand for? When institutions that have formed the backbone our country (marriage and family)have become some fashionable item to be put on or discarded or made to have no meaning at all.....exactly what do you stand for? If allowing your own house to fall in order to provide for people you do not know and have no responsibility for.....exactly what do you stand for? And exactly what is the definition of CONSERVATIVE in CPAC?
T McCabe says, "I don't understand why Daniels' position is so often misunderstood."
It's not misunderstood, although it may not be fully understood, because Daniels has been deliberately obscure.
I keep repeating myself, but *no one* is emphasizing social issues, and everyone understands that that is a good idea. The focus right now must be on the economy. We all get that.
However, Daniels is the only Republican politician to say, "Look at me; I'm not emphasizing social issues!" If that is not an announcement that he won't be there when we need him, I don't know what would do the job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse