Conservatism Includes Social Conservatives

[DamnYankee]

He granted amnesty to illegal aliens... or, wait a minute...

He messed up there.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, I don't disagree that the Republicans must find a new way to articulate the ideals of conservatism, that is sort of my point too. I think the mistake has been, shying away from conservative social issues, instead of articulating a strong message to support them. You SAY prioritize, but what you really mean is, shove the religious stuff in the closet and don't bring it up. Yeah, we can have these social conservative views, but just don't mention them... focus on the other stuff... fiscal responsibility, national security, etc. I get what you are saying, but I think that is what Republicans tried to do with McCain, and have been trying to do for the past 7-8 years, and it's not working.

Moderating conservative views to play down social conservatism, is a terrible strategic mistake. It may appeal to you personally, as I said, I can see what you are saying, I somewhat agree, but I really do think this is what is missing, the connective argument... why social conservative issues are important in a conservative movement. I think Conservatism has to be presented in a complete package to work like it did with Reagan. That is what has been missing. Reagan never made you feel as if he were pounding you over the head with his Bible, however, he had very strong religious convictions, and didn't mind expressing them. Virtually every fiscal conservative aspect to Reagan, from economic policy to the ideas on reforming welfare, were rooted in a foundational Christian belief system. Much of Reagan's "vision" is summed up in his famous "Shining City on the Hill" speech, which is pretty much a direct reference to his religious beliefs.

Unless you think that Reagan simply went and hid those ideas in a closet rather than simply had different priorities, or that Newt didn't articulate anything on those ideas, then you are simply exaggerating my position to the absurd.

I mean what I say. The priorities cannot be as they have been the past 8 years or we will continue to fail as a party. We have direct evidence of what happens when personal liberties are not a priority for the party, when smaller government isn't above Pill Bills and gay marriage, when we allow 9/11 to "change everything" about what we are and what we stand for. We cannot allow the party to again drop what I believe are the important parts and reject our ideation because we allowed ourselves to be convinced that security was better than responsibility and freedom. Those of us who joined the party because of its staunch defense of personal responsibility and individual freedoms are important to the party, if you lose us your party will be a permanent minority and it won't matter how many praymores you get out to vote, you will still be a minority.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Unless you think that Reagan simply went and hid those ideas in a closet rather than simply had different priorities, or that Newt didn't articulate anything on those ideas, then you are simply exaggerating my position to the absurd.

I mean what I say. The priorities cannot be as they have been the past 8 years or we will continue to fail as a party. We have direct evidence of what happens when personal liberties are not a priority for the party, when smaller government isn't above Pill Bills and gay marriage, when we allow 9/11 to "change everything" about what we are and what we stand for. We cannot allow the party to again drop what I believe are the important parts and reject our ideation because we allowed ourselves to be convinced that security was better than responsibility and freedom. Those of us who joined the party because of its staunch defense of personal responsibility and individual freedoms are important to the party, if you lose us your party will be a permanent minority and it won't matter how many praymores you get out to vote, you will still be a minority.

The thing is, I don't really care what becomes of the Republican party, I am talking about the Conservative movement, not the Republican party. The past 8 years have been defined by our opponents, and we have not had a strong responsive message to explain our position, because we have no one who can connect the dots. Our priorities are defined by the left in the media which they control, and we have been ineffective at presenting our argument. Mostly because of this tendency to shy away from anything our opponent can classify as a "religious" viewpoint, and not articulating a vision which includes strong moral (religious) foundation.

Personal responsibility and individual freedoms, are rooted in a belief system which includes a God. The foundational support for this concept is the belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator. Without that aspect, we surrender that all men are not equal because we don't know if they were created or evolved.... so, whatever! We've lost the foundational basis for any conservative argument, because we have thrown the Baby Jesus out with the bath water! Our positions on the issues no longer resonate because we have lost the foundational basis, or we've shoved it in a closet and refuse to acknowledge it, for fear of being 'branded' a religious nut by our opponents. That is EXACTLY what happened to John McCain.

You seem to want to push in that same direction.... let's continue to abandon "Christian" views and values, and focus more on fiscal responsibility and personal freedom... but those ideas have a foundational basis in our religious beliefs! Those issues are supported by a strong religious viewpoint, which believes men are created equal and endowed by their Creator! If you remove THAT aspect, our position on the issue becomes vulnerable and fails. Our opponent can contend that one man's 'personal freedom' is another man's 'persecution'. They can illustrate how fiscal responsibility is not more important than human compassion, because our 'human compassion' aspect to the argument, is sitting in the dark confines of a closet, where we refuse to take it out and use it!

The point I am trying to make, is not that Conservatives need to turn into little Jerry Falwell's, running around preaching the word of Gawwwd! It is simply, that we need the total package. As much as you may personally like Conservatism to not contain social conservative values, or religious connotations, it can not succeed without them. Rather than conservatives being ashamed of this, or trying to "re=prioritize" it to the closet, they need to be formulating an argument based on it, like Reagan did.

Gay Marriage is a good example of an issue Conservatives are mishandling. The vast and overwhelming majority of America is opposed to Gay Marriage, it has failed time after time at the ballot box, and even the ballsiest democrat is afraid to support it strongly. The conservative message has not needed to be strong against it, because the public in general is against it already. What has been needed on part of Conservatism, is a solution to the issue, (which might be Civil Unions), and sticking to traditional conservative principles of letting the people decide this for themselves. But the way to get there, is through the social conservative "Liberal Jesus" view, that homosexual people should be allowed the same endowment from God, of inalienable rights and freedoms, and if we believe in God and this concept, we should be able to condone civil union legislation, while protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage. There is no judgment of anyone, there is no religious opinion being preached, but the position and basis of conservative argument is rooted in spiritual faith just the same. Through this strength, we can articulate a strong conservative solution to the problem, which would resonate with both social and fiscal conservative voters.

Pure social conservatives tend to be not as fiscally conservative, because they carry the principles of faith to the next level, and start to practice their religious "do-gooding" in policy.... like The Pill Bill! From my perspective, this is just as bad as fiscal conservatives who want to abandon social conservatism. Neither is the way! Listen to what I am saying! Conservatives need to find the middle ground, the sweet spot, the balance of social conservatism and principles of conservatism, with conservative fiscal policies and solutions. That, along with a well-articulated voice and personality, will win elections.

 

[Damocles]

The thing is, I don't really care what becomes of the Republican party, I am talking about the Conservative movement, not the Republican party. The past 8 years have been defined by our opponents, and we have not had a strong responsive message to explain our position, because we have no one who can connect the dots. Our priorities are defined by the left in the media which they control, and we have been ineffective at presenting our argument. Mostly because of this tendency to shy away from anything our opponent can classify as a "religious" viewpoint, and not articulating a vision which includes strong moral (religious) foundation.

Personal responsibility and individual freedoms, are rooted in a belief system which includes a God. The foundational support for this concept is the belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator. Without that aspect, we surrender that all men are not equal because we don't know if they were created or evolved.... so, whatever! We've lost the foundational basis for any conservative argument, because we have thrown the Baby Jesus out with the bath water! Our positions on the issues no longer resonate because we have lost the foundational basis, or we've shoved it in a closet and refuse to acknowledge it, for fear of being 'branded' a religious nut by our opponents. That is EXACTLY what happened to John McCain.

You seem to want to push in that same direction.... let's continue to abandon "Christian" views and values, and focus more on fiscal responsibility and personal freedom... but those ideas have a foundational basis in our religious beliefs! Those issues are supported by a strong religious viewpoint, which believes men are created equal and endowed by their Creator! If you remove THAT aspect, our position on the issue becomes vulnerable and fails. Our opponent can contend that one man's 'personal freedom' is another man's 'persecution'. They can illustrate how fiscal responsibility is not more important than human compassion, because our 'human compassion' aspect to the argument, is sitting in the dark confines of a closet, where we refuse to take it out and use it!

The point I am trying to make, is not that Conservatives need to turn into little Jerry Falwell's, running around preaching the word of Gawwwd! It is simply, that we need the total package. As much as you may personally like Conservatism to not contain social conservative values, or religious connotations, it can not succeed without them. Rather than conservatives being ashamed of this, or trying to "re=prioritize" it to the closet, they need to be formulating an argument based on it, like Reagan did.

Gay Marriage is a good example of an issue Conservatives are mishandling. The vast and overwhelming majority of America is opposed to Gay Marriage, it has failed time after time at the ballot box, and even the ballsiest democrat is afraid to support it strongly. The conservative message has not needed to be strong against it, because the public in general is against it already. What has been needed on part of Conservatism, is a solution to the issue, (which might be Civil Unions), and sticking to traditional conservative principles of letting the people decide this for themselves. But the way to get there, is through the social conservative "Liberal Jesus" view, that homosexual people should be allowed the same endowment from God, of inalienable rights and freedoms, and if we believe in God and this concept, we should be able to condone civil union legislation, while protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage. There is no judgment of anyone, there is no religious opinion being preached, but the position and basis of conservative argument is rooted in spiritual faith just the same. Through this strength, we can articulate a strong conservative solution to the problem, which would resonate with both social and fiscal conservative voters.

Pure social conservatives tend to be not as fiscally conservative, because they carry the principles of faith to the next level, and start to practice their religious "do-gooding" in policy.... like The Pill Bill! From my perspective, this is just as bad as fiscal conservatives who want to abandon social conservatism. Neither is the way! Listen to what I am saying! Conservatives need to find the middle ground, the sweet spot, the balance of social conservatism and principles of conservatism, with conservative fiscal policies and solutions. That, along with a well-articulated voice and personality, will win elections.

Again you miss the point of what I posted to suggest then argue the continued straw man. You should stop, that straw man was beaten into the grass long ago.

It's "easy" to battle what I don't say and pretend you win, now can you actually read what I wrote and then start talking about what I said, or will you continue to argue with the picture you have in your head of what you want me to say?

As for McCain being about fiscal conservatism...

Please.

He gave it lip service then voted for the largest pork-filled sandwich that ever existed, all without making even one of "them" famous. He constantly sided with "pragmatic" views that went with the D position.

McCain was crap for a candidate because he had no ideation to articulate, not because he wasn't enough of a Jeebus lover. If Jeebus-loving prayerfests were all that was needed then he would have won after his choice of Veep (whom I liked, as she has the Alaskan personal freedom conservatism). You cannot lead if you have no foundation on which to base your candidacy other than compromise.

Your idea that he was some example of "fiscal conservatism" and the failure of ideas that do not list Social issues first is simply wrong. He was neither a fiscal, nor a social conservative, he has spent his last decade (at the least that last decade) "pragmatically" compromising 'across the aisle'...

The 'conservative movement' will go down with the party if they don't do some introspection and reprioritize. It would be a long time before a new party could form that would be a vehicle for these two forms of conservatism.

McCain was a good example of what was wrong with the Party indeed. But it had nothing to do with the lack of time he spent on his knees supplicating Deity or speaking on social issues. It's silly to suggest it did. It had everything to do with the fact that he was part of the party that spent like children, that rode the wave of anti-gay marriage legislation in close states right into temporary power. There's only so many times you can ride that particular wave in those tight races, after the legislation passes... well that's it. And there's only so long you can spend like that before fiscal conservatives will stop voting for you.

If you want conservatives to win, you need conservatives who are actual conservatives and are capable of defining themselves, not letting their opponents, and the press, to do that for them. This doesn't mean you need to throw away any of the issues, but it does mean you must prioritize and correctly articulate the ideas that are most important.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again you miss the point of what I posted to suggest then argue the continued straw man. You should stop, that straw man was beaten into the grass long ago.

It's "easy" to battle what I don't say and pretend you win, now can you actually read what I wrote and then start talking about what I said, or will you continue to argue with the picture you have in your head of what you want me to say?

I think I actually said that I somewhat agree with your viewpoints, in several places, as a matter of fact. So this notion you have, that I am being intentionally disagreeable for the sake of arguing a straw man, is just crazy. I am not trying to "win" an argument with you, I have merely tried to articulate a point, one which you may or may not have contemplated.

As for McCain being about fiscal conservatism...

Please.

Where in the fuck did I ever say that, Damo? McCain ran away from fiscal conservatism almost as fast as he ran away from social conservatism! McCain was a Liberal Pacifist! Anything he could find to do, which made it look like he was kissing liberal ass, he did! Every chance he got to mug it up for the cameras with his liberal butt buddies, he did! His campaign and nomination as the republican candidate, however, are a different matter. It's the Goldilocks Story... Romney was too Fiscal Con... Huckabee was too Social Con.... McCain wasn't too much of either, so he prevailed. He is the diametric opposite of what the Republican party needed.

McCain was crap for a candidate because he had no ideation to articulate, not because he wasn't enough of a Jeebus lover. If Jeebus-loving prayerfests were all that was needed then he would have won after his choice of Veep (whom I liked, as she has the Alaskan personal freedom conservatism). You cannot lead if you have no foundation on which to base your candidacy other than compromise.

Again.... I AGREE with you Damo! McCain sucked as a candidate! I never said a damn thing about "Jeebus Lover" and I'm not sure if you are understanding my point, because that is not it. The Social Conservative message is often muddied by "Jeebus Loving" and such, and THAT is the problem! You read my post saying "social conservative values" and you just automatically (like a brainwashed zombie) read "religious jeebus lovers" without batting an eye! THIS is the problem with the social conservative message, it can't seem to escape this prejudice against it, because of a stigma attached by left-wing media! When even the conservatives can't grasp this, we have a problem!

Your idea that he was some example of "fiscal conservatism" and the failure of ideas that do not list Social issues first is simply wrong. He was neither a fiscal, nor a social conservative, he has spent his last decade (at the least that last decade) "pragmatically" compromising 'across the aisle'...

I never said this, Damo! I swear, for a guy who gets his panties in a wad over me not reading what he actually posted, you sure are misquoting the hell outta me!

I AGREE WITH YOU DAMOOOOOOooooooooO!1!!1
Did you get that? Do you understand it, or should I break it down further?
McCain was a shitty candidate, for a variety of reasons, some you have named and some I have named. But how he got to be the candidate, the reason things played out like they did, is what we are discussing now. Some people think... well, we need to be more fiscal conservative and less social... others think... we need to be more social conservative and less worried about fiscal conservatism... but I think we need to be both, and we need to articulate our message and make our points based on both social and fiscal conservative values, and we shouldn't be ashamed of either. McCain is an example of what Conservatives get, when they can't make up their minds if they want to go Social or Fiscal with their message. I say, go BOTH! That's what Reagan did, that's how Republicans dominated.

The 'conservative movement' will go down with the party if they don't do some introspection and reprioritize. It would be a long time before a new party could form that would be a vehicle for these two forms of conservatism.

It's not a matter of "re-prioritizing" anything! Prioritization is largely done by the media and they are mostly controlled by our opponents! It doesn't matter what order we discuss our issues, they will present them to the public in the prioritized order they want to, we have no control over that. What you are pushing and advocating, is a further squelching of the social conservative message, and I contend it doesn't need to be squelched, it needs to be harmoniously blended.

McCain was a good example of what was wrong with the Party indeed. But it had nothing to do with the lack of time he spent on his knees supplicating Deity or speaking on social issues. It's silly to suggest it did.

Again, Damo.... let's stick to what I actually post, and not what you are pretending I posted. Okay? For some reason, you want to rant at me about something I totally didn't say or intend in any way. You are right, it is silly to suggest that's what happened, which is precisely why I would never suggest it!

It had everything to do with the fact that he was part of the party that spent like children, that rode the wave of anti-gay marriage legislation in close states right into temporary power. There's only so many times you can ride that particular wave in those tight races, after the legislation passes... well that's it. And there's only so long you can spend like that before fiscal conservatives will stop voting for you.

Now you are starting to blather like a pinhead, Damo! Listen to yourself! Throw in the word "Fascist" and you would be AssHat! You seem to have bought in to the liberal propaganda about Karl Rove instigating Gay Marriage initiatives to help GWB "steal" the election.... damn, sounds like something Desh has said! Gay Marriage has always been unpopular, and conservatives do benefit for being on the popular side of the issue, but conservatives have not articulated a solution to the problem or a resolve. Conservatives have either completely abandoned the argument, or they have allowed the radical religious right to be the dominant voice on the subject. Neither is the correct approach to solving the problem! It takes a pragmatic view of combined fiscal and social conservative principles and values, to articulate a viable solution to the problem.

If you want conservatives to win, you need conservatives who are actual conservatives and are capable of defining themselves, not letting their opponents, and the press, to do that for them. This doesn't mean you need to throw away any of the issues, but it does mean you must prioritize and correctly articulate the ideas that are most important.

AGAIN DAMO.... I AGREE WITHHH YOOOOOoooooooooouuuuuu!
Conservatives like Ronald Reagan, had no problem defining who they were and what they stood for, because it was rooted in a social conservative belief system and personal values, as well as economic and fiscal responsibility and personal liberty. It was the amalgamation of BOTH fiscal and social conservatism, which made Reagan what he was. That is exactly what is missing now... We have a group of fiscal conservative libertarian types who want to throw social conservatism under the bus and make fun of "jeebus" with the atheist fruitcakes... and we have a group of holy-roller bible thumpers who want to preach and spend. Neither group is going to prevail in a national election by abandoning the principles of the other. The only HOPE for Conservatives, is not "re-prioritizing" but "re-defining" what we stand for, why it's important, and why it's right for America.

 

[Damocles]

I think I actually said that I somewhat agree with your viewpoints, in several places, as a matter of fact. So this notion you have, that I am being intentionally disagreeable for the sake of arguing a straw man, is just crazy. I am not trying to "win" an argument with you, I have merely tried to articulate a point, one which you may or may not have contemplated.



Where in the fuck did I ever say that, Damo? McCain ran away from fiscal conservatism almost as fast as he ran away from social conservatism! McCain was a Liberal Pacifist! Anything he could find to do, which made it look like he was kissing liberal ass, he did! Every chance he got to mug it up for the cameras with his liberal butt buddies, he did! His campaign and nomination as the republican candidate, however, are a different matter. It's the Goldilocks Story... Romney was too Fiscal Con... Huckabee was too Social Con.... McCain wasn't too much of either, so he prevailed. He is the diametric opposite of what the Republican party needed.



Again.... I AGREE with you Damo! McCain sucked as a candidate! I never said a damn thing about "Jeebus Lover" and I'm not sure if you are understanding my point, because that is not it. The Social Conservative message is often muddied by "Jeebus Loving" and such, and THAT is the problem! You read my post saying "social conservative values" and you just automatically (like a brainwashed zombie) read "religious jeebus lovers" without batting an eye! THIS is the problem with the social conservative message, it can't seem to escape this prejudice against it, because of a stigma attached by left-wing media! When even the conservatives can't grasp this, we have a problem!




I never said this, Damo! I swear, for a guy who gets his panties in a wad over me not reading what he actually posted, you sure are misquoting the hell outta me!

I AGREE WITH YOU DAMOOOOOOooooooooO!1!!1
Did you get that? Do you understand it, or should I break it down further?
McCain was a shitty candidate, for a variety of reasons, some you have named and some I have named. But how he got to be the candidate, the reason things played out like they did, is what we are discussing now. Some people think... well, we need to be more fiscal conservative and less social... others think... we need to be more social conservative and less worried about fiscal conservatism... but I think we need to be both, and we need to articulate our message and make our points based on both social and fiscal conservative values, and we shouldn't be ashamed of either. McCain is an example of what Conservatives get, when they can't make up their minds if they want to go Social or Fiscal with their message. I say, go BOTH! That's what Reagan did, that's how Republicans dominated.




It's not a matter of "re-prioritizing" anything! Prioritization is largely done by the media and they are mostly controlled by our opponents! It doesn't matter what order we discuss our issues, they will present them to the public in the prioritized order they want to, we have no control over that. What you are pushing and advocating, is a further squelching of the social conservative message, and I contend it doesn't need to be squelched, it needs to be harmoniously blended.



Again, Damo.... let's stick to what I actually post, and not what you are pretending I posted. Okay? For some reason, you want to rant at me about something I totally didn't say or intend in any way. You are right, it is silly to suggest that's what happened, which is precisely why I would never suggest it!



Now you are starting to blather like a pinhead, Damo! Listen to yourself! Throw in the word "Fascist" and you would be AssHat! You seem to have bought in to the liberal propaganda about Karl Rove instigating Gay Marriage initiatives to help GWB "steal" the election.... damn, sounds like something Desh has said! Gay Marriage has always been unpopular, and conservatives do benefit for being on the popular side of the issue, but conservatives have not articulated a solution to the problem or a resolve. Conservatives have either completely abandoned the argument, or they have allowed the radical religious right to be the dominant voice on the subject. Neither is the correct approach to solving the problem! It takes a pragmatic view of combined fiscal and social conservative principles and values, to articulate a viable solution to the problem.



AGAIN DAMO.... I AGREE WITHHH YOOOOOoooooooooouuuuuu!
Conservatives like Ronald Reagan, had no problem defining who they were and what they stood for, because it was rooted in a social conservative belief system and personal values, as well as economic and fiscal responsibility and personal liberty. It was the amalgamation of BOTH fiscal and social conservatism, which made Reagan what he was. That is exactly what is missing now... We have a group of fiscal conservative libertarian types who want to throw social conservatism under the bus and make fun of "jeebus" with the atheist fruitcakes... and we have a group of holy-roller bible thumpers who want to preach and spend. Neither group is going to prevail in a national election by abandoning the principles of the other. The only HOPE for Conservatives, is not "re-prioritizing" but "re-defining" what we stand for, why it's important, and why it's right for America.

You again, in this post cede control of the priorities of the party to the press, allowing them to define the message, the priorities, and therefore the candidate.

So long as we let that happen, we fail. Almost as quickly as we would fail if we elect another solely social conservative.

You stated several times how I want to reject social conservatism and hide it somewhere, it's simply wrong, it is your strawman you keep building and building. I use "Jeebus loving" in exaggeration, we simply cannot, cannot, should not, will lose if we do, have social conservatism lead the party again.

I simply don't want it to be the star of the show as it has been during these years where we lost a majority built on individual freedom and fiscal conservatism heading up the show as well as refusing to let the press define priorities (which are not even close to set in the press.)

 

[WinterBorn]

You again, in this post cede control of the priorities of the party to the press, allowing them to define the message, the priorities, and therefore the candidate.

So long as we let that happen, we fail. Almost as quickly as we would fail if we elect another solely social conservative.

You stated several times how I want to reject social conservatism and hide it somewhere, it's simply wrong, it is your strawman you keep building and building. I use "Jeebus loving" in exaggeration, we simply cannot, cannot, should not, will lose if we do, have social conservatism lead the party again.

I simply don't want it to be the star of the show as it has been during these years where we lost a majority built on individual freedom and fiscal conservatism heading up the show as well as refusing to let the press define priorities (which are not even close to set in the press.)

So you want a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the social conservatives?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you want a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the social conservatives?

:lmao: EXACTLY!

 

[Damocles]

So you want a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the social conservatives?

It should be there, it just shouldn't be the platform. We cannot stand purely on social issues as we have in the past.

Several times I have said they should be lower on the priority scale and Dixie has said I want to "hide it" or something. I don't. There is nothing wrong with speaking about the "Shining City" and exemplifying the moral virtues of the US, there is nothing wrong with these things, unless they are the only way in which a candidate is "conservative", because when that is the case they are suddenly radicals, pushing laws on people they don't want and didn't sign up for, spending money like drunken idiots and still called "conservative" because they don't like gay marriage.

Social conservatism should be a passenger in the car, not the driver of the car. And we simply can't let go things like, "Priorities are set by the Press." No, priorities are set by what we believe, and they are exemplified by our actions, when our actions moved away from protecting people's individual liberties and proved our priorities to be askew, we lost.

 

[Epicurus]

Personally, I would like to see every theocon expelled from the Republican Party. But just looking at the numbers, that is not a good long term strategy for a viable Republican Party. It might be good in the short term, and it would definitely be favored by libertarian-leaning Republicans like Damo, but ultimately the Republican Party's coalition is reliant on the votes of social conservatives.

 

[DamnYankee]

... ultimately the Republican Party's coalition is reliant on the votes of social conservatives.

Yeah bro you're just going to have to put up with us.

The fact of the matter is that if you believe that the Constitution is worth defending and you believe in Natural Law, then there are certain issues that just cannot be compromised.

Two issues that come immediately to mind are abortion and gay marriage: no and no!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You again, in this post cede control of the priorities of the party to the press, allowing them to define the message, the priorities, and therefore the candidate.

I am saying, it does not matter what order we list our priorities or articulate them, the press is going to do what the press does, and present the image they want the viewer to see. We can't control that, we don't control it, we never will control it! The press is going to present us in their own way, we can't do a damn thing about that. What we CAN do, is articulate a clear and concise message of BOTH social and fiscal conservative values, respecting of life, liberty, and property... rooted in strong moral foundations for our arguments, as well as the fiscal responsibilities. I am saying, we should embrace BOTH aspects of Conservatism, together as one universal ideology, both aspects playing a central role in what we are and what we stand for. This is how it should be, but currently isn't. Currently, we have the media manipulating people and their opinions, we have an active demonetization of religiously-based social views, and "right-wing" castigation. And we have Conservatives completely split apart over the two aspects, in a confused haze as to how we move ahead. We move ahead by returning to our core principles and first principles of conservatism. In this regard, we agree.

My perspective is, both aspects of conservatism work in harmony with each other. We do not have to promote anti-gay marriage, we have to promote sanctity of traditional marriage and present some conservative solution to the social problem. Personal freedom and liberty aspects of the party which ended slavery and unanimously supported civil rights, should be able to come up with a social solution to homosexuals who want to wed, don't you think? Instead of allowing the "argument" from the right to be presented by the religious talking heads, Republicans should embrace a position that doesn't rely on purely religious aspects, rather, personal freedom and liberty, while respecting traditional marriage.

I think what may need to happen is, we need to de-program your thinking of "social conservative values" being equivalent to "religious right-wing radicals" and correctly have you re-programed to know, conservative principles and core beliefs do not have to contain religion, they just do. We shouldn't be ashamed that we are right! LOL! We shouldn't be afraid to say that Gawwd is on our side! These are left-wing liberal connotations you've bought into through the mainstream liberal media, and it has shied you away from social conservatism. I understand it, because I can relate, I feel the same way!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Personally, I would like to see every theocon expelled from the Republican Party. But just looking at the numbers, that is not a good long term strategy for a viable Republican Party. It might be good in the short term, and it would definitely be favored by libertarian-leaning Republicans like Damo, but ultimately the Republican Party's coalition is reliant on the votes of social conservatives.

Oh I think that a few years with the Dems having a super majority will teach the far right of the Republican party that moderation is better then non-representation or worse, extinction.

There's a solid core of common sense in America that will always bring the extremes back towards the center and that's part of the genius of this system of government that our founding fathers designed.

I've been a Republican and Independent and now a Democrat and any time I start identifying to much with a partisan politlcal belief I just read Washingtons fairwell address and common sense is restored.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Please provide a link showing that these are the listed priorities of a mainstream social conservative.

You know that's the right order.

 

[Kamala Trump]

RIghty religious tards play into evil when they say morality must come from god. The nihilist totalitarians quote people like dixie to counter any argument against the complete moral relativity they espouse. (but actually they're morally inversed, they see betrayal and elitism as desirable alpha traits).

Check my sig for true morality.

 

[DamnYankee]

...

Check my sig for true morality.

Sorry, I've got 'em turned off.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Sorry, I've got 'em turned off.

You will burn in hell.

 

[DamnYankee]

LOL!

 

[The Dude]

I hope repubs keep longing for the resurection of thier idol Ronny.
Social conservatardism will be the anchor, and only thing that keeps the spineless dems in power.


THE DUDE ABIDES

 

[Minister of Truth]

It is one of the biggest issues for social conservatives. I was hoping you would point out something that Reagan did as a social conservative.

Otherwise you are proving my point.

Incorrect. It is one of the biggest issues for people who possess at least a modicum of humanity within them. In other words, for people who are not evil.