My biggest fear about the GOP - they are going to wise up about social issues

[LynneSin]

A few decades ago you could say something like 'Abortions' or 'Gays getting Married' and easily scare some undecided voters into voting for the Republicans. But fortunately our country is evolving and these ideas aren't as 'scary' as they use to be ages ago. Even my own parents, who I would have considered 'anti-gay' back in the 80s & 90s now say it's none of their business as long as it's consenting adults. Fortunately attitudes are evolving on many of these social issues.

And yet the GOP still uses these old-fashioned scare tactics thinking that today's voting population thinks the same way they did back decades ago. And this type of campaigning is starting to hurt the GOP. A perfect example is the 2012 senate races. Democrats had twice as many senate seats to keep this past election and yet the managed to make a net gain of +2, a pretty amazing feat. And one of the big factors that helped the democrats was the voters turning off from those candidates who still think it's ok to degrade women, gays & minorities as what is destroying our country.

Thing is this - IF republicans were to give up their war on women, gays & minorities and in fact embrace these groups, I know I for one still wouldn't vote for the GOP. Sure I'd be grateful that they finally embrace equality for all but in the end they'd still fight to give tax cuts to the wealthiest while cutting benefits for those who need it the most.

But consider this. Say that Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, both GOP losers in their 2012 run for the senate, never made disparaging comments about women and rape. If they never made those comments my guess is that both of them would have won their election. Akin was polling strong against incumbant Claire McCaskill (d) who was considered one of the most vulnerable of the democrat incumbants and Indiana was looking solid red in 2012 (they voted for Romney).

I have to think that as the GOP recovers from 2012 and asks themselves 'What went wrong' they are going to realize that they need to start rethinking their stance on social issues if they want to win elections. If this happens, although grateful for their changes in these areas, they are still not to be trusted with the keys to the piggy bank.

[Vogon_Glory]

1. Perhaps North Of The Mason-Dixon Line But Not South of It

You raise good points but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

IMO the social conservative bloc will ALWAYS have a strong presence in Republican primaries and in a lot of Republican state governorships, state legislatures, and in races for congressional and US senatorial seats.

Most of the Republican Party's political strength resides in what is still called the "Bible Belt" and where Southern culture is strong. Such areas still cover what were once the Confederate States of America and also border states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Indiana. Ambitious Republican politicos wishing to move beyond local or state representative seats are still going to have to mount the Jesus-horsie (The rest of us call them dinosaurs), ride them around the show-corral and perform fancy rope tricks until the fundamentalists and Evangelicals give their solemn nods of approval.

Republicans living outside the Bible Belt and the former stretches of Deseret MIGHT get more leeway. Perhaps in those places that streak of libertarianism concerning private matters might resurface. But I suspect that such movement will be slow in coming and be vigorously resisted by so-called "social conservatives" and their churchly allies.

[LynneSin]

15. To be honest of Akin or Mourdock were running in a southern state...

they still would have won. (aka South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. etc.)

But I'm thinking if the GOP wants to win the swing states they are going to have to go more moderate on the social issues if they want to win.

[sadbear]

2. If republicans gave up on social issues, they would be a better and more moderate opposition party.

That's good for the country. And if the price for them giving up their social agenda is more moderate republicans, I can live with that.

[LynneSin]

3. But they still wouldn't be like the old-timer GOP party

Before the social issues took over (around Nixon-Reagan time period).

Way back when the GOP believed in smaller government, something which most of us could buy into. However modern GOP believe in smaller government by taking away entitlements and funneling our tax dollars to the wealthy. That is a GOP party I would NOT like.

[sadbear]

4. And we would be able to fight them on those issues...

without the distraction of their social agenda. You know, if we could get some voters to divorce their fiscal views from their social views, more would vote Democratic.

In the end, they would probably lose on their fiscal positions, too, and those aren't likely to change at all. They're just pretty much wrong on everything, aren't they?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. No they won't. So called "economic conservatives" (corporatists, Randist) are just as dangerous.

Actually, I would say they are more dangerous.

With social conservatives, agree or disagree, at least you know what they are all about. They don't like abortion, gay marriage, want prayer in schools, public places, etc. If you disagree with their position, you know how to make your counter argument.

With "economic conservatives" they act as though they are for fiscal responsibility. But they couldn't care less about fiscal responsibility. Their agenda is doing whatever they can to do to benefit large corporations and the top 1%. That means changing the tax code in their favor, dismantling regulations left and right, eliminating government programs that favor mainly the poor and middle class, exploiting workers, etc.

And they'll just smile and say they are "fiscal conservatives." They are slipperly, evil bastards.

[sadbear]

14. So basically, they'd be the same as they are now without the pretense of social conservatism.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Yes. Except a lot smaller and less potent.

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Thankfully, the Democrats would squish both them and any splinter third party like a bug.

But in terms of rhetoric, "economic conservatives" are most definitely dangerous and batshit insane.

[marions ghost]

27. I don't see returning to the days of "moderate Republicans"

--anyone who is still voting R is NOT moderate.

Fiscal conservatives got in bed with social conservatives and they got fleas.

Sorry, but the people who do that are either dishonest or just plain stupid Fox zombies.

The Republican party is a shambles because they deal in lies. They can still get candidates elected based on lies, but their main problem is that right wingers don't really understand how to govern. Too selfish.

Honest conservatives (if there are any left) need to jump ship or found something new.

The Republican party sold out to the teabaggers.

[justabob]

29. they are in shambles

I don't think they can survive much longer as is. The fractures (now chasms) have been evident for a while, long before the election. They are eating their own.

I don't think the democratic party will survive long term either though. The dems are not exactly one big happy family, but we aren't quite as dysfunctional as the GOP. So far, we've been able to hang together, but there are some fairly serious rifts over here too. There's going to be big changes all around over the next few cycles, I think.

[marions ghost]

35. I hope so

we certainly need some big changes. This isn't working for the people very well.

[leftstreet]

31. That's because the Democrats are the new old Republicans

The GOP has no place to go but left

[marions ghost]

32. the GOP is so far right it

cannot go left. They don't really know what that is, and they certainly have no respect for what they think it is. These are people with no vision, no idea how to govern a diverse country. This could be a truly great place to be, a really dynamic country--if it were not for the selfishness of the GOP. They are holding this country back.

The other scenario is that Dems can go more liberal and drag the sane (ex) Repugs & Independents along with them...leaving the poor souls driven insane by Fux and Rush to stick to the GOP.

These old paradigms aren't working. It's basically the sane & caring --vs the insane & insanely greedy.

[leftstreet]

45. Not really. Their fiscal policies are similar to Dems

Privatized healthcare, education, lots of $$ for the military, etc

If you're talking about social issues, I think you'll find the GOP has squeezed the last drop it can get from God, Guns & Gays

They can only go left, with economic populist rhetoric

[marions ghost]

46. they might slide more to the middle on economics

--but if they did that re social issues, they'd lose a lot of support. They still need the God, Guns and Gays voters.

The GOP and their constituents these days do not know what "left" is--it's all commies to them. And "radicals" like Acorn. There's no reality there.

The GOP will never "go left." They've painted themselves into a corner on that. No way out.

[Viking12]

5. The need the social nutters to build a coalition of 50%

If they abandon social issues, those voters will go somewhere else or just go away.

There was a really interesting analysis of the election outcomes in states that had Gay Marriage issues on the ballot. There are already many moderate-Republican voters that have abandoned the right-wing nutters on social issues. In many Republican areas in suburban Maryland, voters voted for both Romney and for gay marriage. Romney still lost the state. Gay marriage won.
Listen to the "Election, Gay Marriage, and the GOP"
http://www.npr.org/programs/talk-of-the-nation/

[TlalocW]

6. They won't and can't

They would lose a large portion of their base, and they wouldn't be able to make it up by peeling off enough squishy democrats or independents.

TlalocW

[Mangoman]

7. Count on it ,they WILL change

But it could never happen before the next presidential election
they need 8 to 12 years to complete the shift

[DJ13]

8. I dont believe a socially moderate GOP will overcome the voters needs

.... for fiscally liberal policies.

And that is something the GOP's current members can never pull off.

[woo me with science]

9. There will always be new wedge issues.

Both parties are corporate-owned now, and they collude far more than they compete. On economics, privatization, the wars, and the police state, they are in near perfect agreement. They are a tool for the one percent who own this country, more than anything else.

The wedge issues are there to create the illusion of difference and the illusion of choice in our corporate elections. They allow a new "lesser of two evils" game each election cycle, to keep us moving steadily rightward.

They are there to rile us up into our red and blue teams so that we keep hating and attacking each other, rather than noticing and focusing on the real problem: our politicians' quiet, steady, bipartisan creation of a corporate empire and a corporate, fascist state.

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021911441

Bill Moyers: FCC Moves Towards More Media Consolidation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021924578

The US Military Approves Bombing Children
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021930268

This is not what Democracy looks like:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021924584

U.S. corporate profits stronger than ever, workers' wages fallen to lowest-ever share of GDP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922334

Obama sees fiscal deal in a week..."with serious entitlement reform"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014327619

Obama continues to "Drill, baby drill."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021916309

The Goldman-Sachs project to take over Europe nearly complete...now coming to you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021889630

Why Is The US Building TWO Secret $100 Million Facilities Outside Tel Aviv?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021901255

Robert Reich: Why is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers Helping the Republicans?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888725

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. If they did that, they would die a quick death. Guaranteed.

Hot button social issues are the only reason that people who aren't in the top 1-2% vote Republican. The GOP adopted strong positions on these social issues in order to survive. Granted, they might not survive even with those voters, but the decline would be swift if the Republicans were to only trumpet their economic "conservativism" and put aside social issues.

The social issue voters claim they care about taxes, but they really don't. Many of them don't even pay--they are in that 47% that Mitt Romney professed to disdain. They vote Republican because Republicans tell them what they want to hear when it comes to abortion and gay marriage (the former moreso than the latter, IMHO.)

[cynatnite]

11. I've always felt that the GOP needed to go left of the Dems...

if they were ever going to have a shot at running the country.

This was a while back and I had said that they needed to come out in favor of marriage equality and go left of the Dems.

As it stands now, the Dems already beat them to the punch. They are already front and center on social issues that agree with the majority.

If the repubs want another shot at the WH, they will need to stay as far away as possible from social issues if they refuse to bring their views into the 21st century. Even then, I'm not sure if it will help.

IMO, they've ruined their shot for some time. I don't think they will have a chance in this decade.

[catbyte]

12. I don't think they're capable of "wising up" any time soon. They can't help themselves.

Look what they did in Ohio right after their drubbing on 11/6--defund PP & that despicable Fetal Heartbeat Bill. In MI, they're discussing tax breaks for zygotes. See? They cannot control their desire to control us. We must stop them.

[LynneSin]

18. I think their problem is simple - this has worked in the past so they assume it'll work today

But the voting population is a prime example of evolution. The issues that 'frightened' us a few decades ago no longer seem scary.

[hifiguy]

17. It's not going to happen anytime soon

at least at the grass-roots level. The plutocracy might wise up but not the base. They're bigoted religulous arch-crazies to the bone, and they have the numbers.

[LeftInTX]

19. I agree with you Lynne and it concerns me too.

Lot's of conservatives have won in the south without the bible thumping stuff. They can be relatively neutral on social issues and they still can win. There are a lot of fiscal conservative/socially moderate types out there, they just don't make a lot of noise.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Why? The only thing we'll end up with is a much smaller Republican party.

Do you honestly think there would be a lot of Democrats wanting to jump ship if the Republicans drop social issues? Do you think that a economically conservative only Republican party is that appealing to Independents?

Republican "economic conservativism" benefits only the top 1-2% in this country. That's why the Republicans could never run on that alone and thus they need to pander to the social conservatives. It's a matter of survival.

I would welcome a schism in the Republican Party, as it would only mean two weaker opponents for Democrats.

[LeftInTX]

23. Possibly attract more Independents and can still keep their base.

Democrats will not jump ship.

Todd Akin was polling ahead until he starting spewing out his crazy ideas about abortion.



I would like to think that they have to pander to the social conservatives, but the social conservatives are a gullible group. They will follow the GOP's next trick.....I saw this Tea Party lady on MSNBC talking about how important it was to honor the pledge to Grover. She was just a middle class housewife.


If not social conservative scheme, the 1% will find a different tack, such as trickle down.

On the other hand, the Grover Norquist stunt is not likely to attract independents.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. But if their policies only benefit 1%-2% of the population, how many Independents could they gain?

1-2% of Independents?

I just don't see a social conservative-less Republican Party being much of a draw for anybody.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

30. Maybe there aren't enough of them to worry about, but I fear Rs would then gain the support of

libertarians, many of whom, as someone said, are just Republicans who want to be free to smoke pot.

[LynneSin]

24. Those that define themselves as democrats would not however....

those that are defined as Independants or undecides may be swayed.

Case in point.

INDIANA: Lugar, a moderate republican was ousted by a right-wing republican but when said right-wing republican disparaged women (saying women who get pregnant by rape is 'god's wills') he lost.

DELAWARE: Moderate Dem Mike Castle was a shoo-in to win Joe Biden's old senate seat but was defeated by right-wing crazy Christine O'Donnell. Castle has never lost a statewide general election in 40 years even though democrats far outnumber republicans. Again it was the independants and undecided who normally helped Castle win election after election who opted to go with democrat Coons over crazy O'Donnell.

I doubt these social issues would make a difference in hardcore red states but could have an impact with swing states or as I call them 'purple states'.

[ieoeja]

21. If they rid themselves of bigotry, their wouldn't be a hairs breadth of distance between leadership.

While the Progressive Caucus has remained far and away the largest caucus in the Democratic Party's House delegation, leadership repeatedly shut them out. Economic Rightists among the party's delegation can always team with Republics to control congress.

Civil rights is pretty much the only thing they fight over in a big way. Consider where they stand on the current "fiscal cliff" issues:

1950s - D for the poor and Dixiecrats for the White - R for the rich
1960s - D for the poor and civil rights - R for the rich
1970s - D for the poor and civil rights - R for the rich and White
1980s - D for the poor and civil rights - R for the rich and White
1990s - D for the rich and civil rights - R for the rich and White
2000s - D for the rich and civil rights - R for the rich and White

If the Rs give up on bigotry, it might force the Ds to move Left on economics. Can you imagine a mainstream political party working on behalf of the poor?

I can. Cause I remember when....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. You think those One Percent "Economic Conservatives" aren't bigots?

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Trust me, they are.

They just think white hoods look unbecoming on them.

The only way they'd welcome an African American or Hispanic onto one of their country clubs is if they are a member of the help.

The Republicans will never rid themselves of bigotry, regardless of whether or not they have social conservatives in the ranks.

[AverageJoe90]

26. 2016 may be their best chance to do so.

They may end up running somebody like Chris Christie or Marco Rubio.....they're two of the more moderate Goppers today.

[RKP5637]

28. Very astute and would be in a sense a Trojan Horse of sorts. n/t

[LynneSin]

40. That's an even scarier thought

Because someone will say all the important moderate/pro-social issues and then once elected will change their mind.

In a way that's how Bush sorta got elected although during the primaries he campaigned to the left but once he had the nomination (or a few months before 2004) he'd veer towards the middle.

[JI7]

33. That would be a good thing because social conservatives would finally vote on economic issues

wealthy republicans tend to be liberal on social issues, like koch, adelson etc. but they need the lower income types to actually win and they have been using social issues to do that.

it wouldn't happen very quickly. some might turn third party.

[bhikkhu]

34. Fundamentally, they don't believe in equality, so that's going to be a problem

That's the basic difference between the parties as far as I see, and it has only gotten clearer since WWII. The world has become more equal, more peaceful, more tolerant; the republicans, on the other hand, have dug their trenches around the last bastion of white male privilege.

The only thing they can do is become better at hypocrisy, and I don't see that as a strategy to win elections. Certainly its not a strategy to govern a diverse nation well with, and some people consider good governance kind of the main thing.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. It remains to be seen. there is a civil war in the republican party right now

The republican party has always consisted of an uneasy alliance of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Sometimes they are in complete agreement on how to run the party, but when they lose elections the civil war starts all over again. We don't yet know who will win. Either way, the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives are both way far to the right and out of touch with the majority of the country. If they don't figure out how to genuinely care about the problems of average Americans and start running some moderate candidates, they won't win elections. It looks like the Tea Party and the social conservatives certainly aren't going to give up control of the party without a fight. Even if they do decide to genuinely change I think it will take a long time. I think we have a good shot of having a democratic majority again for a while.

[Johonny]

37. I don't see what they can change into

The social issues stuff is just fluff to keep you busy while they funnel money into the top 1 %. Without the social stuff there simply isn't any 'REAL" base to run on. Look at the current negotiations. The Republicans have nothing to negotiate because they don't really believe in cutting the deficit, balancing the budget and creating jobs. They just pretended they cared. So when push comes to shove they can't do what they want; which is to put more government money into the 1% hands. All they want is to get the medicare and social security trusts funneled to the 1 %. It's hard to run on this principal.

The Republican party has run for years on finding issues that divide the 98% into logical constructs of "social" groups and then playing them off each other. When the soviet union collapse and they couldn't run on red fear any longer within a few years we had the gay agenda to worry about. If the gay agenda goes they will think something else up. But they will always run on distractions and dividing the electorate... because they can not run on policies that are against the vast majority of humanity.

[ibegurpard]

38. They're already wising up

their concern is NOT their stance on the issues but how they're talking about them.

[gollygee]

39. Some of them seem to be wising up

I'm just talking about those I know IRL.

Some are saying stuff like, "We can't talk about financial freedom and then at the same time try to restrict other kinds of freedom."

But then they get jumped on by tons of evangelical Christian type Republicans who flip out about abortion and marriage rights.

I don't think that'll go anywhere. Unless half the party leaves for a third party.

[LynneSin]

41. My biggest issue has always been about their idea about smaller government

They want smaller government

except if you're a fertile woman

or if you're a fetus

if you choose to marry.

Then they want to use government to meddle their nose into something that clearly is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

[justabob]

42. don't forget DHS

They like a bigger police state generally.

[davidn3600]

43. The future GOP will be less and less about social issues, they will become libertarians

The majority of Ron Paul supporters are under age 45. The GOP in the future will move more towards libertarianism.

That's my belief. When the current crop of old, christian, white-haired men pass away. Who's going to advocate those far-right social issues? The youth doesn't favor that philosophy.

The youth in the Republican party, the under 45s, are social moderates, fiscal conservatives, and isolationists. They support gay marriage. They support women's rights. They support marijuana legalization. Some even support legalizing prostitution. They don't really care much about abortion, those that do think it should be a state issue. They favor state rights and a small federal government. They want the IRS abolished. They want the military cut. And they want the UN kicked off our soil.

That's the future of that party. It's the reason a social conservative cannot win a presidential primary anymore.

[Canuckistanian]

44. The standard wedge issues are starting to lose their effectiveness

They're going to need some new ones, fast.

And Obama isn't giving them any. With the exception of DADT, there have been no "gun grabs", no "Bible confiscations" and certainly no "encouragement of abortions".

The world goes on without their worst fears.

Now, all they have left are the issues that matter, like the economy and jobs.

And the GOP has LESS THAN ZERO to offer on that subject, besides the status quo.

It's not looking good for them right now.

[marions ghost]

47. When you build a campaign on lies,

hate, and division... how do you ratchet that back?

The GOP would have to become more honest. That is not gonna happen.