I am very conservative on most economic and social issues. However, conservative social issues should not be a top priority for the GOP presidential candidate in the 2012 election. The focus should be and must remain on economic issues.
We saw the GOP attempt to use social conservatism in the GWB era to build their permanent majority, and the associated loss of focus on fiscal conservatism not only lost them Congress and the White House, it alienated the libertarians.
The current play seems to be to energize the base via soc-con issues, and tell everyone else that's unhappy with Barack Obama that they have no choice but to vote for the GOP, just to get him out of the White House. This comes after the plan to anoint Mitt Romney as the presumptive nominee has hit major snags, due in large part to the simple truth that Romney is utterly uninspiring.
The fiscal conservatives and right-libertarians were spurned and kicked to the curb during the GWB years, and I doubt many going to line up behind a soc-con candidate just because he's ABO.
The 2010 election sent a clear message - people are fed up with government's tax-and-spend attitude, and that's what the GOP should have latched onto like a pit bull. To quote Reagan, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Forget social conservatism, this election is about the economy. The Obama administration is full of trial lawyers, career politicians, and academics. Anybody can see the result: a failing economy that academics, the political class, and the media love--because government can divert resources to its favored ideological causes.
I have been writing for a long time that Reagan was the model for conservatives. He talked about social issues, but expended relatively little political capital on them. When it came time to govern, he focused correctly on the economy.
Don't get me wrong: social issues are important, they just can't be the highest priority for a President at this time. Further, it's really nobody's business what one does in one's personal life. If it wasn't for a hyper-active left trying to push their wacky values down our throats, a lot less energy could be expended in this area. As it is, conservatives are being forced to fight a rearguard action.
However, if you notice what Obama is doing, it is turning the federal government from an administrator of the law into a mechanism for redistribution of wealth to favored leftist political groups. Just look at where Eric Holder's Department of Social Justice and Reparations is spending its time--attacking business and businesspeople.
Remember that socialist ideology teaches that all wealth is obtained through crime by the "haves" against the "have-nots." That is the political philosophy of Eric Holder, his boss Barack Obama, and all of their minions.
Reversing the takeover of the federal government by community activists is much more important than social causes.
7 comments:
Well said!
Social conservatism is not "small government." Though there are many soc-cons that also embrace limited government, there are a whole lot with strong authoritarian streaks in them. Santorum, despite his protestations to the contrary, reads to this libertarian as one of the latter.
The message of the 2010 election was one of small government and a call for action regarding the economy, deficit and debt. This message was lost on Obama and the Dems, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have sunk into many Repubs.
I think nominating Santorum will be a big mistake. Even if he wins, which is questionable given that fiscal conservatives and libertarians aren't going to line up behind him, he won't do what needs to be done, and will likely succumb to his core beliefs and use the power of his office to promote a soc-con agenda, despite his assurances to the contrary.
I don't believe Santorum when he says he has no intention of using government on social issues. If his political philosophy is based on and suffused with social conservative values, it's quite a leap of faith to believe that he's going to take a libertarian stance if elected. Bush greatly expanded the role of the federal government with No Child Left Behind and distributed money to religious organizations for use in social services as part of his faith based initiative. NCLB is now unpopular, and I'm of the belief that any federal involvement whatsoever in education is a bad idea, not to mention extra-constitutional. And, while I don't have a particular problem with govt social services being performed through religious organizations, I have a general problem with the federal govt performing such services period.
So, despite his protestations and assurances to the contrary, I fully expect Santorum to suffuse his policies with social conservative ideas. And, we already know that he wants to triple the child tax credit. That right there is a direct contradiction to his statement.
I also remember Reagan was quite a firm believer of God and was ;loathed by the media for it yet beat Carter by a Landslide while America suffered economic weakness much like we have today
Still the Majority of Americans are Christians., The majority of Americans do not believe there is Constituional right to an abortion. And the majority of Americans (if amendments to state Constitutions banning gay marriage give any indcation) do not agree with state supported Homosexuality
I think the left realizes their President is weak and they fear Santorem will do the most to undo what Obama has created. Any of these candidates can beat Obama by a landslide and if they don't it reflects more on the moral decay and lack wisdom and education of the nation as a whole than support for Obama
How, exactly, would a President Santorum impose his values and beliefs on anybody?
Without House and Senate approval, how could a President Santorum fund and implement programs that would impose a "social agenda" on the American people? (Did Barak Obama, alone and on his initiative, repeal "don't ask, don't tell", even though he promised to do so?} Without Senate consent, could a President Santorum appoint a justice to the Supreme Court that would tip the Court's balance of power, thus allowing him to implement a "social agenda"? What could a President Santorum do through Executive Order that would impose a "social agenda" on the American people?
Ronald Reagan spoke of his beliefs and values quite plainly. He was widely mocked - the "amiable dunce" - and routinely derided for attempting to impose his values on us. His own vice president, George H. W. Bush, was shockingly disloyal. A President Santorum would suffer the same fate. But a President Santorum could ultimately be remembered with the same respect as we remember President Reagan.
If anyone deserves a comparison to Reagan it is Romney. Remember Reagan early in life said FDR was his hero, he was pro-choice, and was a Democrat. He became a conservative late in life. He lost the 1976 nomination to Ford, a moderate. He then won the 1980 nomination and defeated the incumbent President Carter, the person who beat Ford. And if Romney gets the nomination he will be going against the person who beat the person he lost to four years ago. I don't think Romney is as conservative as Reagan but neither is Santorum. A Santorum presidency would be GWB's third term, or fourth if you count BO's which an argument could be made for. Romney, imo, is just as conservative as Santorum, and has the executive experience to get things done.
The Republican Party needs to immediately react to the horror of handing over the election in November by allowing a Big Spending, Big Government poster boy of everything wrong with the GOP over the past twenty years be their ticket leader.
Note that I didn't mention Santorum's calling me and 44 million other American Protestants "not Christian", nor any of his other moralizing rants. That's just icing on the cake to be served to Owebama this November.
I'll support a third party run if the GOP allows Santorum to be their ticket leader. I have a feeling that the result will be larger than Ross Perot's 1992 run. And that quite a few members of Congress will be seeking to remove the R next to their name in favor of an I.
Post a Comment