Retceps

My problem with the Republican party is that I am fiscally conservative (85 out of 100) and socially liberal (40 out of 100). When I weigh everything up, I find myself unable to vote Republican. I am a business owner but not a church goer (well, a couple of times a year with my wife for Easter, Christmas, etc.) and am way more alienated by the social stances of the Republican party than I am by the fiscal stances of the Democratic party.

If the Republican party could disengage from their (fairly recent) deep connection to social conservatism, I would vote for their fiscal policies. And many of my friends are the same way.

I don't think people are moving away from the fiscally left moving of the Republican party as they are from the extreme social conservatism that continually moves the party to the right socially.

shade: I think most people -- especially Democrats, but also Republicans -- have overemphasized the actual importance of social issues in the GOP.

There is no deep connection to social conservatism, and it is not fairly recent either: most of it has to do with abortion and goes back decades. And as we all see, all the time, the GOP has many pro-choice people in its midst (until recently, including Arlen Specter, who was NOT pushed out because of his views on abortion).

You're right that this is a problem, but it is more a problem of perception than of reality.

Pudge: I disagree. And that is the problem. Republicans seem to feel that the news media and others overemphasize the importance of social isues in the GOP. And yet those very issues serve as 'tests' within the Republican party for participation and representation. Issues like Abortion, Gay Rights, the role of the church within the state, and other frequently discussed 'Family Values' issues are used to pick, it seems, nearly everything. When I look at a typical Republican candidiate, they talk fiscal conservatism and assume social conservatism. And the actions of the last 8 years reflect that in an administration with strong party support that acted anything but conservatively with regard to fiscal matters while at the same time hammering its conservative social agenda.

The recent election was an excellent example where the Republicans pushed a VP who (really) was not qualified for the office but was embraced (strongly) by the Republican party for her stance on conservative social issues. And she was admired (apparently) because she spoke largely on a 'us versus them' platform where the them was again defined by various conservative social positions.

As long as large numbers of Republicans embrace this 'conservative social position uber alles', their fiscal conversation (and their tea parties) will be drowned out. I liked the idea of the Tea Parties. But I look at the actions of the Republicans over the last eight years (and I hated the tax cuts while increasing spending) and don't understand how they think I can believe what they say. When I realized the Tea Parties were Republican vehicles, I lost my belief (and interest) in them. I saw them as a wolf (social conservatism) in sheeps (fiscal conservatism) clothing.

When I mentioned that it was fairly recent, I was talking in decades (I am 50). When I was young, the Abortion issue was 'owned' largely by the Catholics who were largely Democrats. And while it was an issue for many people, it was not 'the' issue that decided elections. It was more welfare, fiscal policy and, back then, the war in Vietnam. Republican 'ownership' of conservative social issues is relatively new. And while it helped them at one time, I strongly feel it hurts them now. Extremism - left or right - is something that scares away the middle (where I think most people are positioned). The democrats use to be viewed as extremists. I think the republican party attempts to paint them that way, but many people see the republican party as the extremists today.

I disagree.

OK. But you're wrong.

Republicans seem to feel that the news media and others overemphasize the importance of social isues in the GOP. And yet those very issues serve as 'tests' within the Republican party for participation and representation. Issues like Abortion, Gay Rights, the role of the church within the state, and other frequently discussed 'Family Values' issues are used to pick, it seems, nearly everything.

You use wiggle words like "seems." What "seems" to you to be true is, in fact, not true.

Now, let's set aside abortion for the moment, because every single person of intelligence must be able to admit that this is not a mere social issue: if I believe that the life in the womb (and biologically, it is a life, undeniably) is deserving of the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, and I believe that the obligation of the state is to protect those rights as the Declaration of Independence claims, then I am obligated to try to push the government to protect that life.

There's no rational way around this. We can disagree on abortion law, but let's not pretend that the pro-life view is not a perfectly rational response to the facts on the ground. It's not a mere matter of preference: if you have a certain set of very American and scientifcally based beliefs, being against abortion is the logical choice.

So onto your other issues: gay rights. There is only one issue here, and that is gay marriage/civil unions. Are you not aware that many prominent Republicans favor civil unions, and that few prominent national Democrats support gay marriage? So that is not the issue you claim it is.

On the role of the church within the state and "Family Values," I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I am not sure you do, either. Can you give specifics? I am skeptical that you can, which is typical: people throw out vague accusations and can't back them up, just saying it "seems" the Republicans are a bunch of Bible Thumpers on many issues.

When I look at a typical Republican candidiate, they talk fiscal conservatism and assume social conservatism.

Then you don't look at many Republican candidates.

And the actions of the last 8 years reflect that in an administration with strong party support that acted anything but conservatively with regard to fiscal matters while at the same time hammering its conservative social agenda.

Correct on the first point. Incorrect on the second. Yes, this is widely believed, but it's not true. Bush took virtually no action to restrict abortions. He made token gestures on a few issues like gay marriage, but nothing substantive. Just what are you talking about here?

The recent election was an excellent example where the Republicans pushed a VP who (really) was not qualified for the office ...

Shrug. The records show that her qualifications were as significant as Obama's. She was mayor, he was local representative. She was governor for a short time, he was senator for a short time. She was the least experienced VP candidate in about 40 years; he was the least experienced Presidential candidate in more than 60 years.

... but was embraced (strongly) by the Republican party for her stance on conservative social issues.

On abortion, primarily, which again, is a separate issue (and put embryonic stem cell research into the same category for the same reasons). And gay marriage, she touted a position supported by John Kerry and Barack Obama. What other social issues?

And she was admired (apparently) because she spoke largely on a 'us versus them' platform where the them was again defined by various conservative social positions.

Which is also what Obama and Biden did, on the opposite end. And what Kerry and Edwards did. And so on. So?

As long as large numbers of Republicans embrace this 'conservative social position uber alles', their fiscal conversation (and their tea parties) will be drowned out.

Nope, you're wrong. It's not that large numbers of Republicans are doing this, it's that people say they are doing it even when they can't demonstrate it happening.

I look at the actions of the Republicans over the last eight years (and I hated the tax cuts while increasing spending) and don't understand how they think I can believe what they say.

No one is asking you to. I say, as an elected local official in the Republican Party, look at each individual candidate, what they say and do. Not what your perception of the Party is, but what the candidate is.

the Tea Parties were Republican vehicles

Wow. On what planet? This is completely and utterly false. There is not any truth in that claim whatsoever. These were grassroots events, organized largely by people who dislike both parties. In fact, many Republicans were turned away from speaking at the Tea Parties. At the Tea Party I went to (and performed at), we had the Democratic State Auditor (Brian Sonntag) speak, alongside a Republican State Senator. This particular event was sponsored by nonpartisan free market/low taxes/small government groups. Yes, that means there's more Republicans involved than Democrats, since Republicans tend far more often to agree with those views, but there is no sense in which these were "Republican" events.

In fact, I've been to two of these events now, and in both of them, the GOP and Bush have been attacked by various speakers.

The democrats use to be viewed as extremists. I think the republican party attempts to paint them that way, but many people see the republican party as the extremists today.

It's not true, of course. The Democrats are the extremists. They literally -- explicitly -- deny the primacy of the Constitution. That is as extreme as anyone can possibly get in our country.

I disagree.
OK. But you're wrong.
Ah, no I am not.

So many topic, so much to discuss, so I will respond to just a few.

Republicans seem to feel that the news media and others overemphasize the importance of social isues in the GOP.
You use wiggle words like "seems." What "seems" to you to be true is, in fact, not true.
So Republicans do not feel that the news media and others overemphasize the importance of social issues in the GOP? And I am not trying to wiggle, 'seems' means 'to give the impression of being or to appear to be true'. Republicans are a large group of individuals who have different opinions. My opionion is that a majority of Republicans feel this way: it seems to be true.

Now, let's set aside abortion for the moment, because every single person of intelligence must be able to admit that this is not a mere social issue: if I believe that life in the womb is deserving of the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.....
Hard to set this aside. You belive that a child (at conception?) deserves protection? Should it be illegal for the mother to do things that threaten that child (smoke, drink, etc.). And should that be at the point of conception, so if a woman is having sex it should be illegal for her to do these things? So is it ok to take away the women's rights because of the protections that you believe are required. I am pro-life and anti-abortion. I think that at a certain point in the process, abortion should only be allowed in very specific circumstances. Prior to that point I feel that Abortion should be available. So all of your talk about Abortion uses positive, supportive terms (person of intelligence, life, no rational way, logical choice) while neglecting to mention what would appear to be the defining issue: when does what you call 'life' that must be protected occur?

So onto your other issues: gay rights. There is only one issue here, and that is gay marriage/civil unions. Are you not aware that many prominent Republicans favor civil unions, and that few prominent national Democrats support gay marriage? So that is not the issue you claim it is.
Gay Marriage, like Flag Burning, are loaded terms that are used to great affect. And discussing the topic as defined by 'prominent individuals' wiggle around the issue. The battles that are taking place in a number of states, the amount of press they receive, the strong positions taken by large numbers of individuals, and the polling results regarding its importance all show that you are wrong here as well. And the difference between the parties is clear and obvious as well.

When I look at a typical Republican candidiate, they talk fiscal conservatism and assume social conservatism.
Then you don't look at many Republican candidates.
I look at many. How about Dino Rossi? Opposes - with a few caveats - abortion, gay marriage, gun control, government funding of embryonic stem cell research, and further expansion of gay rights while favoring teaching religion in our public school scince classes. Though he always says (like many Republicans) "I'm not running on this issue" what he really means is "I don't want to have to discuss this issue".

The recent election was an excellent example where the Republicans pushed a VP who (really) was not qualified for the office ...
Shrug. The records show that her qualifications were as significant as Obama's. She was mayor, he was local representative. She was governor for a short time, he was senator for a short time. She was the least experienced VP candidate in about 40 years; he was the least experienced Presidential candidate in more than 60 years.
I think that we will continue to see Presidential candidates with limited national experience. Both parties are too effective at cherry picking over a candiates record to present the worst version of the individual. Attack ads are too effective. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all had limited exposure to national issues which made attacking them more difficult. And, would you honestly have preferred Palin to Obama as the President?

I would love to respond to all of your responses to all of my comments but I am sure that each of us would have points that would branch to further comments and in a couple of days we would have War and Peace. I will say this. I stand behind what I said. Washington is a more liberal state than others. Nation wide, Tea Parties were largely anti-Obama, anti-Democrat affairs. Hannity, Fox and the supporters of these views were in the forefront. And Brian Sonntag is your example of why the events where not Republican platforms? He is referred to as the "darling of consevative radio talk-show circuit" (The News Tribune) for a reason.

And lastly, thank you for responding to my post. Thanks for engaging in a civil manner and presenting your opinions in detail. Most of the people I know are democrats. Its preaching to the converted. I think the only way I and others can change our opinions is if we actually discuss these issues with those who take exception with our own opinions.

I actually signed up just to comment on this.

I love your blog and would say you're very good on facts and know your stuff. However, I think from time to time you may be right on the facts but wrong on the issue.

As far as I can tell the general perception of the current Republican party, outside of Republicans themselves, is more or less exactly as shade writes. You can argue all you want that it's not the true face of the party, but like in all aspects of life perception is often as important if not more important than facts. If the Republicans want to change things in the polls they need to work hard to change people's perceptions of what they are about, as a party, not just individual candidates.

I can sort of understand where you're coming from on Abortion as we've argued this before. But at the end of the day I think it still falls primarily into the social issue category, for various reasons. It's certainly not a purely fiscal issue and lots of people who come at it from a 'logical' standpoint would disagree with your assessment of it.

"It's not a mere matter of preference: if you have a certain set of very American and scientifcally based beliefs, being against abortion is the logical choice."

As far as the tea parties went, from what I saw the right wing media tried to co-opt this as part of a Republican movement, skewering some people's views of what it was about. Unfortunate but is what it is.

And on this point:

"You use wiggle words like "seems." What "seems" to you to be true is, in fact, not true."

I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I read the election, John McCain was seen as a risky proposition for the Republican base, as he was viewed as not being far enough to the right on a number of social issues. From what I read Sarah Palin was used as a correction to this - to lock McCain to the party base, which he had been having a tough time connecting with.

From what I can tell shade is referring to this line of thought, he agrees with the fiscal Republican beliefs but totally disagrees with a person like Sarah Palin and her social values -- the whole God-fearing, gun totting, abortion-hating, anti-gay marriage, thing that the Republican base clearly supports but is not as popular with others - people like shade from what I can tell.

It 'seems' to me that American values in the mainstream have changed from what they were in the 80s on a lot of these issues and that's what stops some people from supporting the party - Sarah Palin is said to represent the party and if that's the case a lot of people can't support that.

"The democrats use to be viewed as extremists. I think the republican party attempts to paint them that way, but many people see the republican party as the extremists today.

It's not true, of course. The Democrats are the extremists. They literally -- explicitly -- deny the primacy of the Constitution. That is as extreme as anyone can possibly get in our country."

Again... perception. Who the real extremists are in 2009 is a matter of opinion, but in terms of public opinion, poll after poll demonstrates the current USA public siding with the Democrats.

So Republicans do not feel that the news media and others overemphasize ...

That is not the "seems" I was referring to. The one with the closest proximity was, "those very issues serve as 'tests' within the Republican party for participation and representation. Issues like Abortion, Gay Rights, the role of the church within the state, and other frequently discussed 'Family Values' issues are used to pick, it seems, nearly everything."

Hard to set this aside. You belive that a child (at conception?) deserves protection?

Basically.

Should it be illegal for the mother to do things that threaten that child (smoke, drink, etc.).

No. I also don't think mothers should be disallowed from smoking in their own homes. Many kids grow up around cigarettes and are just fine. Few children survive abortion.

So is it ok to take away the women's rights because of the protections that you believe are required.

Sure. Everyone agrees with this. My right to shoot my gun, drive my car, wield my chainsaw, stops where that gun endangers the lives of innocent people. The ONLY relevant question is whether or not this is a person we're talking about.

all of your talk about Abortion uses positive, supportive terms (person of intelligence, life, no rational way, logical choice) while neglecting to mention what would appear to be the defining issue: when does what you call 'life' that must be protected occur?

The point is that the pro-life, anti-abortion view is logical and rational. Pick any point during the pregnancy, I can logically defend it. Conception, blastocyte, implantation, heartbeat, detectable brain activity, whatever.

discussing the topic as defined by 'prominent individuals' wiggle around the issue

I am simply pointing out the fact that this is not a Republican issue. Maybe in Washington it is, but across most of the country, it's not. It's very much bipartisan.

And the difference between the parties is clear and obvious as well

Shrug. Obama is the Democratic leader.

all show that you are wrong here as well

Please feel free to point out something I said, and then show it to be wrong. I have no idea what you think I said that was shown to be wrong.

I look at many. How about Dino Rossi? Opposes - with a few caveats - abortion, gay marriage, gun control, government funding of embryonic stem cell research, and further expansion of gay rights while favoring teaching religion in our public school scince classes.

First, if guns are a "social issue" than so is free speech. Guns are a civil rights issue. Rossi's view on guns is to uphold the obvious and literal interpretations of the U.S. and Washington Consitutions.

Second, no, Rossi did not support teaching religion in science classes. He supported local school districts making their own decisions. Very big difference, and again, it is the anti-statist view: letting people make up their own minds. Similarly, on gays, he actually did advocate expanding the ability of gays to get equal rights, though he did not support marriage (again, the same view as Barack Obama).

Though he always says (like many Republicans) "I'm not running on this issue" what he really means is "I don't want to have to discuss this issue".

Shrug. He had no hope of significantly changing state law on abortion. He opposed gay marriage but favored more equality for gays. I think most honest people would think that this is far less important than the fact that Gregoire and the Democrats drove us into financial ruin to the tune of $9 billion dollars.

I think that we will continue to see Presidential candidates with limited national experience.

Maybe, but again: Obama had no more than she did.

would you honestly have preferred Palin to Obama as the President?

Absolutely. While she definitely has some drawbacks -- Obama is no genius, but he is smarter and has greater understanding, I think, of certain things -- he comes to, in the end, almost all the wrong conclusions on major issues. Would I have picked Palin? Nope. But I would vote for her over Obama any day of the week, because I believe he is leading America to ruin in many respects.

Nation wide, Tea Parties were largely anti-Obama, anti-Democrat affairs.

No, they weren't. They were anti-government. Sure, they criticized Obama and the Dems more than Bush and Republicans, but guess what? Bush and Republicans didn't vote for stimulus or the budget and are not in power! You honestly think they should have given "equal time" to criticism of Bush and the Republicans, who are far less to blame for the things they are angry about? Get real. Even if they had, you'd probably just say "oh, they just did that for show."

Hannity, Fox and the supporters of these views were in the forefront.

And they had nothing to do with organizing or running the events. They did promote them, but that does nothing to prove your incorrect claim that these were "Republican vehicles." You're committing the association fallacy.

The major antiwar protests several years ago were actually organized primarily by communists. Literally. ANSWER was a front group for organizations like the Workers World Party. Does this mean the antiwar protests were communist vehicles? Of course not. But communists had FAR more to do with the organization of the antiwar protests than Republicans or Fox had to do with the organization of the Tea Parties!

And Brian Sonntag is your example of why the events where not Republican platforms?

He IS a Democrat. A popular one, too.

He is referred to as the "darling of consevative radio talk-show circuit" (The News Tribune) for a reason.

Yes, because he is a Democrat who is fiscally conservative, and honest about it, and not afraid to go after his fellow Democrats when they do wrong. Isn't that a GOOD thing?

I think the only way I and others can change our opinions is if we actually discuss these issues with those who take exception with our own opinions.

I am not interested in changing anyone's opinion. I only seek to inform and understand, and foster understanding. If opinions change due to that, so be it.

As far as I can tell the general perception of the current Republican party ... is more or less exactly as shade writes.

I never denied that. I simply said it's a largely false perception. The rest of what you said is beside my point.

"It's not a mere matter of preference: if you have a certain set of very American and scientifcally based beliefs, being against abortion is the logical choice." Obviously not everyone who fits this criteria agrees, or even close to agrees with you here. But I don't want to beat a dead horse.

But it's undeniably true. What part could anyone disagree with? Let's lay it out.

It is, biologically speaking, a life in the womb, at a point soon after conception. Undeniably true according to science.

As a human life, it is deserving of the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. While you do not have to believe this is true, it certainly is a very American belief. The Declaration is quite clear: it is "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among these life. ..." Again, you can disagree with that, but you cannot rationally argue it's not fundamentally American. (Also, that's not to say disagreement is un-American. I am not implying that at all. There's lots of very American beliefs I disagree with, for example, our intellectual property protections. Doesn't make me un-American, I think. :-)

Finally, I noted the belief that the state is obligated to protect the right to life of the people it references in the Declaration of Independence. This is inherently American, and I know few people who disagree with it.

As always, the only real issue here is whether the life in the womb is deserving of those rights. But IF you believe it is -- which again, is entirely rational and very American -- and you further believe that the government has an obligation to, as the Constitution of Washington says, as well as the Declaration of Independence, then how can you NOT be obligated to be pro-life? That makes no sense. At all.

So: you cannot disagree it is a life. It is. You can disagree it deserves rights as a person, or that the government has an obligation to protect the rights of people; but you cannot disagree that these are rational and very American beliefs. Finally, you cannot disagree that if you have those beliefs, being against abortion is the logical choice.

I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I read the election, John McCain was seen as a risky proposition for the Republican base, as he was viewed as not being far enough to the right on a number of social issues.

Nope. The base was upset about McCain primarily on his vote against the Bush tax cuts, on his support of comprehensive immigration reform, on his sponsorship of McCain-Feingold, on his opposition to "torture," and so on.

Again... perception. Who the real extremists are in 2009 is a matter of opinion, but in terms of public opinion, poll after poll demonstrates the current USA public siding with the Democrats.

Nope. What it shows is the Republicans losing ground, not the Democrats gaining significant ground.

I think we have moved too far afield of my initial point: that I disagree with you that the Republican party is perceived as moving to the left.

Recently, Rep Steve King (R-IA) held 11 town meetings aimed at Iowan conservatives. The No. 1 issue at those meetings: Gay Marriage. Not fiscal issues. Social issues. And as the conservative arm of the Republican party (which are a larger percentage as those who identify with the party decrease) continues to place this level of importance on these issues, those in the middle will feel the need to move farther and farther from the party. This is my primary point. Fiscal conservatives are moving away from the Republican party because of the parties focus on Social issues.

In 2010 many of those non-republicans are going to vote for the candidate who supports the aim of the Tea Parties as long as those indivduals are not also supporting Social positions that many in the center find unacceptable.

Oh, and your remark regarding the role of the church within the state and "Family Values," I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I am not sure you do, either. Can you give specifics? I am skeptical that you can, which is typical: people throw out vague accusations and can't back them up, just saying it "seems" the Republicans are a bunch of Bible Thumpers on many issues. You kindly give me an example of exactly what I am talking about: second, no, Rossi did not support teaching religion in science classes. He supported local school districts making their own decisions. Very big difference, and again, it is the anti-statist view: letting people make up their own minds.. Letting people make up their own minds....about Evolution? The conservatives had initial success pushing Intelligent Design in a number of states, but were largely thrown out...because (using some of your own words) every single person of intelligence must be able to admit that creationism and intelligent design are only attempts to force a single non-scientific religious perspective into a extremly widely accepted concept (Evolution) because that concept does not agree with that religious sub-type's perspective. And people understand this, associate it with the Republicans (where it belongs) and find themselves where I am. Unable to support the Republican party. Do we let people teach children in schools that what we know in Geology is possibly false because the earth is only a few thousands of years old? That this is a valid and reasonable theory? Really? Maybe the sun circles the earth. But I am pretty sure it does not.

And lastly, because I can't get entirely out of the field and because I fundamentally disagree with you regarding Abortion: So: you cannot disagree it is a life.. Actually I can. I can agree that, as an example, what exists for the first week after conception is not actually 'life'. So I do disagree. And many do. It is not as clear cut as you like to make it sound.

I think we have moved too far afield of my initial point: that I disagree with you that the Republican party is perceived as moving to the left.

It HAS been perceived as such. The question is whether that will change. Arlen Specter is Exhibit A: the straw that broke the camel's back for the GOP in PA was his support of the stimulus.

Recently, Rep Steve King (R-IA) held 11 town meetings aimed at Iowan conservatives. The No. 1 issue at those meetings: Gay Marriage.

So? That's a big issue in Iowa right now. The court just declared gay marriage legal by fiat in the last couple of weeks, so obviously, this is a major issue right now. Trying to generalize from this to the GOP at large makes no sense.

Fiscal conservatives are moving away from the Republican party because of the parties focus on Social issues.

Nope. The fiscal conservatives left the party because of Bush and the GOP supporting massive expansion of government and deficits and debt.

You kindly give me an example of exactly what I am talking about

Odd, since I asked about "family values," and what you reference isn't about that.

Letting people make up their own minds....about Evolution?

Of course. School districts should be allowed to make up their own minds about *everything,* so long as it isn't illegal or otherwise violating someone else's rights. And of course, there should be very few laws about currciula, because liberty is more important.

every single person of intelligence must be able to admit that creationism and intelligent design are only attempts to force a single non-scientific religious perspective into a extremly widely accepted concept (Evolution) because that concept does not agree with that religious sub-type's perspective

False. If you actually understood Intelligent Design, you would know it is fully compatible with evolution.

But even if that were true ... so what? Local school districts can make up their own minds. What do you care, unless it is your school district? Why do you hate liberty?

Do we let people teach children in schools that what we know in Geology is possibly false because the earth is only a few thousands of years old?

Again you prove you do not understand Intelligent Design, which does not teach this view.

But even if it did ... so what? Hell yes, we make OUR OWN decisions about what OUR schools will teach OUR kids. You have it completely backwards: the question is not whether we "let" people teach children certain things, it's whether we decide to impose our own views on them.

Again: why do you hate liberty? What are you afraid of?

Actually I can [disagree that it is a life]. I can agree that, as an example, what exists for the first week after conception is not actually 'life'.

I said, "It is, biologically speaking, a life in the womb, at a point soon after conception." Once in the womb, it is a life. And before it is in the womb, it is a life. You can argue that it is not a life immediately after conception, but by the time it implanted, it absolutely is.

It is not as clear cut as you like to make it sound.

Yes, it is, if you actually read what I wrote in full, instead of taking one phrase out of context.