Republicans Need To Stop Pandering To The Social Conservatives
They lose moderate voters they might retain if they sold themselves as fiscal conservatives alone.
The problem is the primaries -- they're all trying to out-social-conservative each other to pander to the primary voters.
Hans Bader writes at Open Market:
There is a huge difference between even a moderate Republican like Romney and a liberal Democrat like Obama. What this writer calls a "cheap imitation liberal" is exactly what many suburban voters wanted, like my wife.My wife, a moderate with libertarian leanings, reluctantly voted for Romney, because she views Obama as supporting the redistribution of wealth and vast expansions of welfare, and views such redistribution of wealth as a key reason for the economic stagnation of her native France. But she only voted for Romney because she viewed him as a moderate, and thus did not expect him ever to push for a federal ban on first trimester abortions if elected, or to try to ban gay marriage.
(She doesn't care if late-term abortions are restricted. In France, unlike in the U.S. under the Supreme Court's decision in Doe v. Bolton, late term abortions have historically been prohibited. Late-term abortion is much less regulated in the U.S. than in most of the world.)
She would never vote for a social ultra-conservative like Todd Akin who wants to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest. (My wife was also alienated by Obama's big spending in areas like the $800 billion stimulus package and bailouts.) Alienating moderates is disastrous for political parties, especially for parties like the GOP that have a shrinking demographic base.
Conservative publications like National Review came up with strained rationalizations for believing that Romney would win despite being behind in the polls. For example, it claimed that Romney would win most undecided voters because "68 percent" of undecided voters were white -- which is silly, because more than 80 percent of registered voters are white, meaning that whites, who are typically GOP-leaning, were actually underrepresented among undecided voters.
Meanwhile, it ignored the fact that 63 percent of undecided voters supported gay marriage, suggesting that undecided voters were disproportionately liberal on social issues (since only about half the general public supports gay marriage).
If you don't like Todd Akin, then don't vote for him. Romney distanced himself from him. Why don't people say that hypocritical sleazebags like John Edwards, Elizabeth Warren, and Anthony Weiner prevent them from voting Democrat.
Is Romney's view of gay marriage more objectionable to liberals than Obama's was in 2008? Anyway marriage is a state issue.
I keep waiting to hear a cogent version of the argument that the GOP is pushing social conservatism too much, but it really sounds like what Instapundit calls oikephobia (dislike of the unwashed).
Engineer at November 8, 2012 1:50 AM
I wonder why it is that the public cannot understand that the country is a business.
Single-issue voting is horribly divisive, especially when considering an office with no real power on the issue.
The President cannot compel you to get an abortion, nor can he prevent you from getting one, but the ignorant insist that he can.
Radwaste at November 8, 2012 2:07 AM
The article is just rationalization. There is now a permanant, built-in majority for socialism and entitlements, and nothing will change that. The Democrats can now elect anyone they want; George W. Bush will stand as the last Republican President. Romney was one of the most moderate candidates the GOP could nominate, yet he was successfully portrayed as an ultra-right extremist. Ask any single woman you know -- to a person, they will tell you that Romney was going to ban contraception.
The entitlement classes -- welfare receipients, single women, illegal aliens, government bureaucrats, crony capitalists, affirmative-action beneficiaries, lawyers, unions -- are in control of America now, and they view all of America's assets as spoils of war. If Jesus Christ ran as a Republican, he'd lose. None of the stuff that the article talks about matters anymore. The only way the GOP could ever win a national election would be to totally sell out their core principles and run to the left of the Democrats, and even then, they probably wouldn't win.
Cousin Dave at November 8, 2012 5:52 AM
"but it really sounds like what Instapundit calls oikephobia (dislike of the unwashed)."
To be more specific, it's hatred of the middle class. Our elites today are, intellectally, directly descended from the likes of Louis XIV; the middle class enjoying a comfortable lifestyle is inherently offensive to them. And they are determined to do something about it. Look at the economic and political structure of most of the nations on Earth, e.g., Brazil: you have an unimaginably wealthy and powerful upper class, a vast swath of the poor, and in between is a tiny middle class that is reviled by both of the other two groups and blamed for everything that is wrong in their society.
Cousin Dave at November 8, 2012 5:58 AM
I was talking to a C store clerk a few weeks back and he was a liberal. He would not consider the fact that even though Romney was anti-abortion, effectively abortion is a state issue, and at this point there really isn't a chance it's going to be banned.
He was such an open-minded liberal that his mind was closed.
Jim P. at November 8, 2012 6:15 AM
Another problem with it is, the general population knows next to nothing about economics. So you have two politicians standing up there saying, economists agree spending like a drunken sailor will make money, while the other says no econmists agree, spending like adrunken sailor will hurt (except spending on the things I like).
What you will never have is a politician saying is my policy is wrong, they might say the implimentation was, or they needed more time, or more push, but never their policy.
Joe J at November 8, 2012 6:44 AM
The late Quentin Crisp said:
"Politics is the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human choice."
lenona at November 8, 2012 8:03 AM
The American newsmedia act like lovestruck schoolgirls whenever they are around Obama. They will not cover his scandals or gaffes while at the same time they are hypervigilant and critical towards his opponents. (Example...in what universe is "Fast and Furious" not a major newsworthy scandal?)
This isn't just the usual "liberal media bias". This is something else. I'm not sure how any candidate can stand against the media's Obama cult of personality.
Perro at November 8, 2012 8:20 AM
"Sometimes, an open mind comes perilously close to being an empty mind. Sometimes, tolerance is a way to avoid wrestling for the truth. Pluralism is not always the acceptance of a range of hard-won views, but a giant shrug of the shoulders, a cosmic 'Whatever.'" ~ Ellen Goodman
"Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out." ~ H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
=========================
Also:
"It turns out that ... you don’t need to believe in anything much to be an extremely effective president. All you need is to know your audience’s insecurities and how to keep swaying in time to them forever." ~ Adam Gropnik
Conan the Grammarian at November 8, 2012 9:59 AM
In the end Romney played not to lose.
If this had worked, he and his handlers would be lauded as brilliant, but of course, it didn't.
Republicans are "rules followers" and they rarely recognize that they are in a street fight until they get their ear bit off.
The Marquess of Queensberry died figuratively at Flanders.
They bring a knive, your bring a gun. Romney ignored the Tea Party and libertarian elements of the electorate, and only had one aggressive debate. America did not want to elect "Obama lite"
Isab at November 8, 2012 10:23 AM
I've seen about an equal number of arguments saying that Romney's defeat was due to him ignoring the tea party, versus the fact that the tea party candidates in state and local elections scared off the centrist electorate and, therefore, hurt Romney.
If some think tank or news organization would hold a debate between proponents of both those points of view, it would be fascinating.
Kevin at November 8, 2012 11:12 AM
"I wonder why it is that the public cannot understand that the country is a business."
Because I understand that America isn't a business, it's a nation.
It's not here to make a profit but to provide governance, protection, and all the benefits of citizenship as we go about our OWN business.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 8, 2012 12:35 PM
The Democrats and the Republicans are much more similar than different. I think the electorate realized that and decided the devil they knew was better than the devil they didn't.
Maybe someday the GOP will decide to stand for being the party of small government and decide to actually attack the entitlement complex. Until then it's the statist party vs. the just as statist party but with social conservatives!
Janet C at November 8, 2012 5:36 PM
Republicans Need To Stop Pandering To The Social Conservatives
Maybe they need to but I bet they won't.
JD at November 8, 2012 5:48 PM
"It's not here to make a profit but to provide governance, protection, and all the benefits of citizenship as we go about our OWN business."
Yup
Purple pen at November 8, 2012 9:09 PM
"Maybe someday the GOP will decide to stand for being the party of small government and decide to actually attack the entitlement complex. "
A candidate who actually did that would get slaughtered. He (or she) would be lucky to pull 50 electoral votes. Why do you think no one does it? Because they know, and this election conclusively demonstrated it. Such a candidate would be so incredibly for the media and the opposition to demogauge; look what they did to Ryan, and to Romney for putting him on the ticket.
Face it, there are a lot fewer libertarians than most people think. A lot of people who call themselves libertarians and moderates are really just leftists trying to play a one-up game with other leftists. The entitlement classes now have an absolute majority, and nothing is going to change that.
Cousin Dave at November 9, 2012 10:40 AM
Realistically Romney ran as far to the right of Overton Window as he could. But he was still too left or questionable to the Right and the Left still thought he was too far right.
I say we need to secede and reform the republic in a new way.
Jim P. at November 9, 2012 11:21 PM
"Because I understand that America isn't a business, it's a nation."
Then you and others should have no objection to running deep in debt and subsidies. Or filling projects full of dependent people, then wondering why you're always out of money. Or offering pensions, like the city of Flint, Michigan, and thereby gutting your active police forces in order to fully fund such pensions.
These things are not fiction. They are cases where thinking like yours led to outright failure.
A special pleading doesn't exempt you from the requirement that a government not abuse its monetary system for expediency. That's how nations fail.
Radwaste at November 10, 2012 3:32 AM
Leave a comment