Now just a dang minute. Don't fall for the mythology about social conservatives. Most of us are willing to take a government-neutral policy on many issues, but find that in practice, that "neutrality" means encouragement for the other side. Sometimes that favoritism is not immediately obvious, and we find progressives in particular unwilling to even listen to the argument.

Government choices to do A vs. B often have philosophical implications that can be seen after five minutes thought.

I don't know any social conservatives who want government to generally make people do things the Right Way. We want the government to stop encouraging the wrong way, especially with our money. Having said that, I realise that there is a varied and complex discussion about how fully social conservatives adhere to that over the full range of drug, sexual, medical, and life issues. While our philosophical consistency may not be exemplary on such, neither is anyone else's.

In several areas, slippery-slope arguments by social conservatives years ago have borne out. In others, not so much. But even their partial occurence means that social conservatives should be able to bring them to the table without their being dismissed out of hand.

I agree. I am also tired of the monolithic stereotype of the social conservative. I have seen many of these people say exactly the same things in the wake of this election, that the focus for evangelicals needs to be on God and bringing to people to Christ on a personal basis, not on political solutions.

I also don't care for the idea that people with deeply held philosophical beliefs should just ignore them when they vote so that others with contrasting beliefs can be satisfied.

Social conservatives can now ask the Democrats to implement their favored policies.

--

In any case social conservatism scares people. And thus votes get lost that might adhere to a pure economic conservative message. Of course that presumes you can find enough Republican economic conservatives to force the agenda.

And your money will keep getting used against you as long as people perceive social conservatism as threatening.

So decide: is the Republican Party the anti-abortion party? Or the sound fiscal management party? Which is the bigger tent? Which is more important? I'm told it is hard to raise children in a full blown depression.

I haven't been a big fan of cultural or economic socialism for quite some time.

So what do I want? A party that is strictly about sound economics. If the socons are unhappy with that they will find welcoming arms in the Democrat party. Because they believe there is no problem social or cultural that government can't solve.

BTW the Austrian Corporal was rather socially conservative in his public policies. The masses loved him. The private behavior of his gang was a little different.

Well any way. I want to thank the Real Conservatives™ for staying home on election day. The Great Depression was not only economic. It depressed family formation. So thanks for the family friendly policy of giving Obama the election.

So you have to ask yourself - will it take 20 years or 50 to unravel the Democrat's agenda? Will we get the opportunity? I am not encouraged.

I also don't care for the idea that people with deeply held philosophical beliefs should just ignore them when they vote so that others with contrasting beliefs can be satisfied.

OK fine. The Republicans are not a political party. They are a church. I'm down with that.

From now on the Republican church will not hear another word of cheer leading from me. Not a word.

The days of the blank check are over for me. If you want my vote and my support you will have to do one important thing: earn it.

If I'm not socially conservative enough for you fine. The party will be much better off without so many social liberals. And smaller too. Best for all concerned. I can avoid the usual vituperation every post election season and you can wonder why you avoid winning national elections. A fair trade.

Ten or thirty years of unbridled Democrat rule may ultimately wise you up. Or not. Whatever.

M Simon - I feel your anger young Paduan, but you are not making a persuasive case. You are, in fact, descending into insult and petulance rather than a logical case. Quite unlike you.

Social conservatives have in fact been good soldiers over the last two decades, voting for Republicans even when we have been left out of much of the decision-making process, and some had views not to our liking. For you to take the attitude that we should accept your idea of an economic-conservatism only party or bug out is hardly much of an offer. I am frankly glad you are not in a position to make it on behalf of the party.

You clearly believe "we would've won without you guys dragging us down." History is littered with some very bad results when people take that attitude to allies. As to the numbers, your own post starts with the popularity of socially conservative ideas, in contrast to an elected president who may share some but certainly doesn't share others of those ideas, and conclude with auH20girl from that one data point that social conservatives can't be elected nationally.

AVI,

I'm not so young any more.

I don't have to make my case. 10 or 30 years of losses to the Democrats will make my case for me. Enjoy it while you can.

And if the socons are so powerful why didn't they deliver the Black and Hispanic socon vote for the Republicans?

I never said socons were a drag. I like them. I just don't think demands to enforce culture belong in a political party. They belong in church. You see the more demands you make on the party the smaller its vote getting ability. Especially with socons so demonized in the media. It ain't fair. It is what it is. Deal with reality or get crushed by it. Darwin in action. Or Intelligent Design. Take your pick.

At this point in time you can have a small anti-abortion party or a larger economic liberty party. Choose. So far I see the Rs adhering tenaciously to their anti-abortion stance and completely ignoring economic liberty (at least in so far as it is a unified, effective, implemented policy).

I'm not a big fan of Cultural or Economic Socialism. I could stomach the Cultural Socialism pretty much if the Rs delivered on their promise of economic liberty. Small government. etc.

As of now I have two cultural AND economic socialist parties to choose from. I choose to stay home. I'm told a lot of previous R voters did the same in this past election. I'm joining the crowd.

Call me when you wake up.

You clearly believe "we would've won without you guys dragging us down." History is littered with some very bad results when people take that attitude to allies.

Yep. And after every election - win or lose - I get shit on by a gang of socons for my socially liberal attitudes. I'm tired of it. If the R party doesn't want its libertarian contingent any more (or ever) I'm happy not to darken their door until they decide they might need me.

Every election I have participated in as a Republican I have gotten the same. I have finally seen the light. Socons don't want me. They just want my vote and then it is "fook off, we don't need your kind around here". I'm a little slow. But eventually I catch on.

I supported Bush because I thought winning in Iraq was important. I got what I wanted. I leave the party in your most competent hands. May you go from victory to victory. Certainly you can do that without the help of the libertarians in the party.

When you decide to damp down your cultural socialism and amp up economic liberty you know where to reach me.

Normally I don't post to politcal blogs. But as an avid reader of Simon's other website, and appriciate his point of view in general. As of the last day or so, I've seen how this war that has been unfolding on "Just One Minute". In addition, I've also seen the other blogs in the non-Democratic sphere degenrate as of late, I am starting to get very annoyed - no, furious - by all this bickering between the various subgroups of the Republican Party. It is a pointless and irrational exercise. Because we did not shoot that which stole from our plot, we shoot each other instead?

Unless libertarians, social conservatives and conservative internationalists can find some common ground, they should expect to have neither social or economic conservativism in their house, especially with those so classically hostile to those ideals in power presently.

We can fight each other later, when we have the strength to do so; we don't right now. We simpily have bigger fish to fry than ourselves right now.

I'm just sick of this fighting. We cannot defeat the leftists through this route.

The Laughing Man

(Mine field alert)
I've been afraid of social conservatives since the days of the Moral Majority (obligatory, "Which was neither" comment noted).

I have a friend who's just turning 30 and she was confused when I told her I was still afraid of the Religious Right (possibly slightly different from socons, but there is a huge overlap), then the whole Terri Schiavo deal happened and she understood my point.

My one and only comment on that whole deal was, "Is it me or does anybody else think this is none of the gov't's business" and it received responses ranging from calling me a murderer to being worse than Hitler with his eugenics. In other words, they acted exactly like the left: Wanting the gov't to step in where it doesn't belong and demonizing the other side.

I really wish the Libertarian Party wasn't so scary, otherwise, I would join in a heartbeat. I'm just afraid of people who talk about privatizing the police and the military.

Strikes,

There are two things the Republicans offered me. Victory in Iraq and Fiscal Responsibility. The delivered on the first and reneged on the second.

So what can they offer me? A socon agenda I'm not interested in? And if Cultural Socialism is such a big deal why couldn't the socons deliver the socons in the Democrat Party? It is all bluff. Except when the votes are counted. They are fooling themselves and need to retool their whole operation if they want to win elections. They are not interested.

In politics you have to choose what you want and choose carefully. So let me restate what I want:

1. Victory in Iraq
2. Fiscal Responsibility
3. Social Liberalism

One of the things the Rs offered over the Ds was #1 and that was my over riding issue. It is no longer an issue. So then we go to #2 and #3. The Ds offer me #3 and the Rs offer me nothing. Easy choice there.

Still. I don't like the Ds much. So I may just go more hermit than usual. A gadfly rather than an interested party with skin in the game.

===

The Republican party is done for until they mend their ways. I offered constructive criticism and was met with a wall of vituperation.

I suggested that the Rs moderate their tone (considerably) on social issues and focus on getting economics right. And the social issue thing was because the popular press eats them alive on that and their other message doesn't get out. Well also they don't deliver what they promise.

My guess is that they are not yet in enough pain. It takes 15 or 20 years from the first loss to figure it out. The Reps being politically stupider than average will require 20 or 30 years. Heaven help us.

I don't see the Rs coming back in '12 unless the Ds totally screw up. They may. But it is not a given.

And you are right. We need to find common ground. But in the end the Rs are just as bigoted as the Ds. They just apply that bigotry to different objects.

There are socons in the Rs and the Ds. So that agenda is not unique. The Rs are socialists and the Ds even more so. The current battles in the war are won or they are the Ds problem.

Afghanistan will not get fixed until we actually look at what the strategic problem really is: Opium. And so far in 40 years of effort I haven't moved the whole drug question more than a couple of inches. So that whole situation is hopeless. A quagmire. I wash my hands of it.

So I will work with Ds on social issues. The Rs can pray to Jesus and spend a few decades in the wilderness. Screw 'em. They neither need nor want libertarians (libertines to them). I'm OK with that.

I had really hoped that the nomination of Palin would give the socons a clue. Nope.

They are like a thief in the presence of Jesus. All the thief sees is his pockets.

All they saw in Palin was her religion. They took no notice of her positions on governance. Idiots.

M Simon, you have repeated your point several times. I hear what you are saying. I have no evidence that you have understood my argument. You have certainly not answered it. I will add two others: 1. it is the elected socons in congress who have been the more fiscally responsible. Not consistently or brilliantly, but they've got the better record. 2. You are looking at only one side of the balance sheet - your perception of votes that were lost by socons. You write as if there were no votes lost by the libertarian wing. As the voting public seems (wrongly) afraid of the free market at this point, I suggest there was at least some loss attributable to libertarians increasing the perception that the GOP is the party of the unregulated free market.

I am not interested in counting heads of who brought us more or lost us more. I simply note that your argument is one-sided.

AVI,

Do you know why we lost the election? Republicans didn't show up. Republicans. There will be a post up on it later.

If Republicans don't want to beat an avowed Marxist for what ever reason I see no point in adding to their vote totals until they have a will to win.

The Republicans gave Obama the election. Gave it to him. Screw them. If they want a socialist country they have no right to complain when it doesn't turn out well.

I have just looked at the stats. The Republicans have been shrinking their coalition since 1980. The rot has been ongoing for 28 years. I think it will take another 20 for the Republicans to figure it out and then a further 20 to correct the situation. I'll be dead by then.

As to liberty being scary? Sure. The Republicans haven't stood for real liberty since Reagan. You don't sell the product it goes bad on the shelf.

And what did the stinkin Rs do about FM/FM when they were in power? Make it an issue? Did McCain lead the attack even if it meant political loss? No. He never focused on the issue until the shite hit the impeller.

And now the Ds will have 20 years minimum to cover their tracks. And invent new giveaways.

The Republicans have lost their way. The last one to believe in liberty was RR. And you know what the brand looks like these days? The party of religious fascists and anti-abortion freaks. Look at how they attacked Palin. That was the main template.

And you know - it was unfair to Palin. But it is a true perception of the party.

Cultural Socialists bordering on Fascists.

I was just reading that up until the election Alaskans knew nothing about Palin's religion. Nothing she did while governing made it an issue. If only the Republicans would take heed. They won't. Screw them. But I don't have to. The Republicans will screw themselves. Gonna be fun to watch. Got popcorn?

A brief comment or two, due to time constraints. I am sorry, Simon, but I must do an unimaginable atrocity. Specifically, I'm going to cut and paste from your reply and hope that I don't mess up your context.

---
"So what can they offer me? A socon agenda I'm not interested in? And if Cultural Socialism is such a big deal why couldn't the socons deliver the socons in the Democrat Party? It is all bluff. Except when the votes are counted. They are fooling themselves and need to retool their whole operation if they want to win elections. They are not interested."

The elite power structure may not want to retool, but they will be forced to eventually. There is a lot of grassroots support for such an effort, and in addition the current crop of Republicans is being replaced slowly by a younger generation.

The thing is, is that the final result of the change will not be a beneficial one for any member of the tripod unless they stay in the party. It's cold logic; if I am a party official, why should I bother supporting a platform that is redundant and doesn't attract votes?

The response, I may anticipate would be as, "Ah ha! But what about that SoCon vote?". Well, the SoCons had very little to vote *for*. What binds the party is the economic conservatism, and that is true. But our Presidential choice (NOT the VP!) was both an Economic Liberal and a Social Liberal. If "I am a Republican, why should I vote for someone that doesn't represent the classical values of the party? Sure, I like Palin, but she is the VP and that's generally going to only buy you a cup of coffee in the morning.".

Had McCain opposed the bailout, The One may have lost quite badly. But he said he would support it, and lost a golden oppertunity to make a firm stand for fiscal responsibility. It was the tax issue that appeared through the "Joe the Plumber" route that saved him from a totally ignominious defeat.

Remember, social conservatives like money too. If you are against both their views AND their pocket book...well there you go.

---
"The Republican party is done for until they mend their ways. I offered constructive criticism and was met with a wall of vituperation."

Just on the one website, or elsewhere as well?

As someone who tends to be of the persuasion against overarching authority within the party, if one of the other factional members goes on with a philosophical difference, I simply press on, do what I need to do to support the canidates of the party that have a reasonable point of view, and try to convert like-minded people to join the party. The only way you are going to create a balance of power between the members of this tripod is by having having a perceived equality of strength. If one group does not participate in the process, then it is discounted.

And yes, this is all a cynical operation to acrue votes BUT if you make up a sizable portion of a big tent, then the other members will be less willing to act against you. Strength in numbers and in action.

---
"So I will work with Ds on social issues. The Rs can pray to Jesus and spend a few decades in the wilderness. Screw 'em. They neither need nor want libertarians (libertines to them). I'm OK with that."

Well, I will work with them. Things will never be fixed if you refuse to work with people based on their lifestyle, and I know many social conservatives, populists and internationalists who agree on me with this point in my own personal circle.

American socitey is based off of the concept of liberty, that we work to a common goal (a more perfect Union) while making room for differences within a social framework, accomodating for both social liberalism and conservatism - the system cannot survive any other way. If there is a difference between me and those who I associate with, I will work within those assocaitions to achieve a greater purpose and to make sure that my voice is not lost in the cacophony. While not Libertarian, it is one way I choose to practice my libertarianism.

If you want to take a different route, I am aware that I can change your mind on the matter, and I will not even begin to persuade you. I will most certainly not change mine...I am firmly staying with the Republicans, based on my reasoning above, that you may only alter an organization from the inside.

Well, at least keep me up to date on the Polywell business. Fusion is really our only hope as far as a practical energy solution. God knows with the leftists in power we'll see these rubbish corn subsidies for ethanol continue. I'll drop in to your page on occasion to check up on things, to be sure.

Good health, Simon!

The Laughing Man

BTW, Simon, et al (slightly off topic, though). Some good news before I get on with the weekend. Apparently 91% of the party support Palin presently, and far over half of them have a very favorable opinion of her. The same amount want her as the nominee next cycle. And this is from Rasmussen of all places.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain

Yes, I know after the whole "how accurate are public polls" affair that has been going on recently, that this may not mean much. But still, not everyone is in on this line of discussion, and will take this at face value. This will add prestige to her name for the wider audience exposed to the poll.

Also notable is the very wide margin of approval here. This is either a total lie, or a clear trend. I would be quite happy if it were the later.

Obama, meanwhile, is focusing on making Nancy Reagan jokes and talking about his new dog. This as Russia is placing missiles near Poland. And as for what another stimulus package will accomplish, on the economic front...

Things are starting to feel promising for the first time since Tuesday. Perhaps we are going to see a repeat of 1980 in '12. Of course, that still means four years of...*sigh*.

The Laughing Man

Laughing Man,

Since I got behind the Republicans in 2002 every post election - I have gotten the vituperation. It is not just one www site.

===

It is not clear to me that the Rs want to be the small government party. And they certainly aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. Why waste my time with them until they get serious? They can always craft a policy and implement it to prove their bonafides. In the mean time they obviously need to get desperate for votes. I'm just going to help them along.

===

Did you know that until this election the people of Alaska had no idea about Palin's religion? Nothing she did gave the Alaskans any reason to look into it.

Which is exactly my point. The Republicans need to give up on issues that scare the media. Yeah. It sucks. For a lot of Republicans. So then the question becomes: do they want to win or do they want to stick with the issues that are important to the big factions of the party and lose.

Palin is smarter than the lot of them.

And it is for a Palin type strategy that I got called out on. In fact that is what I called it. Cut back on the social issue stuff and focus on sound governance. I asked why a social conservative had 80% approval rating in Alaska. I said that she had to be attracting a lot of Democrats. How did she accomplish that? It wasn't by being Governor anti-abortion. It wasn't by preaching to Alaskans that sinners were going to hell unless they adopted the correct social positions. It was by taking all the socon issues off the table.

BTW I have been suggesting a Palin type strategy since at least 2002. It is why I keep getting hammered. You know I'm not respectful enough of the most important moral issue of our time. Would be the general gist. Simon hates socons and besides Simon is just an upstart. "We are socons and we own the party. We don't want your kind."

Republicans are dumber than rocks.

I do not in any way think ill of the socon lifestyle. I'm a libertarian.

What I do say is that it scares the monkeys and especially the monkeys of the media. You don't win votes by making people afraid of you. It makes no difference if the fear is rational or irrational. Politics is about soothing people's fears, not inflaming them. At least with respect to one's own side. The deal is to make yourself less fear producing than the other guy.

"AVI,

Do you know why we lost the election?"

You can make up about a hundred reasons, and I mistrust them all. "Why?" and "Because" are usually misleading statements. I certainly don't accept your explanation. I could spin a half-dozen more plausible ones off the top of my head. Not that they'd be any more likely to be true.

I am sorry you feel you have gotten vituperation and criticism on other sites and for other elections. You have only dealt it here. I am only mildly offended, because I suspect you are reacting emotively and will resume give-and-take discussion at some point in the near future. You have identified someone to blame, and fortify yourself with confirmation bias.

AVI if you haven't already looked see my:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/11/the_real_stealt.html

And yes. I'm reacting emotionally. But look at the map. We are losing where cultural conservatives do not predominate. And worse the Democrats have a sizable cultural Conservative faction that is not interested in voting Republican, let alone being one.

And yes I do know why republicans lost the election:

1. It was the year of the black man
2. Social Conservatism is not a national brand

How long before Republicans get #2? If history is any guide about 20 to 40 more years. Why? Because Republicans would rather preach than win. i.e. not a serious political party.

When they give up the Culture War and focus on governance they will be a national party again. Until then they will be a regional party. And if you look at the map you will see the region is shrinking.

I might as well have said take your libertarianism to the Democrats and see how they treat you. This election was not about social values. If it had been, then the result may have differed, since socially conservative initiatives were passed in liberally voting states. I don't understand why you are thrashing about, blaming one part of a national coalition party for its defeat. AVI is correct, the socons have lined up behind the Republicans for a generation. You act as if you have proof that we stayed home and lost the election. I didn't, and I don't know any other socons personally who did. I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, and doing it in a very destructive manner. Like AVI, I don't really take it that personally, but I have to agree, this kind of attack is somewhat unbecoming.

Chris,

It was social conservatives voting for Obama who made the difference in prop 8. They voted for it big time.

BTW it was Romney Republicans who stayed home. The PUMAs showed up. Enough to make a win loss difference. If the Romney Republicans had showed.

And yes the socons are very reliable. And the party is becoming a regional party. There are no Republicans from the North East in Congress.

Want to see how a real professional Republican does it?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/11/real-stealth-candidate.html

What I'm trying to tell you is that if you want to win elections and attract a lot of Ds you do it the way a professional like Palin does it: honest government and stay the heck away from moral issues because - you know - they cause a lot of disagreement. Winning elections is about getting agreement.

Of course if the Republican Party wants to keep shrinking - I have no problem - I give my vote to the party that deals with problems that I want them to. Mine was the war in Iraq. It is over. So what do the Rs have to offer?

Economic Socialism
Cultural Socialism.

The appeal of that combination is rather limited. Read a map.

take your libertarianism to the Democrats and see how they treat you.

No worse than the Republicans.

But hey. If the Republicans want to be just a regional party and spend their time in the wilderness I have no problem with that.

The question is: do the Republicans want to win elections? If they don't, I have no problem with that.

Seriously: the party in California is as pure as they come. Do they have any power in that state? Judging by what I hear coming out of California the answer is: not much.