Your best post of the year. Nothing else to be said. I didn't leave the GOP, it left me 15 years ago. Compassionate conservatism indeed. (snort)

A common theme running is that the libertarian secularist will not tolerate the religious right, but the religious right never seems to talk about kicking the secular libertarian to the curb. I find that interesting and shows a lack of tolerance among libertarians.

I agree with most libertarian ideas, though not all, but it is ironic that they also attack the religious right. I mean if the FLDS wants to live their strange ways in Texas with inbreeding and multiple wives and the women want it, and then fine. They are not imposing their ways on others or me. The Amish has managed to keep their unusual lifestyle and religious lives and even integrate with selling services and food to the rest of the communities. They can live their lives their way since that is religious freedom and I can live my life differently.

I have never felt threatened by the religious right since mostly they want to be able to raise their children with their values without interference. Doctors want the ability to refuse treatments that are against their conscience and Obama is talking about taking away that exemption. Funny but over 35 years I have seen the religious been attacked in culture, media, print and by the judicial system and I have more sympathy for them even though I have been an agnostic all this time. I agree with a lot of their values since they have been the traditional values that have withstood the test of time.

Without the religious right the GOP would not have the support of the Southern and Midwest states. The blues states are the northeast and left coast. Most of the red states are the majority of the states in the Union. But the concentration of population in large cities and college towns has a strong secular and liberal tilt in electors and representation.

The basic premise is that conservatives are fiscal conservatives. That is fine as a large brush, but the divisions among fiscal conservatives are the exceptions what programs one favor or wants cut. Do we agree that deficits are Ok when at war? How about in order to jump-start an economy? If so how much is allowed and does the line just keep changing?

So what are the principles that fiscal conservative will not waiver?

Are fiscal conservative seduced by the hope and change rhetoric of a charismatic black candidate like Obama was? I think many were. So how strong are the fiscal conservatives in support of the GOP? Do libertarian leaning folk tend to sit out elections and let the passionate lefty liberal and religious right decide the elections?

So the call from fiscal conservatives is to dump the rock solid support of the religious right who got out and canvassed neighborhoods, which volunteered time and money. Who were the mainstays of the GOTV efforts? Was it the fiscal conservatives?

Seems to me the call to dump the religious right is poor tactics to win elections. This is the same error that the Libertarian Party makes and why most conservatives will not support it. Even Ron Paul, the candidate once of the Libertarian Party is a Republican to get elected as US Congressman.

"Now do I want to drive the Christianists out of the party? Of course not. I'd like to see them welcomed as long as they are willing to give up their moral socialism."

Politely, screw you and the horse you rode in on. I'm a Christian, and I am completely against regulating morality. But I'm welcome as long as? That's as arrogant as Obama's 'I won." attitude toward bipartisanship.

Well, I am not religious and I follow most Christian precepts. I do want to legislate morality like “thou should not murder” or “bear false witness” or to steal or commit fraud. Most of our laws have a moral reason , why else have laws?

Now Christianity has a strong communistic strain “I that I am your brother keeper” but most Christian attempts to influence have been on the charitable and private side and not getting the government to mandate.

So I would like the examples of the Christian right advocating for moral socialism. It seems that many liberals accept the moral ability to interfere in another life. The nanny starts with their anti smoking laws and anti-home schooling to the local neighborhood zoning or homeowners associations petty tyranny to impose their social moralist views on all others. Many religious right may agree with these laws but so does the non religious liberal do gooders. Now the global warming religious zealots are trying to impose tax and trade caps on energy products for then green religion.

So forgive me if I do not find this argument about the dangers of the Christian right imposing their religious views on me very convincing.

It seems most fiscal conservatives do not mind moral imposition in laws like seat belts requirements and bike helmet laws just they want not to have any sanctions on sex and disposing of the offspring of that act without feeling guilty. Sorry, abortion is termination of human biological life. If you want to maintain the legality of abortion, fine but do not tell me it is not killing our offspring.

Most of the religious right cannot give up their view on the sanctity of life. That is principle that cannot be compromised. They want the issue top be state decided in the legislatures and not by a ration of nine judges. Judicial fiat to decide social changes as marriage and same sex unions is not a very democratic process. These issues have to come from social attitude changes that occur over time and decided by the states representatives, which their constituents can petition.

So please tell me what other items the religious right wants the government to mandate on a federal level. Seem most they want is traditional conservative concepts not to be changed like the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. They are not asking these items to change but the secular classes are asking these new moral ideas to be mandated instead.

The new call from libertarians is to get rid of this moral socialism from the religious right is an assumption that needs to be tested rather than taken as a truism.

A common theme running is that the libertarian secularist will not tolerate the religious right

Why shouldn't libertarians tolerate them? It is their socialist policies Republicans ought to dump.

And of course screw the seculars and libertarians. The party will do fine as a big spending Christian Conservative Party as long as the churches are included in the swag. The last election is proof enough of that. The pro abortion party got 54% of the Catholic vote. How is that working out?

With the socons dying off it won't be long until the seculars and libertarians own the party. No need to kick any one out. Just wait for death to do its job.

The new call from libertarians is to get rid of this moral socialism from the religious right is an assumption that needs to be tested rather than taken as a truism.

So true. So how are the socon dominated Republicans doing in California? How is the party doing in the North East? How is the party doing with the 18 to 25 age group? Republicans are even losing ground in the formerly Bible Belt South. Here is another test - how did Socon Keyes do against Communist Obama? Hell, how did he do vs. Bush in Illinois?

Testing. Testing. 1, 2, 3.

So yeah. Test your assumptions. Let me know when you have an adequate sample.

BTW I have no problem with cultural/moral socialism - I just don't think it is something government ought to do. If we look at the evidence it is also obvious that it is not something government can do. Americans are notorious for ignoring laws they don't like. Something about the way the country was founded I think.

But maybe I'm wrong maybe drug prohibition can work as well as gun prohibition. Because prohibition works. Maybe we do need food police. Maybe government control of churches through the money supply is an excellent idea. Maybe it doesn't matter how badly they steal from us as long as they support the correct moral principles.

I think a party that focused on economic issues and left the culture wars to the private sector - where they belong IMO - might do better. You know - a bigger tent. Republicans used to have a bigger tent. I think it will take 12 more years of 2008 type victories for the party to come around.

California is the future of the party as it stands. I'm an old man - but time is on my side.

I have never felt threatened by the religious right since mostly they want to be able to raise their children with their values without interference. Doctors want the ability to refuse treatments that are against their conscience and Obama is talking about taking away that exemption. Funny but over 35 years I have seen the religious been attacked in culture, media, print and by the judicial system and I have more sympathy for them even though I have been an agnostic all this time. I agree with a lot of their values since they have been the traditional values that have withstood the test of time.

Of course. The only problem I see is that the purpose of a political Party is not to defend a particular culture. First off it is beyond the means of a government of free people.

Second off it narrows the pool of voters. And I was under the impression that the purpose of political parties was to win elections. I could be wrong about that though.

So the call from fiscal conservatives is to dump the rock solid support of the religious right who got out and canvassed neighborhoods, which volunteered time and money. Who were the mainstays of the GOTV efforts?

Of course the socons are the mainstay of the party - now. But they are dying out. And worse - their effectiveness is geographically limited.

And as you point out: Republicans are not competitive in cities. And cities are where the votes are.

For good or ill we are becoming a more secular nation. The only question that remains is: does the Republican Party want to win elections? Or does it want to fight a culture war?

I don't agree that California is the model to support that the socons are dying out. Most social conservatives have families and move out of cities. A lot of social conservatives are leaving California. Their animus against home schooling, anti guns and high taxes which large families can ill afford drive many to other states. Many move into the small town or more rural areas. Those areas have high numbers of socons.

The suburban areas are a mix of social liberal and socons. The social liberals can be fiscal conservatives and so can be the socons. I also question your premise that socons are dying out. They are the ones that have larger families and instill their ideas through private and home schooling.

If your evidence is the last two elections my sense is that large numbers of the socons got disgusted by the GOP corruption in 2006 and did not show up. The voting data seems to support that. I have been a poll worker and the GOP dominant areas in my state did not turn out to vote in 2006 and 2008. My sense was that many religious right voters were not happy with McCain and figure they were going to lose anyway so did not show.

Personally I never figured out why being Democrat meant they had to be a tax and spend liberal. But that has proven true for 20 years, but that may be changing this year.

Being fiscal conservative does not mean they believe in libertarian or individualistic ideals.Many libertarians are also fiscal conservatives. So the lines blend.

I agree that I am against socons that want to spend my money on their priorities or socialistic programs.

So lets start with eliminating the Dept of Education. Since the 2-nd amendment say the federal gov't cannot infringe lets abolish the BATF.

But before that let solidify against the stimulus bill that takes authority that goes against the constitution that states that if a governor refuse the money the Congress said the states legislature can override that with a vote, regardless if that is allowed in the state or not.

If we want to change the political attitudes of the young, then more conservative minded people need to be teaching in the k-12 and in colleges. The prevalence of liberal dogma and socialistic thought and that society must be fair is taught there and those lessons are absorbed young. That could change the attitudes of college towns. As more home school students get to colleges those attitudes may also shift.

But it won’t make a dent in the minority majority cities; the blacks identity is tied up with victimization and how taxpayers must supply the needs.

But I take issue with your premise that socons use the communistic theology to push for government spending. So present your case.

Part of the problem with trying to pick up votes for libertarians in cities is that they are natural breeding grounds for people comfortable with dependency, and especially dependency on government.

Think about it: the food you eat, the water you drink, in some cases the way you get around, all depend on "the kindness of strangers." Literal strangers; the odds that you know more than one or two of your neighbors are small. And what is government but an organization of strangers that you pay money and freedom to in exchange for them taking care of some need? Natural leftist breeding grounds.

RAH,

I will concede that the Republicans have given up the cities. But that is not the only problem. (It is a huge one.) They are also losing the South which represents the current remaining red states (for the most part).

And in Calif. you are confusing cause with effect. Socons captured the party and that resulted in losing state wide power. No check to the Democrat legislature. The culture war is definitely lost in Calif. Soon it will be lost almost everywhere. Then what?

So what does the party rebuild on if it comes to its senses? Economics. Frugal government. Big tent (no culture war).

It will eventually come to that. Reality has a way of enforcing its decisions no matter how recalcitrant the actors.

Socons for the most part members of the "prohibition coalition" - "if we just ban xxx, yyy, and zzz all the problems caused by xxx, yyy, and zzz will go away."

Except for a gun ban of course. That will never work. And you know - I have to give them credit - a gun ban will never work.

As an atheist, I have no dog in the religious fight, but I certainly understand the push back from the "religious right." I don't disagree with their desire to leave all things progressive on the doorstop. I disagree with their approach/methods, but even that has been foisted on them.

The stereotypical mention of "Heather has 2 Mommies" in the public school classroom is an example (of many thousands) where the progressives have attempted to legislate their own version of morality. The religious right has responded by going to the other extreme, in hopes of some sort of compromise.

I really don't care (because it is none of my business) if parents want to teach their children that evolution is a scam or that homosexuals are evil. I don't have to agree with them to respect their right to do that (that's what rights protection is all about--when it is hard).

The practical solution is to go to some sort of voucher program, where parents to take their money to a school that more closely matches their values, but the progressives will have none of it. They insist that children be indoctrinated in their particular brand of belief/faith. The science classroom is a pitched battle between a variety of progressive ideas, where evolution is just one. "Earth science," global warming, moral relativism, veganism, etc., are all unscientific battles where there will never be consensus.

(My preference is to close all tax supported education, but I'm in a minority on that idea.)

It is essentially a tug-o-war between two extremes and I think it is unfair to paint the battle as one between a reasonable side and an unreasonable one. Both sides are unreasonable.

Both sides are wanting to control the indoctrination centers. It isn't that one side wants them to be something other than an indoctrination center. Take that argument away by putting in vouchers, and everyone gets what they want. (But both sides have to give up the belief that they get to tell another parent how to raise their children and control the content of their teaching materials.)

absences!drenched motive.zones.scraping upholsters manipulator Gimbel