Watch out, folks. He'll flip ya. He'll flip ya for real.

Seriously - while I agree with the substance of what you said, it's not as simple as that. The conservative right would have to stage a hard-core revolt against the moderates in the party - which would mean dumping some of their most popular figures like Giuliani, the Governator, Pataki, Whitman - AND the Democrats would have to get their act together, minimize the anti-war socialists, and make a hard appeal toward social and fiscal libertarians, before I would consider going Donkey again.

The more likely scenario? Conservatives revolt against moderates, moderates jump ship and create a third party. It would likely render libertarian Republicans irrelevant for two or even three election cycles, but by the next decade the new party would be a powerful force, especially as the current generation of middle- and high-schoolers enter politics.

One of the problems facing BOTH parties at the moment are their fringe elements. The left has a prominent fascist element, the right has a prominent anti-gay element.

There is no doubt that the so-called "religious right" feels emboldened after the elections but they know full well they don't have the numbers to win an election by themselves (at least the guys at the top do).

I personally don't think the next president (Rep or Dem) will be anywhere near as socially conservative as Bush. I think religious conservatives are blowing it with their assinine obsession with things like Janet Jackson's tits.

While they're thankfull for the leadership on security matters, the next Rep candidate had better be a social moderate, fiscal conservative like McCain or they won't win. Guaranteed. Condi may also be an acceptable choice but I have to be honest I don't know where she stands on gay rights.

Funny things is Arnold Schwarzenegger is about as perfect a candidate as we can get, but he can't run.

Zero -

The more likely scenario? Conservatives revolt against moderates, moderates jump ship and create a third party.

This is effectively what I'm talking about. Whether or not libertarian-leaning elements of the GOP actually pull the lever for the D's or not, the practical impact is the same. D's win.

I've been saying the same thing, myself. If the social cons get too crazy, I could see myself voting for a more fiscally-friendly version of Joe Lieberman.

"Conservatism can't survive by religious extremism and tax cuts alone".

There seem to be a lot of people, both left and libertarian right, who consider any religion to be "religious extremism". I am a (non-evangelical) Christian conservative, and I have a number of secular/libertarian friends who equate Christian religious belief with intolerance, prudishness, lack of sense of humor, etc.

As a matter of fact, my spiritual leanings and conservative tendencies lead me to the same libertarian place that so many atheists occupy. Live and let live, let a thousand flowers bloom, etc. Personally, I couldn't care less about Janet Jackson's boob, but there are many non-religious conservatives (such as James Lileks) who are appalled by the cultural sewer that pop entertainment has descended to. A case can be made against the degradation of our culture without any reference to religion.

Having said that, I still must acknowledge that there is intolerance and rigid thinking a-plenty on the religious right. But I advise my urban elite atheist/secular conservative friends to re-think some of your positions vis-a-vis practicing Christians. Stereotyping and groupthink are dangerous on any part of the political spectrum.

This is good news and related to this discussion :

CPAC Straw Poll

For presidential candidate, social moderates got the bulk of the votes. Guiliani actually got the most votes!

I wonder if what we have here is nothing more than a case of the neocons just shouting the loudest, making them seem over-represented.

Anyway, there may have been more a lot more moderate/libertarian types at CPAC than Ryan Sager thinks.

As a matter of fact, my spiritual leanings and conservative tendencies lead me to the same libertarian place that so many atheists occupy.

Yup. I know many Christians that gravitate towards live and let live.

Many of them are less animated about politics than I'd like, however.

I wonder if what we have here is nothing more than a case of the neocons just shouting the loudest, making them seem over-represented.

Actually, NeoCons have very little to do with social conservatism; that's a leftist/MSM misnomer that associates the term with all things "right wing."

As far as Giuliani's popularity, he's got a strange charisma and tough image that overrides his moderate positions in the eyes of many social cons. If he can maintain his poll numbers, he'll be President.

"Actually, NeoCons have very little to do with social conservatism; that's a leftist/MSM misnomer that associates the term with all things "right wing."

Perhaps, but misnomer or not, I think most people think of social or religious conservatives when they see the term "neocon". At any rate, what I meant was social conservatives.

Poor guy had close brush with Christians and it scared him. He needs to get out more.

I've been on a similar rant for a while now, especially after (indirectly) being called a dog's ass by a prominent righty blogger.

I’m pretty sure Bush/Cheney/Rove et all understand this. After yesterdays tapes, I am actually more confident that Bush does. At least from the social conservative side.

For all the rhetoric cast upon him, what has he really done legislatively for the religious right? Not much I can recall, other than saying he would support an amendment against gay marriage. I think the admin is walking that tightrope rather well. Better than I expected, actually. I might be wrong, but I don’t expect the leadership to drop the ball on this one.

From a fiscal conservative approach, they’re obviously not doing as well. A third party candidate might be more viable from that perspective. But I suspect such a candidate would pull almost as many votes from the Dems as from the Repubs. So I'm not too worried.

But posts like this are a very good reminder, indeed. Keep pounding away, please.

It would be very nice for a Schwarzenegger - Lieberman team to peel off from both parties and form a fiscally conservative, robust defense, socially moderate party that actually pays attention to civil liberties.

jmaster -- "From a fiscal conservative approach, they’re obviously not doing as well"

You are exactly right. The current administration is most definitely not devoted to the idea of small government. If the war against the Islamists weren't the top priority, it would be hard to work up any enthusiasm for them.

Of course, the alternative is worse. Right now we have the choice between "Big Government" and "Massive Gigantic Unbelievable Huge Monster Government".

"we'll cut you" is best delivered in a tough Hispanic prison gang voice - as in, "we'll cutchoo, main."

*ahem*
I believe the correct pronunciation is "maing"

Just as social conservatives need to tone down their extemists so to does the libertarian wing need to tone down their extremists. I like, and welcome many of the voices coming from CATO. The kiddies at Reason Magazine, however, are another matter. I let my subscription lapse after I grew tired of reading how kewl the Beatles, Eminem, or Burning Man were. Bring back Virginia, Walter Olson, James Bovard, and others from the glory days. Is Justin Raimando at antiwar.com a libertarian? Anarchist? Libertarian anarchist? Elevate CATO and I will be more inclined toward libertarianism.
I dread the day when libertarians break away and the democrats drift toward the Green Party. We'll be facing coalition government like the Europeans.
NEOCONS: My take. I am 63 years old and first heard the term in the early Reagan years. What it meant to me then was the disaffected democrat catholics-like Bill Bennettand union members-that disagreed with the dems abortion and cultural postitions. Along with the Jewish intellectuals-like Irving Kristol, Commentary magazine, etc. that disagreed with the dems vis a vis their accomodation of communism and weak projection of American interests. It's been used recently to label those interested in projecting American influence as Jews and instruments of Isreal. Often by libertarian leaning anti-war types. For many Neocon means "the Jews did it." So it's certainly mutated from the original Catholic social conservatives and Jewish anti-communists of the early 80's.
Isn't most of the Jeff Gannon bashing coming from the left? So the libertarians will leave the party of the anti-gay marriage voice to join with the Jeff Gannon homophobes?

I wonder if what we have here is nothing more than a case of the neocons just shouting the loudest, making them seem over-represented.

What steams me the most about the above is that it appears to presuppose that (1) being a "NeoCon" is a bad thing and (2) who is usually called out as an example of being a "NeoCon."

Ryan Sager's comment of [w]e Christians can do this alone, y'all who ain't down with J.C. best be running along. is something I expect more from the sneering leftists; they don't like Jews, but don't seem to want to recognize that there are those of us who pull the (R) lever a hell of a lot more than the (D) one.

Couldn't agree more, Bill. I've been getting increasingly irked by some of these triumphalist social conservative weenies who want to a)read everyone out of the party who doesn't sign on to their agenda, and b) confirm the MSM's worst stereotypes about Evil Republican intolerance and bigotry. There's no way Hillary can get back into the White House without this kind of dunderheaded enabling by her ostensible opponents.

When Democrats do stuff like this, we like to attribute it to the machinations of Karl Rove. How lame do you have to be to adopt a strategy that's dictated by Susan Estrich?

Bill is right about the neo-con thing. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the most prominent neo-cons are Jewish, not evangelical Christians.

I take some exception with the meme that the Bush administration isn't fiscally conservative - this strikes me as a schtick I've heard too often from the likes of faux-conservatives like Andrew Sullivan.

In fact, Bush has held the line admirably on non-defense, non-security discretionary spending, as this graphic from OMB shows.

Equally important, in my view, is that he has introduced accountability - identifying programs that work, and those that don't work.

As for his alleged transgressions against fiscal conservatism, the ones most often mentioned are the 2002 farm bill, the steel tariffs, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

The first two were issues ginned up by the opposition in an attempt to create wedge issues for the midterm elections. At the same time Bush was trying to build support for far more important national security issues. What he ended up doing was less than the liberals wanted, and he managed to defuse the distractions and succeed on more vital things. As such, it strikes me as very smart tactics - you have to pick your battles, and national security comes first.

As for the Medicare prescription drug benefit - he promised this when he was running in 2000, and if you haven't figured out that Dubya does what he says he's going to do, you haven't been paying attention. Again, the alternatives proposed by the "Democrats" were much, much worse.

Against these tactical retreats, you have to stack up his enlightened tax policies, pro-growth, pro-small business initiatives, and his market-based Social Security reform proposals.

I think Dubya has stronger fiscal conservative credentials than Reagan, frankly. I don't think it's very realistic to expect a president to do more, given that 535 congressmen and senators are also involved in the process.

Some people are buying into left-wing propaganda regarding Christian conservatives. True 2008 is still far away, but from here it doesn't look likely that the Republicans will nominate Jerry Falwell. We've got a conservative Christian running the country now, and I don't see any heretics getting burned at the stake. A renewal of the Spanish Inquisition would seem unlikely under Bush or any likely 2008 candidate. But of course, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Van Helsing -

No offense, but you're the one using hyperbole. No one is attacking Christianity, but the loud noise being made over indecency and judges tends to make moderates skittish, not to mention the pointless FMA.

And it's the take-no-prisoners, tolerate no moderation rhetoric in certain circles of conservative punditry and at conventions like CPAC that bugs centrists.

As a conservative Christian, I would be all for the Spanish Inquisition. In my workplace. At my desk. Bring on the comfy chairs!

Concerning social conservatives, I think people vastly overestimate the extent to which a president can influence social policies. One should be wary of believing the other side's anti-Christian propaganda, and I say this as an atheist...

I think the social cons play an important role in balancing the extremist tendencies of the Left. They are obviously not always right, but they should not be dismissed. In my experience, they are far more tolerant, in practice, than their counterparts in the (secular) "Religious Left", and they are generally sound when it comes to fiscal and national security matters too.

My point is, Republicans have different opinions on many things, but some in some areas, these opinions have very little importance, since they are not issues where a politician can move the country very far, regardless of what he or she thinks. In contrast with fiscal and security policy, on social issues, the president is little more than a cheerleader.

Conservatives of all stripes should focus on areas where we agree AND where we can accomplish something. If a social conservative agrees with me that taxes should be low, and that our national defense should be strong, I'll nod my head or politely disagree (as appropriate) on gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools, etc, because I know that these are areas where his ideas are very unlikely to matter.

In my experience, they are far more tolerant, in practice, than their counterparts in the (secular) "Religious Left", and they are generally sound when it comes to fiscal and national security matters too.

I would tend to agree with that statement, especially the latter points.

I always say, "I'd rather have Ralph Reed in my Foxhole than Michael Moore."

Lieberman? Has everyone forgotten Joe flip flop? He talked a good game and then recanted it all, including his religious convictions, for the privelege of standing next to Al Gore. He was and is a disgrace.

No offense, but you're the one using hyperbole. No one is attacking Christianity, but the loud noise being made over indecency and judges tends to make moderates skittish, not to mention the pointless FMA.

Well, whether the FMA was "pointless" or not depends on one's perspective. Although it wouldn't bother me if something like it (keeping the traditional definition of marriage and establishing some similar mechanism for same-sex partnerships) passed, it was clear to me from the beginning that FMA was never going anywhere.

In effect, it was a symbolic political gesture, and viewed in that light, I think a highly-effective, if not masterful, one. I think the President squared the circle quite deftly by standing up for a popular issue (the defense of marriage) while being very careful to avoid communicating intolerance of individuals. (And the recently released tapes show this was not a cynical manipulation, but what he has always believed).

Of course, Andrew Sullivan didn't care for it, but let's face it - most of the country has the same position - they are not intolerant of gay peope, but don't want to see the institution of marriage redefined by a handful of unelected judges.

Even if you are not concerned about the social issue of traditional marriage, there are strong mainstream conservative arguments against allowing judges to legislate from the bench, whatever the issue.

Regardless of one's opinion on the issue, the important question about marriage is: Who decides? The conservative/liberal split is not really about whether gay marriage is a good idea, but about who runs the country: the federal judiciary or our elected representatives.

Lieberman? Has everyone forgotten Joe flip flop? He talked a good game and then recanted it all, including his religious convictions, for the privelege of standing next to Al Gore. He was and is a disgrace.

I think you're a little too hard on Lieberman. It is a given that a VP (or VP candidate) expresses his differences of opinion with his boss privately (and Dick Cheney has done the same on gay marriage).

Lieberman's reward for his loyalty was a knife in the back from Gore, four years later.

Since 2000, Lieberman has clearly been the conscience and one of the few grown-ups in his party that can be taken seriously. When he was running as his own man in 2004, he bravely stood up for responsible opposition (unfortunately repudiated by the rest) at great political cost.

If we had more Liebermans, and fewer Boxers, on the other side, I think the country would be a much better place. I probably disagree with Joe on plenty of things, but I think he deserves respect.

Amen.

We were discussing this very topic on another blog about two years ago, where the commenters were about 45/45, or 50/45, conservatives and libertarians, with a few liberals sprinkled in to make things interesting.

A few people (both libertarian & conservative) were predicting a DNC collapse within the next 10-20 years, with the GOP coalition fracturing in response as social liberals (read libertarians) split off & formed some kind of coalition with the remainder of the moderate former Dems.

Without getting all apocalyptic about it, I do think some kind of major realignment is already in process, and that ultimately it will deeply affect both major parties.

My take on it:

1. It is better for the country to have two healthy and competitive national parties.
2. A strong, proactive approach towards national security *should* be a non-negotiable plank in the platform of both national parties.
3. If #2 were in place, it would free up the national parties to concentrate their energies on fighting about the "traditional" stuff -- taxation, the size/role of the govt, social policies, business/labor regulation, etc. -- with voters who care deeply about these issues being able to vote for candidates whose views actually match their own.

In a sane political environment, people like Roger Simon and I (I'm a social & fiscal conservative Republican) would both have the luxury of voting for two different presidential candidates whose views aligned on national security but split where Roger's & my views split.

But it is not a sane political environment. (Maybe it never was, but that we are currently having to fight a war in which substantial casualties have been sustained on the homefront while substantial numbers of Americans deny that we are, in fact, at war, suggests to me that the environment is exponentially more insane than usual.) And so honorable folks like Roger, with whom I would, in a sane political environment, be in vigorous but reasoned debate on domestic issues, instead find themselves, some for the first time in their lives, pushed by default into pulling the lever for "the other side."

I understand how this could easily both sadden and rankle on some level. It would if the shoe were on my foot.

And I also understand that this Coalition of the Not-About-To-Be-Blown-Up-In-Our-Streets-Dammit is, by nature, a temporary one, and will last only as long as the leaders with (D)s after their names keep their heads up their asses.

As much of a bummer as it will be to lose the votes of the Roger Simons for "my" candidate, I think, ultimately, it will signal a healthier political environment and the country will be better off.

BTW, I agree with you, Bill, that "political power can't create a moral society" ... but realize that this applies to both sides trying to bludgeon the other into submission. Anyone who goes in thinking "we've got to pass/do 'X' because it's the right thing to do/will result in a more just society" has a vision of "a moral society" as their goal. It just so happens that one person's version of "right and moral" doesn't necessarily fit with the next person's version of it.

So let's not pretend that this isn't seen as a moral struggle (an attempt to implement what is "right" and "just") on both sides. Because it is.

The extent to which some on both the left and the right (and I realize those terms are kind of outdated or inadequate, but I use 'em as shorthand) reflexively seek to use the power of the government (esp. one-size-fits-all federal legislation and unelected judges) as a means to implement their "moral visions" is, IMO, the extent to which we are all caught up in the same fundamental problem.

The government is just too damn big and invasive in our lives.

It's a sad statement about the American character that "getting the gub'ment to pass a law about it" has become so reflexive, the first and preferred option by so many for settling disputes with their fellow Americans. About as sad as how many people feel they can't go next door to their neighbor's anymore & ask him to turn down his stereo when it's blaring at 3 AM; no, they gotta call the cops & have *them* come and do it.

(shakes head, returns to watching film noir)

Baron Bodissey, Jack Vance fan?

floridacracker -- You got it! Note my email name is "unspiek".

Very few people notice -- are you a fan?

Baron- Big time. I've read most of his books about 15 times each. I've interlibrary-loaned everything of his I could get my mitts on. Nice to see another fan out there.

A very, very good point, Bill. The party that's going to win out over the next decade and a half will be the one that's most tolerant of different points of view and the best at crafting strategies to move the country forward.

Anyone who looks seriously at our fiscal and demographic situation can't afford to be arrogant, that those who are holding victory celebrations are clearly out of touch with reality. The party that wins out will be the one that comes to grips with reality and attempts to deal with it.

Of course, part of my attitude is that I really, really can't stomach Ann Coulter. Yuck.

I may have to vote for some dems just so we can get back to a nice "steady state legislative gridlock" situation.

When nobody can agree on anything, its harder for someone to ram crap through and pick my pocket

Gridlock is the closest approach a government like ours can make to minimalist. Now that the huge deficit spending cat is out of the bag, massive pork, as a way of breaking gridlock, has been marginalized and it can get back to its ideal state of causing legislative inaction.

The sad thing is that the hard right is not even a major percentage of the Republican party, and it is likely they cost the party as many votes through their vitriolic language as they deliver with their lackluster turnouts at presidential elections. The main reason that the Republicans have grown is attraction of moderates towards their party via an "inclusive theme".

I know you guys like to laugh at Howard Dean (who wouldn't? Arggggggh.) But the guy is savvy and if he and his high-voltage followers every become adults, I think you guys are in for a much tougher go of things. I saw a glimpse of the adult version of Howard Dean on the debate with Richard Pearle. If Ashley Simpson can overcome her lip-sync challenged ho-down at SNL then... never mind. How could anybody overcome THAT???

Anyway, I'm just sayin'...

At least we, as conservatives, are willing to discuss it rationally and realistically. Within the Democratic Party, anybody who dares suggest anything then hard-core leftism has liberals shriek "Heretic!" at them as they drive them out of the DNC.

As others have said above, very good point. This is something that has bugged me for a while now. There is a lot of smugness on the right these days and it could easily come back to bite us in the arse. It carries with it a sense of entitlement, and a resultant lack of focus and unity when in counts: election time. True, the libs seem hell-bent on doing everything wrong, but that will change (later, if not sooner). When it does, conservatives may be ripe for a fall. I am taking notice of how many times I have heard folks say lately that they don't like the government tilting too far in either direction. I hear that as a call for moderation. However, the religious right does, potentially, pose the same problems for the GOP that the hard lefties create for the Dems. Namely, will they make it too tough to get a moderate through the primaries? We'll see. I think the fact that Bush was an unchallenged incumbent, and apparently religious enough for the evangelicals, made it impossible to tell last election, so it is, in my opinion, an open question. I think things are still trending in conservatives' direction, but it's not like we can't screw it up. We shouldn't be laughing quite so hard, as much as the moonbats earn it sometime.

Since Sager's note on it is quoted:

The real issue on the Mexican border, for those of us conservatives who will turn on the current leadership for cause, has nothing to do with Mexicans; it's about the bloody border!! In this rough neighborhood (Earth), we have left the welcome mat out and the side door unlocked and OPEN for ANYone to walk in!

The least we should do is offer a giant bounty on jihadis ... in pesos.

But what we really need is to close and bolt the goddamn door.

Don't look to us to be GOP supporters when Dallas gets levelled because we couldn't afford (in any sense of the word) the rational minimum in security.

Hmmm.

1. I'm a serious conservative, but not a social conservative nor a religous one. Hell I'm not even Christian, I'm an Animist.

2. I've seen more smug obnoxious behavior from **libertarians** than from any single group of religious or social conservatives. It is the libertarians that are more "my way or the highway" than any other group. Don't like it, don't be that way.

3. Conservatives are more likely to abandon the GOP, and it's population of libertarians, than the other way around. Not to belittle things but Bush/GOP has done very very few actual conservative agenda items. In most things the current GOP has toed the moderate/libertarian line and left conservatives in the wilderness.

How much longer conservatives are going to stand for this, I don't know. But my voting for Bush was a very very close run thing. The only reason I voted for Bush, and any GOP candidate, was that Kerry was worse. If the DNC offers a reasonable alternative, I'll leave YOU.

4. As for your threats to leave the GOP and me, yeah I'm real concerned I am. I don't want to get overly sarcastic, but seriously. What nonsense. Again it's more likely that conservatives jump ship and leave the GOP than it is for moderate/libertarians to do so. And if you do, so what?

Ross Perot anyone?

Libertarians are nice people, but if you get a dozen in a single room, you'll have a two dozen opinions on any particular subject. The self destruction of the LP party is symptomatic.

5. Laugh all you like. But watch closely. Conservatives seriously dislike Hillary Clinton but she's saying and doing the right things. Don't be too certain we'll be around for YOU in 2006-2008. Conservatives have less reason to worry about your defection than you do of ours.

Quite a few were ready to bolt in 2004 as was I.

Well... politically I'm far right (and a dues-paying elected/appointed member of the CA GOP, not just an affiliated voter), and I don't see the GOP doing too well in the future, not because of religious types like myself, but because they've abandoned too much of their purported aversion to big government and big spending. They are currently pushing too many socialist ideas - free/cut-rate medicine is the latest $600 billion (and growing rapidly to a trillion) 'entitlement' - far too much for this conservative to sanction with another vote.

They (the whole of the GOP) may just find myself and too many (for their hopes) like me that will choose to let the GOP drop to the back-bench again. The hot social issues (gays, abortion, others..) take a back seat to rampant growth of government in all the wrong places. Education is a joke and the borders are wide open. If there is no change in these greater issues, the GOP won't get my vote, nor will any other party.

Might as well say hello to a DEM in the oval office again - they're less embarassing, in that they are up-front about what they intend to do - unlike the current crop of GOP legilators who act just like DEMS.

I'm far from being alone, too - in that more than a dozen republican clubs that I am member in, or help and support have a majority of members who are thinking just about the same as I am. It is not all rosy out here for the GOP, by any stretch of imagination.

Hmmm.

Frankly the single biggest "hot button" issue that could sink the GOP is the issue of illegal aliens and border control. If you don't know any conservatives then you don't know how incandescent this issue makes me. That we spent over $200 billion in Iraq to make us safer, but are now cutting the Border Patrol's budget, is just not acceptable.

IMHO I'm thinking of voting straight Democract, completely across the line, in 2006 to express my displeasure. If the GOP is counting of conservatives to be a solid base, they're fools.

I'm a CONSERVATIVE first, a republican a very distant second.

If the democrats provide a good candidate, and Hillary is exploring the position of being to the right of Bush on illegal immigration, then you can expect mass defections. IMHO the only thing that is keeping the Religous Right in the GOP is the virulent anti-Christian attitude in the DNC. If they're able to control, or expel, those elements then I could easily see mass defections there too.

As I wrote in the post above, you need to worry about conservatives more than conservatives need to worry about libertarians. While libertarians have serious built-in centrifugal issues, conservatives generally do not. Our differences are in very slight degrees. Even as a fiscal conservative, moderate social and moderate religious, I certainly don't object to the goals of the more religious or social conservatives.

If the democrats could pull their heads out of their asses, the GOP would be in dire trouble.

I think I'm closer to the ed's line of thinking on this one. There tends to be a general misreading of the electorate out there. The socially moderate/fiscally conservative position is widely representative on blogs, but isn't really that popular among the electorate. While I consider myself socially moderate on most issues (but conservatie on a few) and fiscally conservative, I find few people other than bloggers who share these attributes (which is probably why I spend so much time reading them). Overall, like it or not, social conservativism provides a net gain in votes for the Repbulican party and fiscal conservativism is a net loss. I don't like it either, in some ways, but that's the way it is.

Take homosexuality, for example. While bloggers seem to have isolated themselves into thinking that anti-gay attitudes are prevalent among some extremist religious conservatives, that's simply not the case. I know a large number of people who are not particularly religious, have never pulled the lever for a Republican in their lives, and have no love at all for homosexuals. These might be what you'd call your typical blue-collar Democrats. Remember, initiatives against gay marriage passed even in states like Oregon. Simply put: having policies that are not exactly gay-friendly isn't going to lose you votes overall. I disagree with this, but that's the way it is, not the way I want it to be.

However, negative attitudes toward homosexuals are far less prevalent among those 25 and under, so Republicans will have to do some tightrope walking on this issue to keep votes.

In addition, pro-choice positions are becoming less and less popular.

And as far as fiscal conservativism goes, there's two things you can count on from the electorate: 1) they like lower taxes on themselves, but not necessarily others, and 2) they like "free" stuff from government. Fiscal conservatism is simply not the winning formuala that many of us would like it to be.

What I'm saying in all of this is simply that, while some of us may certainly welcome a shift in the Republican party to more libertarian positions, it would be disasterous for the party itself. This also applies to the Democratic party. It can gain votes by being more socially conservative, not more fiscally conservative.

I couldn't agree more. I'm one of those libertarian-type conservatives, and I'll join you. I liked how Rod Nordland responded to the question, "If the world were ruled by 'muslim law', what would it look like?" asked during a live chat on MSNBC: "...But I suppose one quick answer is it would be as unattractive as, say, a world ruled by fundamentalist Christian law." I wouldn't equate them that far, but as a glib snarky shot at religious fundamentalists, it works for me.

I've posted several times on my blog my belief that most Americans are towards the center of the bell curve, and the majority probably can find some agreement on more issues than not. Whichever party figures that out first and becomes more inclusive and center-leaning, is going to win. The right will lose all its gains if it takes the recent victories as meaning most Americans support fundamentalist Christian dogma.

Well, I'm not a big fan of silly (even tongue-in-cheek) comparisons of domestic fundamentalism to Islamism, but it's reasonable to send the inclusivity reminder every now and again.

Interesting post and thread, indeed. A few thoughts:

1) Most conservative Christians views are very similar in practice to the views that Pres. Bush expressed in the tapes. Who thinks he is an extremist? Only the hard left;

2) In the current two-party system, we (the social conservatives and the social libertarians) need each other to win nat'l elections;

3) I absolutely could not agree more that the intolerance of the Left makes the intolerance of the Right pale by comparison;

4) You can thank liberal activist courts that created/found "rights" in the constitution such as abortion and sodomy that we have forced "un-libertarian national unity" on these issues. And these issues must ... thanks to the courts ... be a part of the national political dialogue in a big way.

5) Any one who jumps ship and votes for Demos when the nation's security is at risk ... because of their perceived problems with Pres. Bush and the Republicans ... please leave now. Don't wait. There's a reason why Lieberman got 3%.

6) My philosophy on matters of faith intersecting with the public square is pretty simple: I can be your friend if you don't believe in Jesus as I do. Can you be mine?

I can be your friend if you don't believe in Jesus as I do. Can you be mine?

I don't know - do you have a boat?

Mark states: "The right will lose all its gains if it takes the recent victories as meaning most Americans support fundamentalist Christian dogma."

Except that maybe most Americans do.

First, I'll say that I'm not sure what is specifically meant when people use terms such as "fundamentalist Christian dogma." It always seems to imply a hatred of gays and opposition to anything remotely fun. Most of the more staunchly religious people I know are also the nicest, most laid-back, live-and-let-live types I've ever met.

But, to be honest, most fundamentalist Christian positions are not all that unpopular in this country. Some of the supporters of these positions are obnoxious and over-the-top, and as a result, not very popular, but that doesn't mean the positions themselves aren't. People may cringe when they hear Jerry Falwell talk about homosexuality, but that doesn't mean they want gay marriage. They can watch and laugh at Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and still not want their child reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" in Kindergarten. Likewise, people don't have to believe abortion equates to murder to be opposed to it.

In other words, I think people in this country, on the whole, have opinions that lean rightward on most social issues. That doesn't mean they are as extreme as some of the fundamentalist Christian leaders, but they're generally on the same page. And this even includes people who aren't particularly religious themselves.

Running toward more libertarian positions on social issues is not going to help the Republican party. I think the Republican party is pretty set where it is, for the time being. Stay moderately right on social issues, but throw religious conservatives a bone once in awhile, and to appease the libertarian types in the party, simply spend less than the Democrats want to, and propose some market-based solutions here and there.

I, too, rant and rail against social conservatives who want moderates to "convert or die." But let's remember that the efforts of the social right to oust moderates from the Republican Party pale, pale in comparison to the efforts of the social left to evict center-left moderates off Dem property. Those folks be crazy.

And in the long term, the social conservatives are only keeping the Republicans on task as stewards of the principles that make America great. The underlying principles of Christianity (individual conscience, individual freedom) are the bedrock of Western Civilization and America is the standard bearer of those principles. Or more accurately, the REPUBLICANS are the standard bearers.

The social left wants a fundamental change in the philosphy of the individual. They want another Europe, a Borg-like collective. They've successfully alienated ALL of their moderates to the point of absurdity.

Hey,

I'll "make like Noah", if that's what's necessary. It's all about coalition, baby.

I was just using the standard from when you were a kid - you were always friends with the kid that had the coolest toys.

This whole discussion is strange to me. You nice moderate gentlemen seem to forget that there was a whole period in our history when moderates actually did own the party. The result was that they were perpetually in the minority and Democrats drug them along by the hair. It wasn't until Reagan and then the 90's that social conservatives had a political awakening and vaulted the Republican party to where they are now. How comical that now you moderates talk pridefully about how the social conservatives need to shut up and quit being so damn extreme before they ruin everything. It should be settled that you need us and we need you.

I've asked this question before and never gotten a decent answer: Why is it the social conservatives that have to be the ones to give in and tone down their convictions to match the moderates? Why don't you guys be the ones to compromise?

Also, several people here have made comments like "well, I wouldn't equate the Christian right with Muslim extremists, BUT...." It is precisely that kind of irrational and stupid comment that may ruin the marriage between social conservatives and moderates. That comment displays such an offensive degree of ignorance and prejudice, it's amazing that people can actually make the comment. Friends, the freedoms we're all enjoying today came largely through the labors of people trained in the Christian worldview promulgated by people from the "Religious Right." How disgusting that there is even a question about government by the religious right being comparable on ANY scale to Islamic law.

Whoa. Sane Republicans.

I thought y'all had all died.

Consider me subscribed.

What seems to have been overlooked is that it does not matter whether a particular political policy is libertarian or conservative, what matters is public perception of the political policy. If fiscally responsible spending cuts are sucessfully portrayed by the democrats as the product of 'heartless conservative hurting the poor to make a buck', then moderate voters will be driven away from anything 'Conservative' regardless of whether the actual policy was driven by the conservative or libertarian wing of the current Republican party.

Further, the Democrats will do their best to split the Republican party however they can, based on circumstances at the time. If they have a candidate or candidates with comparitively strong fiscal conservative and civil liberties credentials, they will portray the conservatives as religious bigots, eager to trash the constitution and the national economy through reckless spending. If they have a candidate with strong moral credentials, they'll will portray the Republicans as heartless plutocrats who don't care for the poor or downtrodden.

Neither libertarians nor conservatives can afford to think they own the alliance.

Well Ed, I dunno.

2000 and before, I voted straight line libertarian (when possible) as the current Republican party seems to be focused more on higher spending, and more involvement in social issues (and I'm against both).

However post 9/11 when the Lib's completely failed to consider the concept of National Security I bailed and voted mostly Republican.

If the Libertarians can fix their one glaring problem (which may be unlikely) I'll be heading back. Barring that, I'm voting for the one party that even has a chance of keeping me (and the country) safe.

Well you might have a point, with one fundamental difference: I'm largely tongue-in-cheek with my rhetoric.* Perhaps it doesn't read that way to you, because you're too defensive about attacks on religion from other quarters.

In contrast, your comment - and post - seem royally pissed off.

My post didn't tell you to "shut up and quit being so damn extreme," as you defensively project, it was an admonition to social cons to treat moderates with respect or lose many of the larger goals.

And yes, labeling my criticism of you as "moderately retarded" would probably be extreme, especially considering the dissonance of this gem on your blog:

The rhetoric of the so-called moderates in the party who mock the Christian right for taking credit for the Republican majority is much like Europeans who object to the United States taking credit for the liberation of France and ultimately winning World War II. Obviously, the war was being waged before we got there, but how far would they have gotten without us?

A. This is an inherently vice versa equation that only serves to reinforce the point of my post. This isn't a pissing contest between social cons and moderates.

B. No one is "mocking" social cons. We're advising you that you will lose your gains if you don't respect your partners in a political coalition that makes up a bare majority. This is practical advice.

Gentlemen, gentlemen (and ladies, if any are present...)

We can either focus on what divides us or what unites us. Yes, there are times when a single issue may be so all-important that it trumps everything else, and an uncompromising stand on principle is called for.

But in the final analysis this stuff isn't complicated. You basically have two serious choices in a national election. Some may deride the two-party system, but I happen to think its indispensible to America's strength. The two major parties can and do move - the far-left is calling all the shots for the other side right now. The GOP has zigged and zagged plenty over the years too. In most non-incumbent presidential races, there are half a dozen candidates from across the spectrum to choose from.

So AFAIC, and with due respect to big-L Libertarians, it comes down to Democrat or Republican or throwing your vote away. I can't understand the logic that says "Bush isn't tough enough on immigration" or "the GOP talks about gay marriage too much"...so therefore I'm voting for the other side or a third-party.

During the election, Andrew Sullivan ranted and raved about Bush not being enough of a fiscal conservative to suit him, and tied himself up in pretzels trying to argue that Kerry was a more fiscally conservative choice. As if. This kind of thinking seems beyond silly.

Barring a *major* and currently unimaginable realignment of the parties, if you want lower taxes, small(er) government, a stronger defense, tougher sentences for convicted criminals, a pro-growth economic policy, less fettered Second Amendment rights, and judges who don't legislate from the bench, you vote Republican.

If you want higher taxes, grandiose social experiments, a nanny state that loves you death, UN resolutions, labor unions, prison furloughs for violent criminals, gun control, and the Pledge of Allegiance banned, you vote Democrat.

The rest is details.

In a two-party system, it will be very rare to find a candidate you can agree with on everything, and it's seems childish to hold out for that. Within one's party, of course, it's perfectly sensible to promote the people you think are best, and criticize those you think are misguided. But it seems counter-productive to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say "if so-and-so doesn't support such-and-such, I'm going to stay home on election day or vote for someone even worse, or with no chance of getting elected" just to prove a point.

LagunaDAve -

good comment, except:

1. I don't buy 100% into the legislating from the bench meme, except in certain examples. And conservatives tend to address the problem with overreaching legislation on specific issues, rather than addressing underlying problems (like the FF&C Clause of the Constitution)

2. You are skipping the third option - government gridlock. If a conservative executive has a finger on the trigger (good) but doesn't have a legislative majority that will go buck wild on every agenda point ... that accomplishes a form of compromise that pulls the agenda back to the center.

PS - "under God" technically has no place in the Pledge of Allegiance. It's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government, IMO, and a "strict constructionist" judge should probably see it as a violation of the establishment clause. Conservatives can't wrap their heads around this because it "feels" so wrong. But that's another discussion ...

Thanks.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "overreaching legislation". Are you talking about the FMA? It never passed, and never had a chance of passing. Pure symbolism, AFAIC.

I would argue that we have something pretty indistinguishable from gridlock right now. While I'm for limited government, I guess I don't go so far as to endorse impotent government. A government guided by sound conservative principles can do a lot of good, by empowering the people to be less dependent on government. I'd rather that Dubya had enough votes to make needed reforms to Social Security, the tax code, public education, defense, energy, etc. and accelerate the ownership society. There *are* real problems out there, after all. There's no question that a one-party state is bad, but I think we're pretty far from that. As this thread has made clear, there are a lot of competing agendas even among Republicans. Five or so more votes in the Senate wouldn't really bother me...

I don't worship any god(s) and I don't even bow my head when others say grace, but it's pretty hard to see "under God" in the Pledge as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Rather, the ban seems to me a symptom of a much more troubling tendency in the courts, which goes far beyond this admittedly superficial (if viewed in isolation) case.

It's very reasonable to come to the conclusion that compelling children to recite allegiance to (a country) under God in a daily, pressured (but not technically compelled) oath in a public forum is a violation of the establishment clause. The true test lies over whether or not someone feels legitimately aggrieved (an atheist), or whether they are making a political point. But we should table this discussion, because it's a long one.

As far as judicial activism, conservatives want to strike down Roe V Wade because they don't agree with its definition of constitutional rights that override legislation, yet they cheer when affirmative action programs and legislation is overturned by the courts. I don't find the mantra consistent.

And I agree with 90% of what you're saying, but I'll tell you what much of keeping a griping coalition together relies on, what much of this post boils down to: respect and adherence to civilized procedure, curbing desires towards vast leaps in any given agenda that will alienate people needed to help achieve common, larger goals. A violation of this tenet? The animated activism that went after Specter's appointment to chairmanship of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee was a rather early example.

It's not crippling or omnipresent, as some hyperbolists may claim, but I'm simply pushing back on the rhetoric.

OK with me to table the Pledge discussion, but I'll just point out that we somehow survived 220+ years with a much more laissez-faire attitude.

On judges, maybe you miss my point. I'm not saying the judiciary should simply take a vacation. They are there for a purpose. The constitution says that racial discrimination has no place in America, right there in plain language. And there are clearly cases like Brown vs. Board of Education where overturning a seriously wrong and damaging law was unquestionably the right thing to do.

I too found the furore over Specter a little overwrought (but we'll see what he does...). Respect also means letting the folks at National Review have their say. In the end, assurances were sought and obtained, and enough people were satisfied that it wasn't a problem. I'd say the system worked.

Having said that, there was more than one issue (abortion) involved though, and given that the other side is using unprecedented tactics to demonize and prevent perfectly good and qualified people from serving on the courts, it strikes me that this is not the time to put an uncertain trumpet at the head of the troops. I'm glad to have him in the Party, and I hope he does the right thing in his important post.

There are a lot of reasons for believing that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and I agree with some of them. If it were overturned, the only result would be to allow states to vote on whether to allow it. Whether you're for it or against it, Roe seems to me like a cancer in our political system. It's slowly killing us, but removing it could be equally or more traumatic. For this reason (having nothing to do with morality and everything to do with healthy consensual government) I think it was an unwise decision.

Much like the goal of eliminating tyranny, I think we should have the long-term goal of doing away with unwanted pregnancies and abortions, realizing that it probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but not accepting that as an excuse to do nothing.

Look at Brown v. Board of Education 33 years after the fact (1987, I guess). Nobody was second-guessing it, because it was clearly the right call. But 33 years after Roe, about half the country vehemently supports it, and the other half vehemently opposes it. The fact that we're no closer today than we were in 1972 to reaching some sort of broad accommodation with the issue says to me it was a badly conceived and executed overreach.

Judicially-imposed gay marriage looks to me like deja-vu all over again - just what we need, another emotional, winner-take-all litmus-test issue to sap our political strength and attention.

Sorry Bi,

To be the snarky Democrat in the room, but I have no empathy for your concerns.

Oh now, you're uncomfortable with the wing nuttery of the social Conservatives? You thought it prudent to allocate some power within the party given their ability to get out the vote, but always assumed bedrock Conservative principles would foster the GOP's image and reputation. But, it was obvious how pissed you guys were to see Dobson and his crowd taking credit for Bush's victory, with a potent mix of fear and intolerance.

The fact that you do not realize that Harry Reid's recently announced Democratic legislative agenda reflects said 'sane national Defense and fiscal policy', renders your vow to bolt the Republican Party, a hollow threat.

Swift Boat Vets, Dan Rather/Killian Memos, Gay Marriage Amendment were all a means to an end, which was your 'win at all cost' mentality. You didn't mind the 'government to legislate morality' and 'social engineering' campaign slogans, because it was energizing the Conservative base. And, USANext's abhorrent attack on the AARP, is just a matter of going with what works!

If you want to make a stand in your party, oppose Frist's 'nuclear option' in the U.S. Senate! Dobson has already threatened him with holding back support for his Presidential run, but the very existence of your party is now at stake.

That colored fella:

I'm as ticked off as you are about the "wingnuttery of the social conservatives." I describe myself as a "former moderate". I didn't vote for Bush the Elder, but I supported Gulf War One. I didn't vote for Bush the Younger, either, but I strongly supported the war in Afghanistan (remember that one? That's the one that went after people who'd actually attacked us.) I'm for fiscal conservatism, because I'm a strong believer in the principle that just because something is desirable doesn't mean the government has to pay for it. I'm pro-choice AND pro-Second Amendment.

None of that made any difference to conservatives when I wrote in my newspaper coumn that maybe the government should just butt out of people's sex lives, and when I suggested that war in Iraq was a Really Bad Idea that was going to get us bogged down in an unmanageable situation. I was publicly and privately called a traitor, an America Hater, and a supporter of child molesters. Now, I'm more firmly in the lefty camp than I've ever been, thanks to the wingnuts.

All that said, though, I think that when a Republican shows some glimmers of actual sanity, he should be encouraged, not slammed. Just a thought.

I read the article by Sager and the disconnect I have is his expectation that libertarians would be part of the the GOP or conservative movement in any way. I always wonder about the classification of libertarians as on the right since it doesn't correspond with libertarian principles. If anyone has ever taken the little libertatian test obviously social conservative is not in the lib spectrum. Bush and in general GOP national politicians are not advocates of small gov't. While Ron Paul is nominally a R it's hard to see anywhere that GOP policy and libertarian principles intersect other than personal responsibilitiy but I don't recognize where the GOP really advocates that. Itty bitty reforms like ending agbiz subsidies, which aren't going to pass anyway, are a long ways from small gov't reform. The one point where I do take issue with the national Libertarian party is in their opposition to even the smallest efforts in the WOT. While Badnarik was not a compelling candidate he was representative of most libertarian principles and I don't see anywhere that support of those policies fits with the GOP. In some comment up there was a mention of throwing your vote away but if you're a libertarian the only reason I can see to support the GOP over the Dems is that the GOP may be a million miles away while the Dems are light years away.

With all due respect, the social conservatives constructed by the libertarian types are almost always straw men.

"Legislating morality" is probably the biggest of the straw men - tell me, aren't our laws against murder and theft premised on a moral world view? Isn't there a normative / moral component in the tax laws, i.e., "Some people should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than others"? What law exists that does not represent the enacting majority's view of what "should" be?

The libertarians, for example, would impose their normative / moral view on others if their policy prescriptions on drugs were adopted - it wouldn't matter how harmful you thought drugs were, or what carnage you'd seen in the lives of friends, family, etc. due to addictions, the libertarians would tell you that they "should" be legalized because . . . why? Because they think that's the right thing to do, i.e., the Normative/moral thing to do?

The fact of the matter is the Libertarians are using the old political trick of demonizing their opposition rather than engaging them in debate.

Perhaps they realize their views can't carry a majority on the merits.