Fiscal Conservatives in - Social Conservatives out.

[Socrtease]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/248993

October 7, 2010 12:30 A.M.
Economic Issues at the Forefront
This election season, fiscal conservatives own the GOP grassroots.

The coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of fiscal and economic conservatives, evangelicals, and national-security advocates has always been dominated by the social issues at the grassroots level. While free-market economic conservatives lived in New York and dutifully attended their Club for Growth meetings and national-security types inhabited Washington, the Republican social conservatives dominated the grassroots of the party. They alone could turn out the numbers to rallies and to the polls on primary or Election Day.

Now, all that has changed. It is the fiscal conservatives and free-market supporters who own the Republican streets. Through the Tea Party, they have come to dominate the grassroots of the GOP. It is as if an invisible primary were held for supremacy at the grassroots and the Tea Party won.

And social issues are nowhere on the Tea Party agenda. I recently participated in a conference call with tea-party affiliates throughout the country. During the question period that followed my speech, one leader of a local tea-party group asked a question about abortion. The conference-call leader jumped in before I could answer and ruled the query out of order. “Our priorities are to oppose taxes, support fiscal conservatism, and advance free-market principles,” she scolded the questioner. “We do not take a position on social issues like abortion,” she added.

Along with this change has come a shift in what it takes to turn the litmus paper red enough to win Republican primaries. It used to be that abortion, gun control, and gay marriage were the hot-button issues, and anyone straying from orthodoxy was targeted in the primary and handicapped in the general election by a lackluster turnout. Now, a candidate’s social positions rarely even come up. It is fiscal and economic purity that rules the day. Anyone who voted for cap-and-trade is targeted in the primary. And there is no place for a candidate who ever backed a tax increase. Every candidate has to sign the no-tax pledge that Grover Norquist formulated for Americans for Tax Reform.

Where Republican politicians were once terrified to move to the left on social issues, they are now more frightened of retribution for departures from fiscal orthodoxy. The once-elitist demands of the Club for Growth are now echoed throughout America by the surging Tea Party movement.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 71 percent of all Republicans regarded themselves as Tea Party supporters, far more than would identify themselves as pro-life or opposed to gay marriage.

This shift in Republican priorities is opening up the way for social moderates and libertarians to back Republican candidates in the 2010 elections. The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the Tea Party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the party and its nominating process.

Ironically, this change in the Republican grassroots has come at a time when abortion is falling into disrepute and larger numbers of Americans report themselves as being pro-life. This swing of voter sentiment might reflect the growth of the evangelical community of believers or simply the aging of the baby-boomer population. But even as the right to lifers move toward a national majority, their clout at the grassroots level of the Republican party is waning.

But despite this growing support for pro-life policies, no Republican candidate is basing his or her insurgency against an incumbent Democratic congressman, senator, or governor on social issues. There are no ads urging the ouster of a Democrat for his pro-choice policies or backing of gay marriage. All the ads and the rhetoric are devoted to fiscal transgressions like support of the stimulus package, the TARP bailout, or Obamacare.

The failure of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to win the GOP nomination in 2008 was, in retrospect, a harbinger of this grassroots shift. Governor Huckabee starred in the Republican debates with his witty sallies against big government and his commonsense folk wisdom. He capitalized on this strong performance to build mighty field organizations in Iowa and other early primary states. He looked like a real contender.

But the attacks on his spending programs in Arkansas by the Club for Growth — often inaccurate or exaggerated — undermined his ability to reach beyond the confines of the evangelical ghetto and doomed his candidacy to a regional one. He won state after state in the South but had trouble making inroads in the northeast. (If Huckabee runs again in 2012, it will be interested to see how his hosting of a weekend show on Fox News will affect his standing.)

But the Tea Party has flourished in all regions, drawing libertarians in the North and evangelicals in the South, all committed to its agenda of reduced spending, limited taxation, balanced budgets, and free-market economics. It is the new mantra of the Republican grassroots and has a lot to do with the massive gains the party will win on November 2.

– Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are the authors of 2010: Take Back America: A Battle Plan and founders of www.dickmorris.com.

[Socrtease]

I have said repeatedly, which ever party abandoned it's fringe, got out of the boardroom and the bedroom would rule Washington for decades. If this is actually true, that is, if these Tea Party candidates get in, deal with fiscal issues and stay out of social issues, the democratic party is dead. I would take a couple of election cycles to see if the tea party stays out of social issues. But if they do, I will vote Republican for the rest of my life.

[SmarterthanYou]

it will definitely take a few cycles. the incumbents who rebel against fiscal conservatism will be outed and eventually lose their seats. The more success with fiscal conservatism that the people see, the more TEA party candidates will fill congress. It will be an awesome thing.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

But by fiscal conservative, you guys also mean "globalist destroyer of middle class americans". Until you guys have some kind of answer to the internationalist fascist doctrines which control the elites of both parties, you will not be gaining a ruling majority either.

Conservative means americans-first too, not globalization treason against the people.

[DamnYankee]

I have said repeatedly, which ever party abandoned it's fringe, got out of the boardroom and the bedroom would rule Washington for decades. If this is actually true, that is, if these Tea Party candidates get in, deal with fiscal issues and stay out of social issues, the democratic party is dead. I would take a couple of election cycles to see if the tea party stays out of social issues. But if they do, I will vote Republican for the rest of my life.

You keep spouting the lie that social conservatives want to regulate your bedroom. You even trued to "shock" me by describing disgusting sexual acts that you do to your wife. Yet you were the one shocked, because I just don't care. I mean, I think its funny that you lick her asshole, but if that's your thing man, then by all means, I'm not going to try and stop you.

Fiscal conservatives can't survive without social conservatives.

[Bonestorm]

Bullshit:

But the survey challenged much of the other conventional wisdom about Americans who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:

Nearly half (47%) also say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement. Among the more than 8-in-10 (81%) who identify as Christian within the Tea Party movement, 57% also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.

They make up just 11% of the adult population—half the size of the conservative Christian movement (22%).

They are mostly social conservatives, not libertarians on social issues. Nearly two-thirds (63%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and less than 1-in-5 (18%) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

They are largely Republican partisans. More than three-quarters say they identify with (48%) or lean towards (28%) the Republican Party. More than 8-in-10 (83%) say they are voting for or leaning towards Republican candidates in their districts, and nearly three-quarters (74%) of this group report usually supporting Republican candidates.

Social conservatism may not be their sales pitch, but its part of what you get if you buy the Tea Party bullshit. I'm sure there are many that really are libertarian types, but pretending that the tea party types aren't social conservatives is nonsense.

[SmarterthanYou]

Bullshit:


Social conservatism may not be their sales pitch, but its part of what you get if you buy the Tea Party bullshit. I'm sure there are many that really are libertarian types, but pretending that the tea party types aren't social conservatives is nonsense.

I call your bullshit. These so called christian conservatives are just latching on to the TEA parties because Bush embarrassed them. they'll jump ship faster than the dems are leaving Obama.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I call your bullshit. These so called christian conservatives are just latching on to the TEA parties because Bush embarrassed them. they'll jump ship faster than the dems are leaving Obama.

But it's still true that "fiscal only" conservatives do not own the republican streets, even if christian conservatives leave the tea party. That will leave about 5 people in the tea party.

It's just simply not true that "fiscal conservatives" have 'vanquished' the "social conservatives", as the op suggests. This is elitist spin, that internationalist fascist elitists wish was true.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is a profound and fundamental disconnect when it comes to the non-social conservative understanding of social conservatives in general. You have essentially become bigoted in your views of social conservatives, and think of them as some radical religious wing that wants to impose their religious dogma on the rest of society. While there may be a fringe element who feel that way, by-and-large, most social conservatives simply oppose the federal government intrusion on their social conservative values. We don't want federal courts deciding these issues for us! Most of us are perfectly willing to put ANY of these social issues on the ballot, and allowing the people of the state to decide for themselves. Whether it's gambling, prostitution, legalizing pot, abortion, gay marriage... just let THE PEOPLE decide! Where is that not conducive with civil libertarianism? Shouldn't the PEOPLE get to have a say in these things? Why should social conservatives be squelched and denied any voice in the process? This is our country too!

[Minister of Truth]

But it's still true that "fiscal only" conservatives do not own the republican streets, even if christian conservatives leave the tea party. That will leave about 5 people in the tea party.

It's just simply not true that "fiscal conservatives" have 'vanquished' the "social conservatives", as the op suggests. This is elitist spin, that internationalist fascist elitists wish was true.

If it's elitist, then it's good.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

If it's elitist, then it's good.

Yes, we know you hate americans and want to ruin their lives with internationalist fascism. You should go on tour with all the main candidates with your message.

[Bonestorm]

There is a profound and fundamental disconnect when it comes to the non-social conservative understanding of social conservatives in general. You have essentially become bigoted in your views of social conservatives, and think of them as some radical religious wing that wants to impose their religious dogma on the rest of society. While there may be a fringe element who feel that way, by-and-large, most social conservatives simply oppose the federal government intrusion on their social conservative values. We don't want federal courts deciding these issues for us! Most of us are perfectly willing to put ANY of these social issues on the ballot, and allowing the people of the state to decide for themselves. Whether it's gambling, prostitution, legalizing pot, abortion, gay marriage... just let THE PEOPLE decide! Where is that not conducive with civil libertarianism? Shouldn't the PEOPLE get to have a say in these things? Why should social conservatives be squelched and denied any voice in the process? This is our country too!

You do have a voice in the process. You don't have to gamble and lose the rent money so you end up whoring yourself out end up pregnant have an abortion then have an epiphany realize your a lesbian go get gay married and light up a phat ass blunt in celebration. But imposing you values on other by making all of the above illegal is not libertarian. In fact, it's the opposite.

[apple0154]

Bullshit:

Social conservatism may not be their sales pitch, but its part of what you get if you buy the Tea Party bullshit. I'm sure there are many that really are libertarian types, but pretending that the tea party types aren't social conservatives is nonsense.

Exactly. All one has to do is listen to O'Donnell. I don't know whether she got used and abused in her younger years or just burnt herself out but going from making out on a satanic alter to abstinence is a bit of a jump.

Nothing gets under my skin more than people who lived their younger years exactly the way they wanted and then "do a 180" after having had all the fun. Maybe if she hadn't tried all the positions she'd have something to look forward to.

[DamnYankee]

You do have a voice in the process. You don't have to gamble and lose the rent money so you end up whoring yourself out end up pregnant have an abortion then have an epiphany realize your a lesbian go get gay married and light up a phat ass blunt in celebration. But imposing you values on other by making all of the above illegal is not libertarian. In fact, it's the opposite.

What? That made no sense.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You do have a voice in the process. You don't have to gamble and lose the rent money so you end up whoring yourself out end up pregnant have an abortion then have an epiphany realize your a lesbian go get gay married and light up a phat ass blunt in celebration. But imposing you values on other by making all of the above illegal is not libertarian. In fact, it's the opposite.

No, what you are suggesting is that we accept your decadent social lifestyle and just not participate if we don't want to. Well, we don't want to raise our kids in a decadent society, we want to instill values and morals and set an example for our kids. The rules of society can't be dictated by a bunch of immoral clowns, while the rest of us decent people sit on the sidelines helpless to do anything about it. We have as much of a right to 'impose our values' on society as you have to impose your immorality on society. It cuts both ways, and if you don't understand that, tough shit.