Send in the clowns!
The demagoguic party is having it’s convention, and it should be treated like it were the Olympics…completely and utterly irrelevant.
Barack America…excuse me Barack Obama…and Joe Biden for the “All Gasbag Ticket.” Froma business standpoint, invest in natural gas. It is going to skyrocket.
Yet the true story of the conventions is that those two narcissistic spoiled brats known as the Clintons took little Barry and smacked him around. Bill and Hillary own this convention. Once they are done engaging in self congratulation, they can then begin the task of undermining Obama and helping elect John McCain.
Anyway, the next four days will be dedicated to these naive little kids that make up the demagoguic party. Another issue is on the menu today.
One of the issues that is near and dear to my heart is combating the notion that conservatives are mean and uncaring. This is as hurtful as it is false. Yet a question by the Chicago Cannonball led me to explain from my point of view why conservatism is compassion. However, what we do not care about is just as vital.
The Chicago Cannonball wanted me to research something for her friend for a class project. The person wanted to know what life was like as a gay republican. They wanted to hear about the journey and struggle that goes along with being homosexual and politically conservative.
Although I suspected that I knew the answer, I decided to err on the side of research rather than hubris. As a heterosexual, I absolutely did not want to speak for a community that I am not a member of. I was aware of some gay republican bloggers, but the best help I received was from a friend of mine that is a gay republican financier living in San Francisco.
The people I researched, including my friend on the telephone, were not self hating gays. Also, they were not “in the closet.” I felt that for my research to be honest, the people had to be proud to be gay, proud to be republican, and open about both.
The conclusions I came to were that most republicans and conservatives simply do not care about issues such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. It is irrelevant.
The democrats are a collection of interest groups. This is not a criticism. It is just a statement of who comprises their coalition. This is why the democrats have to have special debates for their various constituencies. The democrats had a “gay debate” solely dealing with gay issues. It was hosted by lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. The democrats also had a “black debate,” and a “Latino debate.”
At these debates, questions appealing to these narrow constituencies were asked. At the black debate, reparations for slavery was asked. For many Americans, this is not an issue that merits debate. This is not to insult the minority opinion by any means. It is just important to show that it is the minority view.
While there are black democrats, gay democrats, and others, this is not how the republican party works. We have republicans, with everything else requiring a magnifying glass to be seen. We do not have black republicans or gay republicans. We have republicans who happen to be black or gay.
Below is a visual.
BLACK democrats. GAY democrats. JEWISH democrats. WOMEN democrats.
REPUBLICAN blacks. REPUBLICAN gays. REPUBLICAN Jews. REPUBLICAN women.
The real question is why this occurs. The answer goes to the heart of how organized the two parties are. In the case of the democrats, it is chaos.
Republicans are able to boil their entire beliefs into 3 or 4 simple bullet points. Democrats like to say that they are more “nuanced.” Nuanced might play well with their fellow liberal intellectuals, but the average American wants things broken down in a simple manner, i.e. get to the point.
Republicans favor:
1) Low taxes
2) Dead terrorists
3) Less regulation
4) More freedom and liberty
One can agree or disagree with every aspect of this platform, but what is beyond dispute is that the platform exists.
Democrats do not have this. They issue meaningless platitudes such as that they are “for families.” Does this imply that republicans are against families?
Republicans wanting lower taxes and less regulation absolutely correctly implies that democrats want higher taxes and more regulations. This does not mean that the democrats are bad people. They believe in activist government to improve people’s lives. It does render them politically impotent because higher taxes and more regulations is a tough political sell. It cannot be packaged neatly.
Dead terrorists is code for a muscular foreign policy, which includes war if necessary. The democrats counter with “tough diplomacy,” and “aggressive diplomacy,” which are meaningless slogans.
So why don’t the democrats just develop their bullet points?
Because they can’t. Their constituencies are fractured. The most recent primary campaign had too liberal constituencies at war with each other. The white woman was accused of racism, and the black man was accused of sexism. Normally these attacks are only directed at republicans, but beneath the surface, most of the constituencies that make up the democrats are ready to tear each other’s eyes out at a moment’s notice.
The animal rights activists angered the Jews and the blacks by comparing what chickens go through with the horrors of the Holocaust and slavery, respectively. The best example is when the AIDS activists fight with the animal rights activists over animal testing. These interest groups only work together when it is convenient. The minute sabotage becomes necessary, it is done without hesitation.
Conservatives do not have this problem because on the main issues that make up the core of conservatism, we are united. The social conservatives and the libertarians do not agree on abortion, but there is universal republican consensus about lower taxes, more freedom, less regulation, and killing terrorists. Again, this is not a value judgment. It is a statement of fact.
This is how I can get invited to events by black republican organizations (which I have been). I politely explained that I am caucasian. They did not care. As long as I was a republican, I was welcome.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, of which I am a member of the leadership, frequently has Christian speakers at events. Jewish versus Christian is not the focus. Republicanism is the focus.
Gay republicans do not have coming out parties to announce that they are gay. When a republican tells me that they are gay, within 5 minutes the conversation turns to some obscure tax bill.
The issues the republicans care about affect everybody. The War on Terror affects every single American. Tax policy affects us all. Black republicans do not want reparations for slavery. They want tax cuts.
The idea that minorities that become conservatives all have an emotionally heartwrenching story that is for for Lifetime Network is simply not the case. When those on the left express shock at how a minority can be a republican, the minority fails to understand the shock. It is not that they are only republicans, and lack an identity. It is just that conservatives can separate the personal from the political. With the left, the personal is the political.
The reason this occurs is because at this stage in history, the democrats have no coherent governing philosophy. They have not had original governing ideas since 1932. From 1932 through 1980, they governed. I disagree with LBJ, but he enacted actual policies. Since Ronald Reagan in 1980, and perhaps even earlier, the democrats have simply become an “anti-party.”
The republicans are for certain things, and the democrats are against the republicans. That can work in terms of campaigning, but one cannot govern this way. Democrats only win elections when the public becomes disgusted with the republicans. The disgust with the republicans comes from not governing as conservative republicans. This occurred in 1974, in 1992, and 2006.
Yet democrats get punished when they try to govern as liberals. Republicans are punished for betraying their beliefs. Democrats are punished for obeying their beliefs. This leaves democrats in the position of hiding their beliefs, which is how they occasionally win when republicans mess up.
I challenge democrats to look back to the 2006 elections and find anything in their campaigns that represents anything close to a policy, an idea, a proposal, or even a belief in something. They wanted to throw the bums out. They did. Then they had to actually be for things. They failed. They were against the war, against the extension of the tax cuts, and against everything else that President bush was for. Voters can see that it got to the point where they were against things because President Bush was for them.
I have repeatedly said that if President Bush said that we should be for loving puppies and kittens, democrats would find a reason to be against it.
I have often stated that Christians vote republican and Jews vote democrat because there is a unity in cohesion, or in the case of the latter, a lack of cohesion. One form of Christianity, that being Catholicism, has clear rules. There is rebellion, but no confusion. Judaism is chaos. Every word is argued. Some consider this “nuanced.” It is anarchy. Thus, the attraction to democrats.
Republicanism is about discipline. being a democrat is about being everything, and nothing, hence the appeal to Will Rogers. he said, “I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a democrat.”
For those that spend their whole lives wearing their identity on their sleeves, the democrats have a home for them. The problem is that in any given moment the favorite aggrieved group will be replaced by the victim flavor of the month. Black democrats are already feeling threatened by the rise of Latino democrats, who will be surpassing them in numbers in the near future. Affirmative action made black democrats happy when it was for black democrats, but they seem to be less enthusiastic about affirmative action for Latinos at the expense of blacks.
For those that want to be treated equal regardless of race, gender, orientation, or natural origin, conservative republicanism is the way to go.
My boss is a republican and so am I. I am Jewish and he is Muslim. We both want our taxes cut, and for the regulatory system to be less hostile towards business.
So while there may be a lack of compelling “stories” about the path to conservatism, the biggest story of all might be the lack of a story.
I am sure we have black, gay, female republicans that could be given special treatment on all levels if they were democrats. They stay republicans because the terrorists did not discriminate, and the gifts they bought for themselves when they had their taxes cut had no idea who purchased them.
Conservatives care about ideas and policies. Liberals care about identities.
Liberals will try and get 51% of people dependent on government so they can keep winning elections.
Conservatives will try and free people from those constraints. We want everybody to be free.
eric
“The conclusions I came to were that most republicans and conservatives simply do not care about issues such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. It is irrelevant.”
That’s a rather strange conclusion. As we all should know, there are two main constituencies that make up the GOP: the economic conservatives and the social conservatives. Their interests overlap just enough to adhere the coalition of interests that is the GOP. Making up these two main groups are:
Libertarian/Objectivists – mostly young, white, suburban men, reasonably educated, who care little for social issues, but make up a small minority of all voters in total. They don’t care much about God and Gays, but they do care about guns. Ron Paul is very popular with these folks. They are pretty consistent in their belief in individual and civil liberties.
Christian Conservatives – mostly older, white, once mostly WASP but now increasingly including more Catholics, men and women represented heavily in the South, Midwest and the Bread Belt. These people are extermely concerned with social issues. This is the prime God, Gays, and Guns constituency. This group was represented by the Democrats in the South from the time of the Civil War until after WWII when gradually the Democrats pulled away from their core interests and the GOP fillled the void. These voters are now pretty solidly Republican, but have declined somewhat in numbers in recent years. They care little for individual or civil liberties, preferring a strong Police State but a weak Social State. This is the greatest change we’ve seen in a demographic in the 20th century. The marraige of social conservatism and economic populism that once connected this group to the southern Democrats, has been replaced with both social and economic conservatism. They make up a huge block of voters. Without them, the GOP would represent a much smaller minority of Americans. And your comment that “most republicans and conservatives simply do not care about issues such as race, gender, and sexual orientation” is completely disproven by this fact.
The Investor Class – this is the oldest and surest constituency in the GOP. Though some 70% of the country is to some extent invested in the stock markets, only about a third of the country is invested to the point where they could be considered a class unto themselves, and only about 10% of the population is heavily invested. This is the real Investor Class. They often tend to be federalists, anti-government, anti-taxes, anti-regulation, pro-free trade, pro-cheap-labor, pro-illegal immigration, but their social positions fall all over the map. This is the class from which comes the Log Cabin gay Republicans. This Investor Class dominated the GOP from the time of Lincoln until today, but without the Social Conservatives they always represented a minority of total representation in America. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that this class, together with the above two, were able to come to political preeminance.
I know many among the libertarian and Investor Class wings of the GOP are often uncomfortable with the Social Conservatives. Social Conservatives are often racist, authoritarian, homophobic, misogynistic – just plain rather bitter and miserable people. So, libertarians and the Investor class try their best to rationalize away their discomfort with this constituency by placing the onus of Identity Politics on the Democrats. But it is not the Democrats putting up anti-this and anti-that social bills on the state and local ballots every year – it is the social conservatives. The Democrats and Liberalas react to these initiatives but do not start them in the first place.
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Enjoy your illsusion.
JMJ
So basically what we have is a group of children who haved great ideas of how it should be without being aware of or looking at the dynamics it would take to achieve their idealistic goal, with no concern or knowledge for what will and will not not mesh.
They want total integration of the minorities. But must segregate them to achieve this, go figure.
Every minority gets his own special label, but you are not allowed to address them by that label or you will quickly be labeled a bigot, racist, mysogynist or homophobe.
Interesting Jersey.
You managed to knock everything Eric said, but never really said how liberalism wil free people from oppressive constraing government.
Instead, you pull off another childish attack and say to enjoy your illusion.
“But it is not the Democrats putting up anti-this and anti-that social bills on the state and local ballots every year ”
No, its the social conservatives that reject the overly socialistic bills that the left is always presenting.
Learn the diff.
Micky, I didn’t “knock everything Eric said.” I commented on just one thing: “most republicans and conservatives simply do not care about issues such as race, gender, and sexual orientation.” I disagree. I think a majority do care about those issues – deeply. I never said that Democrats don’t care about those issues. I never said that liberals have all the answers to these iddues. I simply pointed out that by far the largest bloc of GOP voters, I believe a majoritym, do in fact deeply care about race, gender, and sexual orientation issues.
JMJ
Stop the spin Jersey.
We all care about the same isues. Its to what degree and for what causes and reasons.
Libs use irace, minorities, only to promote an agenda
We do not all care about the same issues. We do not even all agree on what issues are even “issues.” I don’t care if gays get marrried or adopt kids. I don’t even remotely believe that “the War on Terror affects every single American” aside from that a bunch of crooks use it to steal all of our tax dollars.
Let’s take more of what Eric wrote…
Republicans favor:
“1) Low taxes
2) Dead terrorists
3) Less regulation
4) More freedom and liberty
One can agree or disagree with every aspect of this platform, but what is beyond dispute is that the platform exists.”
Now, I agree that most all Republicans agree with the first three, but the last one? C’mon! They’re a bunch of frightened Daddy State Authoritarians! They want to lock people up for life for non-violent victimless offenses! That’s is “more freedom and liberty”??? C’mon.
Then this…
“Dead terrorists is code for a muscular foreign policy, which includes war if necessary.”
“I challenge democrats to look back to the 2006 elections and find anything in their campaigns that represents anything close to a policy, an idea, a proposal, or even a belief in something.”
That “muscular foriegn policy” is the NUMBER ONE reason the Republicans lost their congressional majority in 2006! That and the failure of conservative economics – in 1932, 1992, 2006, and now again in 2008, thus, disproving this comment…
“The disgust with the republicans comes from not governing as conservative republicans.”
The disgust amongst Republicans come from that, but the general publics disgust with the GOP is exactly because conservative governance is regressive and always fails in the end.
JMJ
I said to what degree and for what causes and reasons.
“The disgust amongst Republicans come from that, but the general publics disgust with the GOP is exactly because conservative governance is regressive and always fails in the end.”
Thats why you guys lose 3 out of 10 elections
That disproves your disproval.
No, Micky, that’s what proves my point.
JMJ
That yer a bunch of loosers whos ideas only sell .33% of the time ?
Eric – an excellent post! I think you’re right on.
Jersey – you misread the 2006 election. The GOP tanked because the Reps in the majority failed to maintain the conservative philosophy that initially put them into the majority. They spent like Democrats, they fell to corruption, and they generally failed to follow through on their promises. They failed; conservatism did not. The base wasn’t thrilled about what they had done, so the base stayed home. Another aspect of it was that the Democrats ran conservative Dems in that same election, and won. The principles always succeed (regardless of party)…as long as the people hold true to those principles.
Jersey,
I love that you just decide social conservatives are the majority of the Republican party. Based on what? Your rationalization to justify your support of democrats. I notice you site no statistics to back that up. Your stereotype that “Social Conservatives are often racist, authoritarian, homophobic, misogynistic – just plain rather bitter and miserable people.” is inaccurate, unfair and just plain rude. Many social conservatives want to be left alone to practice their religion without the government coming in and telling them it is wrong. They oppose abortion because they truly believe they are saving a life, not because they feel the need to control a womens body. I don’t agree with them but their position is based on caring and is not based on misogynism or authoritarinism. They should have a right to raise their children with their values of right and wrong not have competing view on homosexuality, premarital sex, even creation forced down their throat. I am not saying I agree with them but they have some legitimate concerns which are not based in hate and misery the way you characterize them. Any more than I would say that any of the special interest groups on the left are hateful, bitter, miserable, jealous whiners who want to punish people who they feel are doing better than they are. On both sides many people of good faith believe they are supporting the greater good. I just think many on the left are wrong and maybe naive, wrong-headed if you will.
Parrot,
“I love that you just decide social conservatives are the majority of the Republican party. Based on what?”
Just look at the party platform! LOL! Okay. Let’s say the party platform, like most party platforms, is just pandering whimsy. So, let’s look at some numbers…
Here’s some overall data from 2004: http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm
Here’s from 2006 on Roe v Wade: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=659
Here’s from 2008 on “Moral Values”: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=856
Here’s from 2005 on Religion: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=408
Same subject from 2000 but getting to presidential preference: http://www.adherents.com/misc/poll_Harris2000.html
Is that enough stats for you?
Most Republicans are social conservatives. That’s how they were finally able to overcome the legacy of Lincoln and the Civil War and take the South – keeping social conservatism while replacing ostenisible economic populism with real economic conservatism – laizzez faire economics/authoritarian social policy.
Like I said, I know this makes a lot of libertarian and Investor Class Republicans a little uncomfortable, but it’s a fact as plain as the nose on my face. But as I said, just keep on rationalizing – whatever helps you to sleep at night.
JMJ
2Cents,
“They spent like Democrats”
LOL! Are you serious? During the terms of just three presidents, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II (especially Bush II), more debt was accrued than all the other presidents combined! Just Bush II with the GOP one-party state, accrued the equivilant of 80% of the prior American national debt! Add in the future costs of this “dumb war” in Iraq, and Bush II will have more than doubled the national debt!
No, 2cents, they didn’t “spend like Democrats,” they plundered the national treasure like Republicans.
JMJ
The republicans fought the wars that you guys were too lame to even approach.
Wars cost money, security and protection cost money.
Yea, it was easy for Bill Clinton to accumulate a surplus.
He shrunk our military and didnt spend a dime going after the bad guys
LOL!
Let’s see…
WWI, WWII, Korea – Democrats
Vietnam and Iraq – Republicans
Quite a record tere, Micky. You Republicans can’t even win the little wars!
JMJ
Vietnam was a “Republican war?” Eh? Unless the istory books have been rewritten when I wasn’t looking, it was “Mr.Johnson’s War,” with Mr. Johnson being a certain Lyndon Baines, who was a democrat from Texas, who succeeded JFK, who was the first to send advisors to RVN. Johnson sent the combat troops in. He was President during Tet, and he copped out in the primaries before giving up at Paris.
If you only win 3 out of ten elections I seriously doubt you could win a war.
Yea, LBJ did a swell job in Nam.
I didnt see any Dems at the front on the cold war, and you guys sure as hell arent fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq is pretty much won already
Besides that, during WW1, WW2, and Korea Dems werent legally blonde like they are now
Deacon, Nixon didn’t exactly turn it down. At least Ike was smart enough to cut his losses and make a peace with his inherited war! But you’re right, I was wrong. Don’t know what I was thinking on that one!
Micky, if Dems only won three in ten elections, there’d be a 2/3rd majority of GOPers nationally. There’s not. The number you’re citing reflects select years – like during the rise of the GOP in the South. Congrats. Enjopy that while it lasts… oh yeah! It already backfired and cost your majority! LOL!
The Dems, for whatever they’re worth, have at least fought the good fights when it comes to most modern wars (except Vietnam, as Deacon corrected me). The GOP wars look more like hegemonic colonialist expeditions to me.
JMJ
“Micky, if Dems only won three in ten elections, there’d be a 2/3rd majority of GOPers nationally. There’s not. The number you’re citing reflects select years ”
Yea, like all the years in our countrys history.
This speaks for the wants and wishs that are predominant in our country. Even as the times change conservative values still prevail.
Even the last 5 elections should tell you that.
Thayt majority is hurting you guys more than anyone as they are the suckingest congress in history, Laugh out loud.
Jersey I looked at all those statistics and they don’t support your conclusion. The values voters they talk about are 30% and those who put abortion on top are 14% hardly a majority. The numbers on religious voters include Jews and Catholics who primarily vote for the Democrats. As far as Roe vs Wade, many people who feel abortion should be legal think it was a bad decision because it is based on a fantasy. This “right to privacy” which simply does not exist in the constitution nor do they apply it to many other issues, drugs, pornography, smoking, the papparazzi, etc.
Most importantly if the social conservatives are the majority of the republican party how come a true social conservative has never even gotten the republican nomination for President in my lifetime. By that i mean somebody who puts things like abortion and gay at the top of their agenda. Reagan talked about them but never made any effort to do anything about them because they weren’t his true priorities. The same is true of Nixon, Ford, Both Bushes and Dole. If social conservatives were really that dominant somebody like a Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes or the many other true social conservatives who have run would have gotten a nomination. None of them did.
Jersey – I can live with that correction, though it’s undeniable that the general trend throughout American history is that Democrats spend more than Republicans. Regardless, they spent waaaaay too freely – I think we can agree on that! That’s why the base deserted them.
However, I think you’re overstating your case – if I recall correctly, Clinton’s much-ballyhooed surplus was just a projection, not an actuality. And, may I remind you that Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 led to record revenues and a shrinking deficit right up until the point where the idiots in Congress decided to start bailing out several sizable industries. Finally, if you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, it’s nowhere near record levels.
Don’t get too sensational if the facts don’t back you up.