The following editorial first appeared in the Los Angeles Times:
The winning electoral coalition assembled by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s has been compared to a three-legged stool, the legs being social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives. As the 2012 Republican race takes shape, another leg has been added to the stool — the “tea party” movement.
Last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced that he was setting up an exploratory committee (though it’s hardly a secret what he’ll discover), as did former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty seems to have decided to run, as has former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is testing the waters. Sarah Palin continues to tantalize the party about whether she will run, and for comic relief there’s Donald Trump.
The conventional wisdom is that Republican candidates run to the right in the primaries and then reposition themselves closer to the center in the general election, when they need to win independents and moderates. But even in the primary there are distinct constituencies to which candidates must appeal; courting all of them is a balancing act that the rise of the tea party has made more delicate.
The least risky pitch is to the national security conservatives. Social and economic conservatives are unlikely to object to calls for a more muscular U.S. foreign policy carried out under the banner of American exceptionalism. Even the tea party will be receptive to that message, despite the presence in the movement’s ranks of an isolationist faction.
An appeal to fiscal conservatives is likely to be more divisive, depending on how you define fiscal conservative. Once the term referred to traditional conservatives who prized balanced budgets and were willing, however reluctantly, to raise taxes. Now “fiscal conservative” denotes the supply-side philosophy associated with Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget, with its strong aversion to tax increases. That’s conservative enough to alienate some moderate Republicans, but as the recent debate over the budget demonstrated, tea party Republicans want even more extreme cuts in government spending. Catering to them could cost candidates the support of less extreme voters in all three categories.
The faction in the party most likely to pose difficulties for the candidates is social conservatives. Some candidates already are identified with them, such as Santorum, with his criticism of abortion and same-sex marriage and his nostalgia for the “traditional family” of pre-feminist days. Others will have to win the trust of these “values voters,” or at least their sufferance. These voters also encompass a good number of tea partyers, which increases pressure on candidates to endorse their agenda.
The problem is that, even in the primary but especially in the general election, too intimate an embrace of social conservatives will hurt a candidate with voters who reject their agenda — professional women, supporters of gay rights and abortion rights — even if those voters are conservative in other respects.
Comments (24)
Add comment2012
The 08 election was over (called) before the polls closed in Alaska or Hawaii. It's likely the same will happen in 12.
However I'd still encourage everyone to get informed & vote
This editorial out of the
This editorial out of the liberal Los Angeles Times seems like a lot of projection on the editor's part. It's like "if I can force the agenda with my talking points early and get the independents on board, we can shape the election outcome".
"his nostalgia for the “traditional family” of pre-feminist days" - what kind of stupid statement is that?
Look at the national polls. Citizens are overwhelmingly pro-life and still do not want gay marriage. Who knows how this primary season will shape up. I just know that a lot of people are seeing the country that they once knew as America fading fast. I for one fear what my children will inherit.
Ignorance or a lie?
Hi Calypso. A majority favors gay marriage, and a majority favors abortion rights (identifying as pro-life does NOT mean you are anti-abortion in all or even most cases). You either flat out lied in your above statement or you failed to do your homework. Either way, you should be ashamed.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51551.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Here we go! pp, I can tell
Here we go! pp, I can tell you I didn't use the left leaning Politico or CNN or Pew as my sources. I used other sources. Don't accuse me of lying.
A majority do NOT favor gay marriage and a majority do NOT favor abortion. I'm not talkiing about federal funding or the legality of abortion, just do you believe in abortion, period. The 2011 data polls 50% against/42% for. So that's a majority that does NOT favor abortion.
"identifying as pro-life does NOT mean you are anti-abortion in all or even most cases". Well, I think that statement is pretty much a lie, to use your words.
I love the bumper sticker - "I'm pro-choice and I'm pro-child" - sick.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispa
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/04/more_polls_show_shift_on_same...
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-06/us/poll.gay.marriage_1_gay-marriage-a...
http://www.newser.com/story/114461/gay-marriage-poll-more-than-half-of-a...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/18/134667794/poll-majority-o...
http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Hi Calypso. The above links confirm that gay marriage is now supported by a majority of the country. I maintain that you were either lying or failed to do your homework because you don't want to embrace reality. By the way, normally when people say "left-leaning" they really mean "reality-leaning." An overly large concern about the veracity of a source without posting one of your own shows an unwillingness to cede a position that is wrong, and leads one on the road to blindly following ideology.
As to your pro-life thing, you are clearly incorrect. Pro-lifers can and often are against having abortions themselves, but are not FOR making them illegal. Many people hold this position. So unless you invoke the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy (which the polls do NOT account for), you are clearly in the wrong here and admitting it would be a big step in regaining some credibility.
I purposely mentioned that
I purposely mentioned that the polls against abortion that I am quoting do not talk about the legality of abortions. Slow down and read more carefully and don't get yourself all in a frenzy with your agenda.
For the record, I think individual states should be deciding the legality of abortions.
Gay marriage has been voted down in 32 states, I believe (am I allowed to say that?!), but recent polls show the gap narrowing.
I have to agree with you on one point. Yes, left-leaning =reality. The heLL of a reality that we all are living at the moment!!
Yeah, things are SO terrible
Yeah, things are SO terrible right now! Let's go back to the good ol' days when things totally rocked. Except without the higher taxes, the ability to very easily disseminate information via the internet, political equality for all races and sexes, etc. Yup, what a hell we live in! I'll grant you that we have been sliding in some areas since Ronald Reagan, though. Not culturally, but economically definitely.
I challenge you to name me ONE THING conservative politicians have done for this country in its entire history that was beneficial. Because all I can see are a bunch of "leftists" throwing out monarchists in favor of forming a democracy, redoing the government when they got it wrong on the first try, writing the Bill of Rights, ending slavery, ending the Great Depression, enacting civil rights laws, Medicare, and do I need to go on? As far as I can tell, conservatives have Jefferson Davis, segregation, George Wallace, lynch mobs, and covert homosexual affairs.
Now before you go off the rails, I'm not suggesting conservatism, as a political philosophy, is without merit. I am suggesting that most of the time, those who call themselves conservative have no philosophy (and often seem to think less of people who even know what philosophy is), and that conservatism is often used as a justification for preventing change, even when change is needed.
Thanks persnickety - - -
For actual data. I notice Calypso never did produce any, surprise surprise. Must be subscribing to the
Senator Jon Kyl school of "Factual Statements".
I'm always curious - Calypso just how do you think that your personal life will be impacted, if a homosexual couple currently living, say, 1 mile from you - is allowed to marry?
swimmer, a homosexual couple
swimmer, a homosexual couple living 1 mile from me isn't going to affect me. It's when the whole of the group starts forcing their social engineering on our society as a whole that I have a problem. I'm a Christian and I happen to believe (and we're all entitled to our beliefs) that marriage is between a man and a woman. And you have to admit, the gays' beef with our society is all about gay marriage.
Has anyone else noticed that the progressives are the ones that always flip elections back on social issues, whether it's gay marriage, women's rights or race baiting. More projection on their part when they accuse conservatives of making elections about social issues.
pp, glad I didn't read your History book. Is that revisionism?
@Calypso: no one is forcing
@Calypso: no one is forcing their homosexual screed down your throat. What you're doing is forcing your Christian screed down everyone else's. So you believe marriage is only for a man and a woman. Good for you. Go out and marry a woman, then, but don't presume to tell gay couples they can't get married because of YOUR belief.
And no, that's not revisionism. As I recall, the founding fathers were INCREDIBLY progressive, Lincoln was progressive for freeing the slaves, FDR was progressive for enacting social safety net policies that alleviated the effects of the depression, LBJ and a liberal congress enacted Medicare and Civil Rights, and oh so much more. I also forgot the space program. That was also a very liberal program (and I prefer "liberal" to "progressive"). The fact is, history is essentially a study of liberal types overcoming conservative types. Not ALWAYS for the better, but usually.
Yeah, that Medicare is
Yeah, that Medicare is working real well. How broke is it? FDR, nuff said. Lincoln was a Republican. How 'bout that great Democrat Senator Byrd and the KKK Grand Puba? Algore's father was a democrat senator who voted against the civil rights bill. LBJ and his social programs started us down this road of no return and social degradation. Kennedy would probably be considered atleast a rino today. I wouldn't say the left has such a fabulous record on moving the country forward.
You're just out of the loop with the leftist agenda - they prefer to be called progressives now. Liberal is old school.
Lincoln was a LIBERAL.
Lincoln was a LIBERAL. Republican does not equate to conservative, at least it didn't until recently. The fact that I have to point this out shows a very shallow understanding of politics. And Kennedy was a Democrat, so he couldn't be a RINO. I find it sadly amusing you thought he was a Republican.
And Medicare? Lots of old people rely on it. Again, like any system, it's not perfect, but its social benefit is huge. You'll appreciate it more when you're of age to use it. Social security, too.
I don't know what Al Gore's dad has to do with this, though. Are you aware that he and his dad are two different people? Or that neither Al Gore nor his dad are spokesman for liberalism? Well, you are now.
Anyway, beyond vague references to social degradation, I see you don't have an argument.
Go back and re-read my post.
Go back and re-read my post. Once again, you're twisting my words. Now try to put 2 and 2 together and see the point I was making. It's gonna take a little brain power.
Duh, yes Kennedy was a dem. I said now days he'd atleast be considered a rino. Remember his "don't ask what America can do for you, blah, blah, blah". Does that sound like a dem of today. No, it doesn't.
You were singing the praises of historic moments brought to us by the progressives so I was giving you some examples of past progressives, or democrats or liberals or whatever moniker they had. The left twists so much in the wind, one never knows what to call them. Algore's dad was a democrat and he voted against the civil rights bill. Is that a moment you are proud of as a liberal?
I have to agree, what does one call algore? He's a special one!!!
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about? Democrats are not necessarily liberal, especially in the time period you're talking about. The Republican party used to be the liberal party, and over the years they gradually switched sides with the Democrats. And I don't know what you're going on about with Kennedy. I fail to see how he'd be considered a RINO because of his most famous speech.
Calypso, here's what I don't get.
You are correct - a homosexual couple getting married 1 mile from you (or 1 block) isn't going to change your life at all. Won't change your taxes, your married life within your own home, your grocery shopping experience, your ability to go to church whenever you like, etc.
Of course, if this is true for you, as a Christian, the same would be true for all Christians. None of your rights to live as you choose would be affected in the slightest. So in fact, the idea that homosexuals would be allowed to marry in this country doesn't "force" you to do anything at all differently.
I don't know how many homosexuals there are in this country, but if I had to guess I'd say it's probably a pretty small amount, maybe not even a fraction of a percent as many as say, heterosexuals who live together, and have children, without being married. As a Christian, I'm guessing these folks are acting against your beliefs as well - though no outrage about 'social engineering' seems to be forthcoming.
The truth is, when folks talk about something being "forced on them" or "social engineering" - it implies that somehow, you are being coerced to change or relinquish your life/behavior/rights in order to accommodate an opposing viewpoint. This is clearly not the case, as you have said yourself. Look, we've built a country that many want to come to because we believe in personal freedoms. That men and women are equal, that no one is discriminated against based on race, sex, or religion. This kind of freedom means that we will by definition be a very diverse group of people, with sometimes wildly different customs and beliefs. It's perfectly ok to be uncomfortable with someone else's customs or beliefs - so long as we recognize that as long as that person is not harming me or curtailing my personal rights and freedoms, they have just as much right to live their lives as they choose as I do to live mine as I choose.
swimmer, we each don't live
swimmer, we each don't live in a bubble. We are a collection of people in a country with a common culture. As much as you don't like it - we are a center right country founded on Christian principles.
As I've said before - have a union with another man. Just don't call it marriage and don't start filling our schools with your literature. How come our society has made it illegal to marry your sister or to have multiple spouses? Could it be that smarter people before us decided it wasn't good for our society?
How many times has gay marriage been voted down by the electorate? Remember we are a democratic republic. The people get to decide.
Right now they're not digging it.
Actually, Calypso, if you
Actually, Calypso, if you were familiar at all with how this country was founded you'd realize two things: 1) many of the founders were deists, agnostics, or otherwise outside of the Christian mainstream, and 2) our government was founded with built in safeguards AGAINST majority rule.
As for why incest is illegal, that is a taboo in many cultures, and inbreeding does not produce healthy offspring, anyway. And multiple wives? It's not allowed because then people would game the system for tax benefits. But it's perfectly acceptable to have multiple girlfriends or other non-legal unions. I also find it troubling that you just accept that these things are "wrong" because people said they were a long time ago.
Basically, your argument is fallacious on every level. You can't be for liberty and then turn around and tell others they can't do something that has no effect on you just because you don't like it.
What principles, exactly?
Calypso - which principles are you referring to? That all men are equal before the law? That murder should be a punishable offence? That there should be courts and a judicial system?
Ultimately, even though you say that having two men or two women marry does not hurt you or curtail your rights in any way, your answer as to why they should not marry seems to be either 1. Just because it makes some of us uncomfortable.....or 2. Because Christians say so. (So much for freedom of religion, eh, Calypso? You can't have that bread buttered on both sides, friend)
Why not call it marraige? Why not have the same rights (as to the wishes of a spouse should that person be incapacitated, as to health care, as to adoption) as anyone else? You know very well that marraige to your sister or close relative has serious biological consequences. As to plural marraige - well, I think the legal entanglements would be the biggest issue there.
And the last ditch effort, "the people voted" - - - well, people in some southern states might very likely vote right now, today, to ban interracial marraige (or to re-introduce segregation, which certainly would have been upheld by a vote 'of the people' in the 50's, 60's, and probably 70's).
Would that make it "right" in your eyes?
Persnickity and Calypso
could you guys stop arguing constantly? It really is getting old, I get tired or reading Persnickity's attacks on Calypso and Calypso's constant explainations on every fricking article. I'd like to hear what others have to say about these things occaisionally. Instead I get constant bickering. Can you both agree that you don't agree on anything?????? Let it go. If we are not smart enough to do our own homework, then we deserve to be misinformed.
Thanks, just had to vent a minute.
Epistemic closure in action.
Epistemic closure in action.
And Calypso thinks I'm not referring to her.
had to look that one up
but I agree
Dude. Other people read this
Dude. Other people read this stuff, and whether or not someone "deserves" to be misinformed due to their own laziness/stupidity is immaterial to the fact that it affects ME when they go out and vote for Joe Miller.
Attacks?
Mom, what exactly do you consider an attack? A litany of facts catagorically debunking every tired talking point Calypso came up with?
PP, regarding idiots STILL overlooking how bad miller is. Word.
As long as there is injustice it DEMANDS we speak up. I'm not gay, but it's not my business what gay people do.
Calypso never addressed that he's doing the exact thing he's accusing gay people of doing. Imposing legalities on other people strickly due to his views. Unbelievably for things he openly admits do not affect him.
Hold the line
Right on, akromper. A certain subset of this nation has been very loud and obnoxious as of late, and as a result they've dominated discussion and controlled the political narrative. The solution isn't to keep quiet and let people do their own due diligence, it's to speak up loudly--but respectfully, if possible--and rebut their arguments.