Today, over at NRO, there is an excellent column by Michael Tanner about the coming election.
Given this record of Democratic ineptitude and the voters’ reaction to it, one would think that Republicans would be talking about these issues every day. Instead, Republicans and conservatives have spent recent weeks talking about such distracting side-issues as immigration, the 14th amendment, gay marriage, and when and where mosques should be built.
This is not the year for the culture wars to be emphasized. This is potentially a watershed election. People are worried about the survival of the republic. The economy was trashed by reckless financial speculation that was NOT George Bush’s fault, although he could have done more to stop it. The two biggest culprits are still untouched; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, protected by the Democrats as they have been Democratic Party sandboxes for years. Subsidized housing for the poor became a housing bubble and we are still dealing with the consequences. This is not the time for social conservatives to take over the platform.
Despite their repeated threats to stay home if Republicans deviated from a commitment to conservative social issues, it wasn’t the Religious Right that deserted Republicans in 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). Turnout among self-described members of the Religious Right remained steady from 2004 to 2008, and these voters remained loyally Republican. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, and 74 percent in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two or three decades.
Like the blacks with the Democrats, the social conservatives have no where else to go. The difference is, although this is not polite to say, the social conservatives still vote on other issues. They don’t stay home in big numbers although the fumble of Bush’s drunk driving arrest might have caused enough to stay home to tie the 2000 election. This year, they need to show they have other concerns.
It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift toward big government who stayed home — or, worse, voted Democratic in 2008. Republicans carried the suburbs in both 2000 (49 to 47) and 2004 (52 to 47), but in 2008, suburban voters — notably wealthy, college-educated professionals, many of whom consider themselves moderate on social issues but economically conservative — voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 50 to 48. The switch among voters in the suburbs of Columbus, Charlotte, and Indianapolis, for instance, was largely responsible for moving Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Democratic column. Democrats also continued their gains in the more independent, libertarian West.
This is the year of the libertarian, not the goofy libertarian who wants to sell all the highways but the moderate libertarian that makes up a very large share of the tea party activists. These people are outraged enough to hold signs and stand on street corners, something that 95% of them never did before in their lives.
These independent and suburban voters are now regretting their Democratic flirtation. They didn’t vote for record deficits, the health-care bill, bailouts to banks and auto companies, or cap-and-trade. Having rejected big-government conservatism, they never realized they were going to get even-bigger-government liberalism.
But these voters are not culture warriors. Polls show that while they are fiscally conservative, and very upset by excessive government spending and rising deficits, they are socially moderate, tending toward indifference or even support on issues like gay marriage.
This is the year for the big tent. Gay marriage is not the issue that is going to save the country from economic collapse. I am personally neutral on gay marriage with the exception of a concern that this is actually a war on religions that disapprove of homosexuality. Having said that, let’s talk about it next year.
This year we have to save the country.
I’m one of those moderate libertarians you mention. I’ve come to the point where I want the government to always be divided. Gridlock, for the lack of a better word, is good.
I learned my lesson when Bush had Republican majorities in both chambers, and proceeded to spend like crazy. No, the best situation is when the President is of a different party than the Congressional majority, like it was under Clinton. Remember welfare reform and balanced budgets? Those would not have happened if Clinton had a Democratic majority.
Therefore, bring on the Republican blowout in November.
The trouble is, libertarians always think it’s time to ditch the social-con *nonsense* (just temporarily, of course!).
So what is so different now that immigration especially shouldn’t be front and center? One slipup – one concession, one expansive “bipartisan” gesture – and the issue gets away from us for years as it did after 1986.
And I fear the socialcons could indeed sit it out or go for a third-party candidate. Years ago I knew people who actively supported Reagan who later decided he was “too liberal” and withdrew from activism and became cynical and apolitical. We’re talking older voters who tend to tire out anyway.
What’s this? A blog post I actually like? Well, I’ll be darned. You just found yourself a new reader.
Make no mistake about it. This is a big victory for Blago, but more importantly, for President Obama and the Democrats. Rahm, Jesse Jr., Valerie Jarrett, and Alexi Giannoulias escaped unscathed. Fitz will be told not to retry
Even on the guilty count notice that the jury did not (from what I heard on TV) convict on the “I tried” portion. As I told you before, that one seemed like all kinds of wrong. Do we really want to have someone go to jail for saying “I tried” when they didn’t try. Does that REALLY have the possibility of effecting the FBI investigation? (You need that element to convict…not just the lie). I just don’t believe that. Maybe the holdouts felt the same way.