The Republican Establishment is convinced that to win elections you must move to the center, and chase after the "moderate" vote that resides among the independents. They claim that is what Ronald Reagan did when he gained a good number of democrats (Reagan Democrats) when he ran for President. However, the thinking is flawed. Reagan gained the votes of a number of Democrats not because he moderated, but because he articulated conservatism in a way that the low-hanging fruit (the non-hard-left members of the Democrat Party, and the right-of-center independents) could understand and relate to. Plus, his conservative message brought the Republican Vote out in droves. The idea that most independents are moderates is also a false belief. In reality, a majority of the independent vote are disenfranchised Republicans that are frustrated the party is catering to the Left, and watering down the platform of the once conservative party.
Most Americans are pro-life, and the homosexual population in this nation is less than 2%, yet we are told we must not talk about these issues, because they are too touchy. For some they are a touchy subject. But not addressing the social issues is costing the GOP more votes, than it is gaining, by running from the social issues.
The Republican Party is not the vehicle to save the country "as the party is." The Republican Party is, however, a vehicle we can use to restore the republic once we "regain control of it." If we (conservatives and constitutionalists) are unable to regain control of the GOP, the reality is that it will probably eventually dwindle and die just like the Federalist Party in the 1820s, due to its inability to politically compete, or win elections. Of the two existing parties, it is the one closest to our own constitutional platform. Are a number of Republicans actually progressives that have infiltrated the party? Absolutely. Most of them often support progressive ideas without realizing it, or because they are blinded by the oxymoron of "we can have big government but run it in a conservative manner." You have to spend time in and around these circles to truly comprehend the twisted mentality.
Since Goldwater, the Establishment Republicans have bought into the idea that "conservatives can't win elections," and the consultants and Republican Party politicians tend to run scared from the social issues because of that flawed thinking. A great example is regarding a conversation I had with a "republican" not long ago. He said to me, "deep down I am as liberal as they get, but I can't be a democrat because the party is full of statists."
Fine, I agree. The belief in statism in the Democrat Party is sickening beyond belief, and is rooted in the teachings of folks like Karl Marx and Jean Jacques Rousseau. But, we are told not to resort to name-calling, so I suppose I can't point out that the Democrat Party's policies are socialist in nature, and fit perfectly in line with the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.
I have scheduled Joe Dallas, a former homosexual, to speak at my next Constitution Association meeting on April 4 in Menifee, California, and a couple of the members of my organization are upset with me about it. At a recent event I hosted one of the ladies argued with me about the "predisposition" to be gay. . . refusing to believe there is such thing as "former" homosexuals. As she debated with me, and I quickly realized she has bought into the "born gay" argument, the "liberal republican" said to me "while you conservatives argue amongst yourselves, us Republicans will be out there getting the moderate voters on our side." He had told me on a different occasion that he would have voted with the California GOP when it decided to bring the Log Cabin Republicans into the fold, saying to me, "Gay Republicans are very active in the effort to bring in new Republican voters."
Perhaps, but while he, and the Log Cabin Republicans, work to bring a few moderates into the Republican Party through appeasement and compromise, gaining voters into the GOP that wish to change the platform of the party, our refusal to stand firm on the social issues, and the conservative Republican Party platform as it exists, have lost us many more votes, because conservatives are running for the hills, as they watch their party leave them.
I have scheduled Joe Dallas, a former homosexual, to speak at my next Constitution Association meeting on April 4 in Menifee, California, and a couple of the members of my organization are upset with me about it. At a recent event I hosted one of the ladies argued with me about the "predisposition" to be gay. . . refusing to believe there is such thing as "former" homosexuals. As she debated with me, and I quickly realized she has bought into the "born gay" argument, the "liberal republican" said to me "while you conservatives argue amongst yourselves, us Republicans will be out there getting the moderate voters on our side." He had told me on a different occasion that he would have voted with the California GOP when it decided to bring the Log Cabin Republicans into the fold, saying to me, "Gay Republicans are very active in the effort to bring in new Republican voters."
Perhaps, but while he, and the Log Cabin Republicans, work to bring a few moderates into the Republican Party through appeasement and compromise, gaining voters into the GOP that wish to change the platform of the party, our refusal to stand firm on the social issues, and the conservative Republican Party platform as it exists, have lost us many more votes, because conservatives are running for the hills, as they watch their party leave them.
So, should we avoid the social issues to gain a few moderate and socially liberal voters, or stand firm on the social issues so that we may retain a greater number of voters, and convince them to return to the ballot box?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment