[quote]H factor wrote:
We aren’t in disagreement necessarily.
Would you agree a fiscally conservative and socially pro freedom agenda has a better chance than a fiscally conservative socially conservative one?[/quote]
No. You’d lose Conservatives and the DNC would pick up Conservatives. You’d be left with moderates and progressives making fun of the now shrunken Republican-refried-Libertarian party, whose sole claim is to economic extremism.
[/quote]
If we would lose conservatives to the DNC then conservatives aren’t fiscally conservative and the only thing that makes them conservative is social issues. [/quote]
Conservatism isn’t necessarily economically liberal (“fiscally conservative”). There are a good many waiting for an excuse to bolt to the social justice/help the poor and disenchanted/economic populism party (economically speaking), with the marginalization of the social plank in the GoP.
[quote]H factor wrote:
We aren’t in disagreement necessarily.
Would you agree a fiscally conservative and socially pro freedom agenda has a better chance than a fiscally conservative socially conservative one?[/quote]
No. You’d lose Conservatives and the DNC would pick up Conservatives. You’d be left with moderates and progressives making fun of the now shrunken Republican-refried-Libertarian party, whose sole claim is to economic extremism.
[/quote]
If we would lose conservatives to the DNC then conservatives aren’t fiscally conservative and the only thing that makes them conservative is social issues. [/quote]
Of course its the defining feature of Conservatism…Otherwise, it’d be libertarianism.
[quote]H factor wrote:
We aren’t in disagreement necessarily.
Would you agree a fiscally conservative and socially pro freedom agenda has a better chance than a fiscally conservative socially conservative one?[/quote]
No. You’d lose Conservatives and the DNC would pick up Conservatives. You’d be left with moderates and progressives making fun of the now shrunken Republican-refried-Libertarian party, whose sole claim is to economic extremism.
[/quote]
If we would lose conservatives to the DNC then conservatives aren’t fiscally conservative and the only thing that makes them conservative is social issues. [/quote]
Of course its the defining feature of Conservatism…Otherwise, it’d be libertarianism.
[/quote]
And those definitions and what people are for/against change over time with the changes in society. Conservatives in 2014 aren’t for some of the stuff that conservatives in 1964 were for. Which is exactly what I am saying needs to happen.
Or they can just lose election after election as they remain a shrinking minority of people who think the government should dictate right and wrong in so many individual cases.
Or they can just lose election after election as they remain a shrinking minority…[/quote]
If you believe in something, this is what you do. Wait and hope.
Conservatism is not libertarianism. The nation is not turning to libertarianism. It is turning progressive. Correction, it is pretty much progressive. It does NOT want social liberalism AND economic liberalism. It will never want both at the same time. In fact, one of the strongest pieces of evidence is that you feel the need to hide “libertarian” under the facade of “fiscal conservative.”
Or they can just lose election after election as they remain a shrinking minority…[/quote]
If you believe in something, this is what you do. Wait and hope.
Conservatism is not libertarianism. The nation is not turning to libertarianism. It is turning progressive. Correction, it is pretty much progressive. It does NOT want social liberalism AND economic liberalism. It will never want both at the same time. In fact, one of the strongest pieces of evidence is that you feel the need to hide “libertarian” under the facade of “fiscal conservative.” [/quote]
Fiscal conservative is an explanation. It’s not hiding anything. It’s showing conservative people that Libertarians are for the same thing except on some social issues. And conservatives are moving towards the way Libertarians think on social issues in a high rate. Or if we want to stop saying conservatives then some Republicans are. Look at the amount of Republicans supporting gay marriage right now. It is higher than ever. Republicans are slowly moving towards being ok with legalization of marijuana.
These are positions that if conservatives would come to grips with they could realize they may be able to get some of the economic goals they want.
If conservatives are waiting around for the United States to move back towards 1940’s social thinking then conservatives may as well never vote again and discontinue pushing anything in the political process. Moms are going to have careers. Gays are going to end up having the same rights as straight people. Drugs laws are going to be modernized. Birth control isn’t going back to hold an aspirin in the knees. This is not some type of battle that is going to be won.
All I’m saying is if they moved towards a pro individual freedom agenda (which is what Libertarians are for) they would have a chance at getting some things they want fiscally. If they cannot do that then they have about 10-15 years left to have any sort of political influence before the vast majority of the nation looks at their views as archaic. We still have really racist people in this country who probably don’t like blacks and whites going to school together. Those people are in the minority so much that they are not listened to on anything.
Not every Democrat is cool with progressives on economic issues either. I’m not arguing that Libertarianism has a chance in 2016 or even 2020. Moving forward it is something that more and more Americans will probably become familiar with. The younger generation is already socially liberal…and it’s part of the reason why they vote Democrat in the first place. They cannot fathom voting for the Republican party if it is going to have social conservative positions. The Democratic party knows this and wants the future battles to be not about the economy (where they are weaker) and about social issues where they have an advantage.
Claire McCaskill only has a job because of social issues. Missourians were fucking ready to kick her ass out and nothing was going to stop them from doing it. Democrats worked to get a nutjob for the Republicans who may slip up on a social thing, he did and bam Democratic victory. Trust me, Democrats want nothing more than for the future fights to be on the social issues turf. It is positions they are in the lead on now and will absolutely dominate in the future UNLESS Republicans push towards a pro-freedom stance.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Fiscal conservative is an explanation. It’s not hiding anything. It’s showing conservative people that Libertarians are for the same thing except on some social issues.[/quote]
Republican does not equal conservative. Fiscal conservative does not equal conservative, it equals Libertarian. “If you just become Fiscal Conservatives…” I.e. become Libertarians.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not every Democrat is cool with progressives on economic issues either. I’m not arguing that Libertarianism has a chance in 2016 or even 2020. Moving forward it is something that more and more Americans will probably become familiar with. The younger generation is already socially liberal…and it’s part of the reason why they vote Democrat in the first place. They cannot fathom voting for the Republican party if it is going to have social conservative positions. The Democratic party knows this and wants the future battles to be not about the economy (where they are weaker) and about social issues where they have an advantage.
Claire McCaskill only has a job because of social issues. Missourians were fucking ready to kick her ass out and nothing was going to stop them from doing it. Democrats worked to get a nutjob for the Republicans who may slip up on a social thing, he did and bam Democratic victory. Trust me, Democrats want nothing more than for the future fights to be on the social issues turf. It is positions they are in the lead on now and will absolutely dominate in the future UNLESS Republicans push towards a pro-freedom stance.
Trust me, you aint winning on “gradually cutting entitlements.” You can’t even get the tea-party on-board. Admit it, you lost the battle before we ever did. You’re really trying to argue libertarian fiscal policies are even remotely palatable? You couldn’t even repeal Obamacare. I dare the next republican contender to campaign on repealing it without replacing it with his own big government mandate/program.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not every Democrat is cool with progressives on economic issues either. I’m not arguing that Libertarianism has a chance in 2016 or even 2020. Moving forward it is something that more and more Americans will probably become familiar with. [/quote]
They already know what is…They’re the guys who’d leave the old lady to eat cat food. And the single mother/poor parents to wonder how they’re going to pay for their kid’s leukemia treatment.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not every Democrat is cool with progressives on economic issues either. I’m not arguing that Libertarianism has a chance in 2016 or even 2020. Moving forward it is something that more and more Americans will probably become familiar with. The younger generation is already socially liberal…and it’s part of the reason why they vote Democrat in the first place. They cannot fathom voting for the Republican party if it is going to have social conservative positions. The Democratic party knows this and wants the future battles to be not about the economy (where they are weaker) and about social issues where they have an advantage.
Claire McCaskill only has a job because of social issues. Missourians were fucking ready to kick her ass out and nothing was going to stop them from doing it. Democrats worked to get a nutjob for the Republicans who may slip up on a social thing, he did and bam Democratic victory. Trust me, Democrats want nothing more than for the future fights to be on the social issues turf. It is positions they are in the lead on now and will absolutely dominate in the future UNLESS Republicans push towards a pro-freedom stance.
Trust me, you aint winning on “gradually cutting entitlements.” You can’t even get the tea-party on-board. Admit it, you lost the battle before we ever did. You’re really trying to argue libertarian fiscal policies are even remotely palatable? You couldn’t even repeal Obamacare. I dare the next republican contender to campaign on repealing it without replacing it with yet another government mandate/program of his own.
[/quote]
I never said the battle would be easy. I never said it would be an easy victory. You need lots of people to achieve political change. You have a lot of people who are Democrats who do not really like the President’s economic results. They just cannot fathom voting for someone who speaks like they are from the 1940’s. They bitterly accept the blue pill BECAUSE of social issues.
You think Missourians WANTED to elect McCaskill again? I’m in Missouri all the time on business. Signs were everywhere. Her polling numbers were nothing. She only won after her opponent took an unbelievably stupid social position and Missourians were forced to vote for her because of how big of a tool he WAS.
I don’t like the two party system, but it doesn’t seem as if we are headed anywhere else anytime soon. We can attempt to build a coalition that may win on fiscal issues (this is actually possible I believe).
You have some Democrats who defend other Democrats not on economic grounds but because they are so opposed to some of the crazy old white guy thinking prevalent in the Republican party still. I fully realize this turns you off as hell and like I said it would require making some people REALLY mad.
I don’t even blame you for not wanting to change because I don’t either I can just see the writing on the wall. The political future winners simply cannot oppose gay people. They cannot push to remake society into 60 years ago. These positions are only popular with a small amount of people that is rapidly being replaced.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Not every Democrat is cool with progressives on economic issues either. I’m not arguing that Libertarianism has a chance in 2016 or even 2020. Moving forward it is something that more and more Americans will probably become familiar with. [/quote]
They already know what is…They’re the guys who’d leave the old lady to eat cat food. And the single mother/poor parents to wonder how they’re going to pay for their kid’s leukemia treatment.
[/quote]
This is absurd. Most Americans have no idea what a Libertarian is. You’re talking about how progressives spin some conservative positions. Like I said it is important to explain carefully why some economic positions must be changed to sustain them. It is going to take a really good politician and a bunch of people who can help him/her make that argument to folks. When you start on common social ground people will listen to what you say on other issues.
If you get painted as anti-gay, anti-women, anti-any of that stuff that is so easy for progressives to do with die hard social conservatives you turn everyone off.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Like I said it is important to explain carefully why some economic positions must be changed to sustain them. It is going to take a really good politician and a bunch of people who can help him/her make that argument to folks. When you start on common social ground people will listen to what you say on other issues. [/quote]
So in other words, “Yes, we lost. Maybe in the future we can convince increasingly gray, increasingly childless America to forgo medical care, food and shelter safety nets, minimum wage…”
Yeah, you helped the progressives on the social issues. Even abandoning or badly twisting your own libertarian ideology to do so. But those social issues aren’t bringing you free-market Libertarian paradise. You should take a look up North and across the Atlantic to see your fiscal future. The progressives won.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Like I said it is important to explain carefully why some economic positions must be changed to sustain them. It is going to take a really good politician and a bunch of people who can help him/her make that argument to folks. When you start on common social ground people will listen to what you say on other issues. [/quote]
So in other words, “Yes, we lost. Maybe in the future we can convince increasingly gray, increasingly childless America to forgo medical care, food and shelter safety nets, minimum wage…”
Yeah, you helped the progressives on the social issues. Even abandoning or badly twisting your own libertarian ideology to do so. But those social issues aren’t bringing you free-market Libertarian paradise. You should take a look up North and across the Atlantic to see your fiscal future. The progressives won.[/quote]
Helped the progressives on social issues? By saying the government should stay out of people’s private lives and individuals should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn’t directly harm someone else?
If that is the charge then I plead guilty. I cannot help that I am against big government fiscally and socially.
And I can tell you the “fiscal” view here in Kansas where social conservatives are dominating isn’t exactly pretty and also comes with a heaping pile of government telling people what to do in their private lives. Move here and eat until your full I guess.
[quote]H factor wrote:
And I can tell you the “fiscal” view here in Kansas where social conservatives are dominating isn’t exactly pretty…[/quote]
You make my point.
[/quote]
Which again doesn’t change my point. I don’t believe that fiscal changes CANNOT be made to shrink the government. I do not believe the majority of Americans are against common sense solutions to decrease the size of the federal government. I do think they are scared as shit when people run around and say they want to take things away immediately.
People must get used to small changes. This idea that we can reinvent every government program in one fell swoop is great, it just isn’t feasible. You will never achieve it politically. Even Democrats are for some changes being made to the size of the government when you ask them. They get forced to support a party that fiscally they don’t agree with at times. And part of what forces that issue is how much they hate the thinking of many social conservatives on SOCIAL issues.
Republicans MUST expand their reach if they want to have any chance of being a political player in the coming future. Social conservatives can change with the times and achieve some of the things they want fiscally or they can just stay out of the picture all together. We are in no way, shape, or form headed back towards views that are popular with people like Rick Santorum. Every year we move further and further away from that. Attempting to get society to go back may be a worthwhile goal to some, but it is absolutely unachievable.
You can roll with the punches and adapt or you can get knocked the fuck out and stay inside is all I’m saying. And yes I’m fully aware that this move would wholeheartedly upset a swath of conservatives who think less like me and more like you. I just think the swath that thinks like me is growing (again strictly socially).
Bottom line: A party gets where the country is going socially and they may have a chance fiscally. A party doesn’t do that and they don’t have any chance fiscally anyways because no one will listen to them.
Right, so you lost a long time ago. You can’t even make “small” cuts to entitlement spending.
That’s fine if you want to argue that Conservatism isn’t a winning formula (for now…). But don’t act like Libertarianism is set to fill the void. Again, we’re joining you on the bench. And the ref isn’t calling you back into the game either. The players are going to be mandate/subsidize-progressives and the take-over-that-sector-completely progressives. European model, here we come.
Edit: I don’t have the stamina to keep going back and forth. Agree to disagree, on my part. Turning the thread back over to drugs. Excuse my wandering off from the specificity of the topic.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Right, so you lost a long time ago. You can’t even make “small” cuts to entitlement spending.
That’s fine if you want to argue that Conservatism isn’t a winning formula (for now…). But don’t act like Libertarianism is set to fill the void. Again, we’re joining you on the bench. And the ref isn’t calling you back into the game either. The players are going to be mandate/subsidize-progressives and the take-over-that-sector-completely progressives. European model, here we come.
[/quote]
The system we have, of winner-takes-all, is not a winning formula(especially when those who do not have to pay taxes, or who profit from government, are allowed to vote). I am NOT arguing in favor of the “Libertarian Party”
If a man walks up to you and sticks a gun in your ear, your choices are: comply with his demands, be killed, or(if you are armed) __________________. If you allow that guy to take enough of your money to pay off those who might come to your aid, what’s the chance that someone will help you? If you elect to be killed, well, it won’t really matter to you what happens to the guy. If you comply with his demands, you are his slave. If you __________, you may be killed, someone else may eventually stick a gun in your ear and threaten you, or you may kill the bastard and walk away with everything that’s yours.
Right, so you lost a long time ago. You can’t even make “small” cuts to entitlement spending.
That’s fine if you want to argue that Conservatism isn’t a winning formula (for now…). But don’t act like Libertarianism is set to fill the void. Again, we’re joining you on the bench. And the ref isn’t calling you back into the game either. The players are going to be mandate/subsidize-progressives and the take-over-that-sector-completely progressives. European model, here we come.
Edit: I don’t have the stamina to keep going back and forth. Agree to disagree, on my part. Turning the thread back over to drugs. Excuse my wandering off from the specificity of the topic.
[/quote]
We have been going in circles. FWIW, I don’t think Libertarianism is a magic formula that will automatically work in reducing the size and scope of the government. I think you have a lot of people who say they are Republican or say they are conservative and those all mean different things to different people.
The younger generations are more pro freedom on social issues than generations before. It is something they want. That much is absolutely clear on polling. The idea that they are thrilled with the economic positions of the Obama administration is what I have contention with.
Look at the youth polling on the president. They are moving against his positions on the economy and health care big time. They are seeing that government cannot solve all economic problems.
They may support someone who comes up with some different economic ideas coming forward in 2020, 2024, etc. They will not lose that pro freedom social agenda though. No amount of polling on anything I have seen suggests that will be the case. They may change on what they want fiscally as they see things not working well. They aren’t going to move against gay rights or anything like that though.
I’m not trying to say my side is going to win. I’m not trying to say it will win. I’m proposing it CAN win if enough people get behind it.
I can just see the writing on the wall. The political future winners simply cannot oppose gay people. They cannot push to remake society into 60 years ago. These positions are only popular with a small amount of people that is rapidly being replaced.