Social conservative self-deception

Ross Douthat has hit the nail on the head. Though I guess I am still a one issue voter I cannot stand the way the right has reacted to the Obama presidency. I had to turn off talk radio yesterday morning because it was all that kind of language that George Weigel uses..."stupid, ignorant, have their hand out". Ugh. The conservative movement will not get anywhere unless it engages the intellect of the people instead of their emotions.

I wrote in all kinds of people in the voting booth. I am strongly opposed to abortion so I just couldn't bring myself to vote for certain individuals even though I believe they will be more competent leaders in other areas.

And really, in this economic crisis, where lack of CONFIDENCE is such a big factor, can you imagine McCain on TV addressing your concerns and fears any more effectively than Obama? I can't. McCain's most pressing problem is his inability to inspire confidence. I am not commenting on who has better ideas for a way forward in this money mess, but who can help those in their foreclosed-upon living room have a measure of confidence in our future.

I agree with Charles - had McCain picked Romney as VP, they would have been elected.

Interesting Idea here. Holds alot of water in my opinion.

But while we're beating the dead horse called Pro-Life, I'll assert - one more time - that it has no place in politics whatsoever and if that's your only concern when voting for president (arguably a position that will never touch this issue with a ten-foot pole), you deserve to be stuck with impotent and ill-equipped, ignorant, or downright despicable candidates.

Basically because you refuse to use reason to weight the pros and cons of the decision in any realm of sanity, basing your decision purely on a black-or-white (and downright sophomoric) understanding of how this one issue fits into the ENTIRE political spectrum.

I'm all about breaking the two-party system - and I would love to see the Social Conservatives have it out with the Monetaries, Environmentalists, Social Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, Labours, and all the other political groups for the domination of the Executive Branch - but it just aint happenin. If you're so adamantly pro-life; the first place you should start to generate support is probably on your school board. Then your local community government and perhaps your state rep. Senators? Governors? You have to work your way through the system and generate familiarity and recognition for your cause. That's the only way to validate it, and no vote for president will ever make up for all that hard work.

If the Republican party wants to gain the support of conservatives again, it needs to simultaneously decouple itself from the STAUNCH pro-life position that keeps social liberals from embracing fiscal conservatism and educate those people who this issue is important to, that they should pursue civil and social means to forwarding that agenda and save the national political interests from bearing that cross. Not to say Pro-life or Pro-Abortion legislation will never find, and has no place in, politics; but it simply is too hot of an issue to be taken seriously by the candidate of any major political establishment. We've turned this into such an "us vs them" cause that even mentioning favoring one side alienates 40% of the voting population. He or she will tell you whatever you want to hear just to get your vote - but ultimately you'll be left with nothing as they go about their business.

Conservatives today with Obama face the same dilemma as liberals did back in l980 with Reagan. If they paint him as deluded, stupid, or corrupt, they will only turn off those who voted for him because they thought he was on the right track, even if, as Haldane said, they don't approve of all his policies. But if conservatives depict Obama as a decent man pursuing misguided policies, they risk being left without rhetorical recourse if his policies turn out to be successful.

It's a dilemma.

The real answer for social conservatives is to think long-term, to forget about Obama for the moment, and develop policies of their own able to answer the concerns and needs of middle-of-the-road and young voters, most of whom are not especially concerned about ending abortion or prohibiting gay marriage.

The obvious answer to yours truly is a conservatism not just of sexual mores, but also of money, blood, and earth. Meaning -- no foreign adventures, a Federal budget that is not all things to all people, including corporations, and a recognition that our civilization depends on the natural capital of the planet on which we live.

Re: Without Palin, McCain would have lost by 10 points.

For every vote McCain gained with Palin, he also lost one among people who had serious doubts about Obama.
By the way what's wrong with those Evangelicals who were going to sit out the election? Hav they reached the point wher they will only vote for one of their own? By that standard Ronald Reagan, who was not a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, would not have won their votes. It should have been enough that McCain supported most of the SoCon agenda (or at least did so far, far more than Obama). I don't think (as some suggest) that social conservatism per se is problem for the GOP, but if SoCons will only vote for someone whose personal religious bona fides are in order, then I''m wrong and the SoCons are a problem.