Hello:

If social conservatisim is so good, how do you explain its demise?

(First off, if you're going to say that it isn't demized, you should find some questions on the fantasy board to answer.)

Ok, maybe I'm not spelling it out well enough... How come there isn't a social conservative running for president? Or if there is, how come people don't like him?

excon

I don't know, maybe they're trying to appeal to the center instead of the far right. I would love to see a true social conservative run, but those days might be long gone.

Morning, ex.

You want to know what I REALLY think the answer is?



Fear.

Plain and simple.

I think that truly socially conservative people who are in a position to consider trying for a leadership spot are running FROM office instead of running FOR office.

They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their entire lives will be opened up for public scrutiny, and everything they've ever done will be exposed, both in and out of context.

Speaking ONLY for myself, I would never open myself up to that. I'm fully aware of the mistakes I've made, all the way up to the ones I made yesterday. As a Christian, I understand that perfection is a journey rather than a destination, and I'm well-acquainted with the boundless mercy and forgiveness that the Lord extends to me.

The American public, however, extends no such mercy or forgiveness.

I would hate to run as a social conservative only to be made out to be a hypocrite by my opponents.

Besides, if I REALLY want to make a positive difference in the world, there's about a thousand better places to do it than D.C.

DK

Fear.........I think that truly socially conservative people who are in a position to consider trying for a leadership spot are running FROM office instead of running FOR office.Hello Dennis:

Nahhh. We've been diggin in the dirt for years now.

What I think it is, is that George Bush had his shot and ruined it for the rest - forever. Frankly, I think Bush did more HARM to social conservatism than he ever did to promote it.

excon

My thesis is that the moral structures that emerged from the Enlightenment were philosophically bound to fail. They were formed using the disordered and incoherent language while coming out of the Dark Ages where the Church had dismantled the natural sciences violently.

How could a new science ever regain what had been lost? How could the people recreate the vast tomes of knowledge that had been destroyed? The language of morality was in the same state of grave disorder as the language of natural science; it was the destruction of classical Greek morality amid the superstition and intellectual plundering of the Dark Ages of Western Europe that a 'New Conservatism' was built along side of Liberalism.

Do you think that James Dobson is the arbiter of what social conservatism is ?

My quick answer is that his is a single issue advocate and that social conservative issues are well represented by the candidates in this election .That no candidate is willing to lock themselves into a series of litmus tests that Dobson administers is a positive. His special interests have always been but one constituency to be courted .

Yes if he peeled off from the Republicans then they most likely would lose. But that was also true in 1992 when some special interest economic isolationists followed Ross Perot and helped elect Bubba ;or when blue collar Democrats joined the Reagan camp. Dobson like Perot is huffing and puffing on an ego trip that like Ralph Nader's in 2000 can only cause trouble for the party ;but without achieving any real meaningful change and in fact ultimately hurt their cause.

The way I see it Rudy has the right answer to Dobson. The only impact that the President can have on issues like abortion or the marriage amendment is who they appoint to SCOTUS and the other Federal Courts. Rudy has already said he would appoint originalists . So it matters little if Rudy is pro-life or pro-choice. Dobson should get his head out of his butt and realize that is the best he can achieve. Pro-life Reagan GHW Bush and GW Bush did not prevent a single abortion because they could not.

As to your basic contention that social conservatism has met it's demise ;I point to national polling on the issue of abortion as but one marker. For 30 years Gallup has asked Americans whether they think abortion should never be permitted, should always be permitted, or should sometimes be permitted. The results ave not changed since 1975. That give us no reason to think that opposition to abortion has lost political power, or is likely to do so. That base will always be there for political parties to court .
But so are many other issues of concern.

The biggest challenge I think for the Republican Party will be to hold on to the economic conservatives .It is those more than any other group the Republicans took for granted and did not live up to their principles.

Being a fiscal conservative rather than a social one, I am going to guess that social conservatism is on the downward spiral because it promotes responsibility and moral behavior.

Our society today is all about pushing responsibility on someone else (see the thread about the drunk driver trying to blame the bar, for example) and living for the moment and doing what feels good (see the myriad of mistress threads) rather than considering the chaos it brings.

Few people want to hear: work hard, raise your children, save your money, eat right and exercise.

Most people would rather hear: live for today, east dessert first, the government will take care of it.

Hello tom:

Actually, I wasn't referring to any specific guy or event. But, Dobson is representative of the rest. And, even if he isn't, the "family values" philosophy, and the political movement that spawned it - or resulted from it, even though it is alive and well on this board, is for all practical purposes, dead.

excon

I don't think so ;or at least I think from a social conservative view that life issues will sustain a movement . Things like marriage will be resolved ultimately by compromise. I still say it is the defection of the fiscal conservative from the Republican base that should be ringing bells of warning to the party.

There are so-called Social Conservatives running for President in the Republican Party. One is Gov. Huckabee who is polling pretty well for a candidate with little money. There are several others without well known names, but I don't want to give them any pub. :)

America is 86% declared Christians yet, the divorce rate is over 50%. I think that tells it all as far as social conservatism in America is concerned. Divorce ruins more children than any one thing in America.

Social Conservatism is dead in America, BUT TALKING ABOUT IT AND LYING IS NOT DEAD. :) Hypocrisy is not just a river in Texas!!

It's been the same for years; one camp poses as the party of responsibility, lamenting the decadence of culture and the loss of traditional morality. The other side poses as the army of liberation, lamenting Puritanism, repression and the menace of the religious right….

But that's all changing…Teenage pregnancy rates have declined by about a third over the past 15 years. Teenage birth and abortion rates have dropped just as much.
Young people are waiting longer to have sex. The percentage of 15-year-olds who have had sex has dropped significantly. Among 13-year-olds, the percentage has dropped even more.
They are also having fewer partners. The number of high schoolers who even report having four or more sexual partners during their lives has declined by about a quarter. Half of all high school boys now say they are virgins, up from 39 percent in 1990.

I don't think so ;or at least I think from a social conservative view that life issues will sustain a movement . Hello again, tom:

I don't mean to infer that there isn't a socially conservative constituency - only that it's leaderless.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I don't mean to infer that there isn't a socially conservative constituency - only that it's leaderless.

The problem with trying to identify a "Social Conservative" in this day and age, least of all a leader, is that the 'True Social Conservative' movement has been co-opted by the 'Religious Right'.

Social Conservatism isn't about picketing abortion clinics.

It isn't about picketing the funerals of US Soldiers.

It isn't about beating the war drums in far off places.

It isn't about creating monumental roadblocks to access to entitlement programs a person has spent 3/4 of their life paying into.

Nor is it about denying basic health care to the most vulnerable members of society.

Today's definition bears no resemblance whatsoever to the definition espoused and envisioned by the movements progenitors.

The movement promulgated by the likes of Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke has been completely co-opted, much to my sorrow, by the Religious Right.

I say everybody dissatisfied with the Dem AND Rep choices should ban together and vote for Ron Paul then maybe our government would wake up and take us serious! As long as we pit ourselves against each other with the two choices they give us they are content to keep THEIR political game going as always with us really having no say!

Any vote for Ron Paul would be a vote for Hillary . The Ross Perot candidacy is what got us the Clintons in the first place.

But that's all changing…Teenage pregnancy rates have declined by about a third over the past 15 years. Teenage birth and abortion rates have dropped just as much.
Young people are waiting longer to have sex. The percentage of 15-year-olds who have had sex has dropped significantly. Among 13-year-olds, the percentage has dropped even more.
They are also having fewer partners. The number of high schoolers who even report having four or more sexual partners during their lives has declined by about a quarter. Half of all high school boys now say they are virgins, up from 39 percent in 1990.

Is that fact?About teen pregnancies etc.

In my community the problem is just beginning...
And I see it escalating in the future.

Is that fact?About teen pregnancies etc.

In my community the problem is just beginning...
and I see it escalating in the future.
I don’t believe those numbers either. :D

In fact, the media is so controlled by government I don’t know what to believe.

In fact, the media is so controlled by government I don’t know what to believe.Hello again, DC:

Huh?? I've heard some of your wacky stuff, but this is really waaaayyy out there.

excon

Hello again, DC:

Huh????? I've heard some of your wacky stuff, but this is really waaaayyy out there.

excon
Read the article, Wag the Dog…and enjoy the philosophy site…there is even a forum:)

Wag the Dog (http://www.galilean-library.org/wag.html)

Tom;

I heard a little bit of Dobson on Hannity. He stated he could not be true to himself, or compromise his own values, by endorsing a candidate who did not have share his views on certain issues.

I have to respect him on that.






Grace and Peace

heard a little bit of Dobson on Hannity. He stated he could not be true to himself, or compromise his own values, by endorsing a candidate who did not have share his views on certain issues.


yeah I respect him for that also . But that is different than encouraging a 3rd Party run. Like I said ;split the Republican vote and get Hillary nominating 3 justices to SCOTUS... The progressive agenda codified for another generation into law. All the work of the conservatives since the 1970s destroyed .

Considering that people are so anxious to risk national security to destroy Bush for his views, no wonder.

Reports of the demise of social conservatism are greatly exaggerated. Leaderless as you say, to an extent, yes. I don't think anyone wants to jump in and take that position given the way Dobson, Falwell and others have been demonized... and then you have idiots like Haggard that don't help the cause.

Things are going to move more to the center but I would bet you're going to see a backlash against the far left as well. And I hope - and suspect - that most social conservatives will consider what Dobson says - then vote for someone with a chance to win.

Steve

So, wassa matter with Mike Hukabee?

Nothing in my book, I like Huckabee, but as Kathleen Parker put it (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker0707oct07,0,5094865.column) he doesn't have electability. That's what I've been concerned with all along, that evangelicals "may be creating their own worst nightmare," as Parker also put it.

First, define social conservativism. Seems to me that everyone has a different idea of where the lines are drawn. I consider myself to be a social conservative, but other social conservatives may consider me too liberal or too conservative for their taste. So I don't think that there has been a demise of social conservativism so much as there is no clear definition of what social conservativism is.

Second, Fred Thompson is a social conservative on most issues. There are a few issues where he and I disagree and he is to the left of me. But to say that he's a social liberal would be a gross oversimplification of his position.

There's also Mitt Romney, who's about as socially conservative as you can get on most issues. And he certainly stands in the top tier of Republican candidates.

Mike Huckabee is another social conservative running for President.

Duncan Hunter is a social conservative candidate.

Social conservativism certainly isn't dead. There are certainly social conservative candidates out there.

Elliot

NRO offered an interesting possibility (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzVmYjcxMTE0MzdiYjkxYTFjOWZhNmQ3Yjk0OTZkNmE=) that even Dobson might back, a Giuliani/Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee type ticket. Pair Rudy with someone like that and I betcha social conservatives will get behind it.

Hello El & its:

You're social conservatives and you're not jumping on any of THEIR bandwagons... which was my point, after all.

excon

Hello El & its:

You're social conservatives and you're not jumping on any of THEIR bandwagons.... which was my point, afterall.

excon


Ex, my being a social conservative doesn't mean I'm so dumb as to support a candidate that can't win. My priority is to stop Hillary, so I'll take half a loaf if I can't get the whole shebang. Contrary to the misguided opinions of some, I think most of us are smart enough to know there are no perfect candidates and to know the difference between electing someone to run the country and voting on a new church pastor. :)

Steve

I'm not? I'm a Fred Thompson supporter.

Choux:

You said: "Choux disagrees: It's the so-called "Conservatives" who are really involved in a fascist movement who insult and demean their opponents!!! LOL!!"

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your own words?

I am a social conservative.
Every time I mentioned about morality, there would be some women on this site yelling at me that I can't anything about what they want to do!
The funny thing is they would state their dirty history without a confession. I didn't even want to know about that!
Women... geez... that's why I prefer not to talk about politics with them.

Excon,

If Conservatism is out of favor and has suffered a "demise" how do you explain why Harry Reid has an 18% approval rating overall and only 30% in his home state of Nevada? Why does Nancy Pelosi have a 30% approval rating? Why does Joe Biden have an approval rating of 20%?

By comparison, Condi Rice has a 41% approval rating and John Roberts has a 42% approval rating. Even Bush's rating is running around 38%. If conservatism is on the outs, why is Bush getting higher approval ratings than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden?

If conservatism is on the outs, why did a poll regarding Elliot Spitzer's immigation plan (to grant IDs and rights to illegal immigrants) show that New Yorkers were against it by 72%? New York... that's a blue state, isn't it?

Something is wrong with your basi premise, Excon. Conservatism isn't suffering the demise you think it is. The Republican Congress suffered a major demise in 2006, yes. But that was because they were acting like a bunch of drunken Democrats rather than conservatives. The people want their elected officials to be MORE conservative, not less.

Elliot