NationStates Jolt Archive

Does it seem to you that Consevative arguments such as the gov't staying out of people's business goes out the window when it comes to social issues?
Think about it: drug usage, prosititution, abortion; all of these thing people can do without the gov't breathing down their necks. Why do right-wingers argue so strongly against them?

The answer is pretty simple really. In order for the fiscal conservatives (traditional Republicans) to win elections, they had to ally themselves with social conservatives. Social conservatives tended to be poor, and the poor tended to vote for the Democrats until the late 60s, when the Republican party started wooing them with the "southern strategy" (thanks Nixon). They started voting against their economic self-interest in exchange for open acceptance of their social conservancy. That saw its biggest rise during the Reagan/Bush years, when the social conservatives pretty much took over the base of the Republican party.

As a result, you have an ideological divide in the Republican party. On one side, you have the sane Republicans, folks who believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and are generally libertarian on social issues (think McCain, Voinovich, Chaffee, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger). On the other side, you have the psychotic Republicans who believe in lower taxes, huge deficits and fiscal irresponsibility, and making the US into a theocratic republic (think Santorum (http://spreadingsantorum.com), DeLay, Bush, Ashcroft). I think there's the potential for a split there between moderates and psychos, much more so than in the Democratic party.

The Democratic party has long been an uneasy set of alliances between various groups often with far different agendas. We're used to the tumult by now, and we know we have to make deals within the party to keep it sane. The Republicans are struggling with that now. It will be interesting to see what happens as a result.

Does it seem to you that Consevative arguments such as the gov't staying out of people's business goes out the window when it comes to social issues?
Think about it: drug usage, prosititution, abortion; all of these thing people can do without the gov't breathing down their necks. Why do right-wingers argue so strongly against them?
Because they don't want to stay out of your lives. They want you to conform to their morality, their values, their thinking. Just like a good little drone. If you conform, you are easier to control, and allows them to control the pace of change.

Don't forget the whole 'gay marriage' issue. They've really got bugs up their butts about that issue. Silly conservatives.

On one side, you have the sane Republicans, folks who believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and are generally libertarian on social issues (think McCain, Voinovich, Chaffee, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger).
You had me until you said that. Arnie is one of the sane Republicans?!?

The same guy who referred to Democrats as "girlie men", insulting women, heterosexuals and homosexuals all in the same statement?

You're thinking of Republicans, not conservatives. All conservatives are not Republicans, and all Republicans are not conservative....

You had me until you said that. Arnie is one of the sane Republicans?!?

The same guy who referred to Democrats as "girlie men", insulting women, heterosexuals and homosexuals all in the same statement?

I'm a Californian :p. Arnie's just trying to appeal to his supporters and play off on his movie credentials.

You had me until you said that. Arnie is one of the sane Republicans?!?

The same guy who referred to Democrats as "girlie men", insulting women, heterosexuals and homosexuals all in the same statement?In terms of his politics, Arnie is one of the sane ones. Yeah, he's an asshole and in a regular election run would never have lasted, much less won, but on social issues his positions are moderate. If I had to choose between being governed by someone like Arnold or someone like Tom DeLay, it's Schwarzenegger all the way.

I'm a Californian :p. Arnie's just trying to appeal to his supporters and play off on his movie credentials.
Oh, I assumed he was just pandering to the crowd, but you just can't have your governer spouting off stupid statements like that. How he got elected, I'll never understand. Was Davis really that bad?

(...and my first reply was discussing conservatives, not specifically Republican conservatives...)

Because they don't want to stay out of your lives. They want you to conform to their morality, their values, their thinking. Just like a good little drone. If you conform, you are easier to control, and allows them to control the pace of change.

Don't forget the whole 'gay marriage' issue. They've really got bugs up their butts about that issue. Silly conservatives.

Yeah, but with marriage equality, the gov't has to do something, unless we resort to some sort of civil unions for all marriages (not just gay marriage), like I would prefer.

Concerning other posts: We really need to get pass the two party system. I think eveyone should realize that, not just Nader supporters and independents. Or, we could have a multipart gov't with separate legislatures for social, economic, and foriegn issues... nah.

In terms of his politics, Arnie is one of the sane ones. Yeah, he's an asshole and in a regular election run would never have lasted, much less won, but on social issues his positions are moderate. If I had to choose between being governed by someone like Arnold or someone like Tom DeLay, it's Schwarzenegger all the way.
I see your point, but in my world, such a choice is akin to choosing between Eichmann and Gerbles.

The conservatives basically argue that humans suck except when they are granted coersive power, in which case, they automatically become infallable except when they go against the Bible.

I know, it makes no sense, but that's conservatism for you.

Oh, I assumed he was just pandering to the crowd, but you just can't have your governer spouting off stupid statements like that. How he got elected, I'll never understand. Was Davis really that bad?

(...and my first reply was discussing conservatives, not specifically Republican conservatives...)

Oh, lets be honest. To some degree, he was elected because California is made up of idiots who love celebreties. A lot of people didn't know crap about the issues, only that we could have a "governator" who would "terminate" Davis. I mean, jeez, it was WEEKS before those horrid jokes stopped.

However, a big thing was that he was fiscally conservative-and after Davis, people were REALLY sick and tired of California being fiscally liberal. He was ALSO moderate on social issues, and California isn't known for being conservative social-wise.

Oh, I assumed he was just pandering to the crowd, but you just can't have your governer spouting off stupid statements like that. How he got elected, I'll never understand. Was Davis really that bad?

(...and my first reply was discussing conservatives, not specifically Republican conservatives...)
I didn't think so, but then again, I wasn't in California long enough to actually see what Davis had done. He was a shitbag, no doubt, but most politicians are to some extent. He got hung by Enron's manipulation of energy prices because he wound up getting blamed for it.

As far as Arnold is concerned, he won because he was a celebrity and because he didn't have to undergo serious media scrutiny for a year like most candidates do. He had a very short candidacy and so the groping allegations didn't come out and he was never forced to make real statements on issues. He got by on flash and flair and people bought it. And it didn't help that the only real alternative was Cruz Bustamente.

I couldn't vote then, but I personally was rooting for Gary Coleman. Just because it's Gary fricking Coleman.

What'cho talkin' bout, California?

The conservatives basically argue that humans suck except when they are granted coersive power, in which case, they automatically become infallable except when they go against the Bible.

I know, it makes no sense, but that's conservatism for you.

Thank you, Ms. Over-Generalization-And-Stereotype....

I didn't think so, but then again, I wasn't in California long enough to actually see what Davis had done. He was a shitbag, no doubt, but most politicians are to some extent. He got hung by Enron's manipulation of energy prices because he wound up getting blamed for it.

As far as Arnold is concerned, he won because he was a celebrity and because he didn't have to undergo serious media scrutiny for a year like most candidates do. He had a very short candidacy and so the groping allegations didn't come out and he was never forced to make real statements on issues. He got by on flash and flair and people bought it. And it didn't help that the only real alternative was Cruz Bustamente.
The 24 hour news cycle didn't help us much either, since they weren't bound by equal time laws. They really ended up legitimazing Arnie and started painting the election between a lame duck, Arnie and 126 looneys.

Certainly there is some degree of celebraty value, but in California we're knee-deep in them and that does deminish that a bit...and novelty (which we are slaves to in a far larger capacity) had something to do with it, but ultimetely I began to feel that the news channels had elected Arnie for us because it was the best story.

My brother actually knew Bustimonte and said he was a decent guy, and that's the only impression I got of him. And I was watching the news all the damn time, so unless you knew my brother you didn't get an impression of him.

What I hated most was that most of the issues that Davis was roasted over had been solved by the time of the election, but people where up in arms about vehicle registration fees returning to thier norms as scheduled. (Davis had lowered them during a surplus with a built in time they would go back to normal in a few years, so when the time came and we needed the money the fee went back like they where supposed to. But it was characterized as a 'fee hike,' thus having a recall esssentially over car registration fees. Fantastic. We had a revolution over taxes on stamps, paper and tea-I guess I shouldn't really be that shocked....)

Thank you, Ms. Over-Generalization-And-Stereotype....

Mr., actually, and from what I've observed, it's generally pretty accurate except for atheist conservatives.

In terms of his politics, Arnie is one of the sane ones. Yeah, he's an asshole and in a regular election run would never have lasted, much less won, but on social issues his positions are moderate. If I had to choose between being governed by someone like Arnold or someone like Tom DeLay, it's Schwarzenegger all the way.

Almost all politicans are complete arseholes. It comes with the territory.

I'd classify Schwarzenegger as a moderate Republican and the girlie man thing (if you read the Sacramento Bee) is nothing to the names that the Democrats have been throwing at Bush ... not that Bush doesn't desert it, but Democrats / Republicans ... they are the same basic creature: selfish and short-sighted. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

Thank you, Ms. Over-Generalization-And-Stereotype....

Now now don't be mean Mr. Banjo boy the south will rise again! ;)

Almost all politicans are complete arseholes. It comes with the territory.

I'd classify Schwarzenegger as a moderate Republican and the girlie man thing (if you read the Sacramento Bee) is nothing to the names that the Democrats have been throwing at Bush ... not that Bush doesn't desert it, but Democrats / Republicans ... they are the same basic creature: selfish and short-sighted. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

Both parties name call all the time. Deal with it-- Bush seems to handle fine.

Mr., actually, and from what I've observed, it's generally pretty accurate except for atheist conservatives.

Complete BS, like this link proves:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative4.jpg

Hardly. I've talked to more than enough conservatives. In fact, I was a conservative, once.

The answer is pretty simple really. In order for the fiscal conservatives (traditional Republicans) to win elections, they had to ally themselves with social conservatives. Social conservatives tended to be poor, and the poor tended to vote for the Democrats until the late 60s, when the Republican party started wooing them with the "southern strategy" (thanks Nixon). They started voting against their economic self-interest in exchange for open acceptance of their social conservancy. That saw its biggest rise during the Reagan/Bush years, when the social conservatives pretty much took over the base of the Republican party.

you know what bugs me most about the southern strategy? the fact that it worked. very telling, if you ask me, it took a decade of progress in civil rights to break up the new deal coalition.

Yeah, I think we're starting to veare away from the topic...