The Grand New Party

The health care thread took a left (or right) turn into the politics of the Republican party. I just thought we might want to bring that discussion over here and let the health care discussion get back on track.

Essentially, the question is where do fiscal conservatives go now that the social conservatives have co-opted the Republican party?

Can a group based on fiscal conservatism and limited government be viable? OR will any such group attract and be subsumed by anti-government groups and/or social conservatives.

Can fiscal conservatives remain allied with social conservatives and still be relevant or is it a catch-22? We need them for a majority but in gaining their support we lose the core values of fiscal restraint by the government, personal responsibility and limited, but appropriate, govt. regulation (i.e. oversight of banking, insurance, interstate trade, etc.)?

When everyone claims to be a moderate...how many from each side do we need to steal?

Good idea.

When everyone claims to be a moderate...how many from each side do we need to steal?

There doesn't need to be sides. How about a party based on ideas and principles. A little looser banding to prevent incestuous thinking and provide for more agility in the idea department.

I guess the point I was trying to make in the other thread is I just don't see the big legisltive push for the religious right agenda. I hear it talked about but just don't see that it controls the party. Its the same thing on the left. You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.

Essentially, the 2-party system has divided itself based on how it spends the money.

Since more than 60% of the country, rich and poor, now believe that government can distribute money in one form or another, EIC payments or tax deductions for solar energy or whatever other pet project you may deem worthy of other peoples money, a new party would have to draw from moderates. The problem is moderates won't unite behind one party because the 2 behemoths can co-opt any fledgling ideas, and leave real change behind.

The American government, originally, was limited in scope by the 10 amendments, and specifically #s 9 and 10. That is no longer the case. If the Federal government wants to force the enforcement of a law, they simply punish the bad states by withholding funds. The Supreme Court has been complicit in this growth by allowing interstate commerce regulations to weave webs of entanglement into every level of the government. The media is complicit, because they no longer try to be a neutral observer, but depending on their bias, report news that promotes their agenda.

Sadly, there is not very much chance that the country is suddenly going to agree to limiting government.

Don't know that my rant was coherent, or that it answers any significant question.

No, no new party will be created. 30% of Americans will vote Democratic come hell or high water, 30% will vote Republican come hell or high water, and the other 40% will be so divided by things like choice, healthcare, marriage, and other social divides that the 2 major parties will bring enough to one side or the other to squash any silly new idea, like limited, representative, government of the people.

Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?

Let's define fiscal conservatism and limited government. With respect to social institutions what does that mean? What current government institution/agencies get cut?

I think we could cut goverment in half and 99% of the people would never notice any change or they might notice an improvement.

Essentially, the question is where do fiscal conservatives go now that the social conservatives have co-opted the Republican party?

Can a group based on fiscal conservatism and limited government be viable? OR will any such group attract and be subsumed by anti-government groups and/or social conservatives.

Can fiscal conservatives remain allied with social conservatives and still be relevant or is it a catch-22? We need them for a majority but in gaining their support we lose the core values of fiscal restraint by the government, personal responsibility and limited, but appropriate, govt. regulation (i.e. oversight of banking, insurance, interstate trade, etc.)?IMO it will be real difficult to have a third party because a split in the GOP and a fiscal conservative/socially moderate party won't pull many Dems. It would just solidify the Dems control on the government and guarantee expanded gov't, higher taxes and liberal social engineering.

The social conservatives need to wake up and let the GOP frame the gay marriage/abortion/other social issues as a "state's rights" issue vs. a gay/straight or abortion/anti-abortion issue. The "what works in Kansas doesn't work in CA" is an argument I think most people get. This would allow the GOP to seem more interested in the reduction of the size & scope of the federal government rather than in pushing their moral beliefs on others. That stance should attract independents and moderates. The social conservatives need to understand if we don't get fiscal control of the government within the next election cycle, a 6-8 year span of a Dem President and Dem Congress will do irreperable harm to the country fiscally. It also won't matter what social issue they social conservatives have, the districts and census will be so gerry-mandered the GOP will be a minority party for 50+ years and they won't have a snowballs chance of getting any ground on their agenda.

Put fiscal responsibility first and find candidates that don't have skeletons in closets or are sold out to special interests. Fight the social issues at the state and local level and make the Dems/liberals appear to be the ones trying to force their agenda down everyone's throat at the federal level.

You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).