Ingraham’s staff made a similar argument on her blog. “Are the defeats the fault of the GOP and its candidates, and do they now need to pander to minorities and update their platform to make it more appealing?” they wrote. “What exactly is wrong with conservative principles? Anything? No. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We don’t need to change to appeal to voters. We need voters and their mindsets to change.”
Behind the right’s retrenchment is a belief that they shouldn’t “pander” to those demographic groups that voted heavily for Obama simply because, some of those on the right claim, many of the president’s supporters were drawn by the promise of continued government handouts.
“The voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff,” O’Reilly said on election night. “You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”
(Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Krauthammer and Hannity could not be reached for comment.)
“Until the entitlement mentality is destroyed, the Democratic Party of Redistribution will always win,” Ingraham’s staff wrote on her blog. “If voters put the good of the country ahead of their personal wants, they will see everyone benefiting, themselves included. Let’s implement some trickle-down patriotism before it’s too late.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/836 79_Page3.html#ixzz2C1mOsEmB
First off. I'm not against Republicans or Conservatives standing on principles. The question should stand though, which principles are applicable to governing the higher laws of the land? Standing by fiscal concervity is one thing, standing by hyper partisen social issues is another. The Ayn Rand phylosophy that putting people in difficult situations causes them to step up and self acheive is losing the culture war.
What platform does the GOP actually stand on? Are they "fiscal conservatives" that continually support the military industrial complex and big business? That's a bit of a mixed message really. Tax cuts for our friends, reduced spending and regulation for the rest of you. Tax cuts cost money. They're a backend form of spending. Putting trillions of dollars into popular wars is spending. Libertarians aside, these are mixed messages. When you water down the "fiscal conservative" brand, what are you left with? You're left with a party that reduces assistance to the lower and middle class and regularly fights for breaks for the wealthy. Further more, a party that regularly attempts to legislate religion, rather than free choice.
The above commentary shows why. It labels the majority as welfare recipients begging for a hand out. It says to win the majority vote you have to "pander" to them and their taker desires. Turns out, calling someone names and degrading them isn't how you win people over. Formulating social policy based on 30-40% of the nations hyper religious isn't how you win people over. Courting Billy Graham doesn't get you the majority. The GOP is building themselves a defensive box rather than opening a door.
Just my thoughts. :/
- Re: Losing the war on social commentary. by Jiangshu