Tags:
Peter, this is by far the best post I have ever seen on these boards. You are absolutely right, especially regarding ideology in NoVA and your campaign analysis is spot on.
George, what it means is that there needs to be some kind of compromise or consensus between the two sides of the party that are vocal right now - the moderates and the conservatives. Both sides are right in some ways, and both sides are wrong in some ways. Personally I've tried to steer a middle of the road path between the two - in some ways I'm very conservative and in others I'm very moderate.
The voters in Virginia tend to be the same way, and it shows when you see how often Virginia voters split their ballots.
Sub-core issues include things like transportation funding, workforce development, government reform, crime, economic development, higher education, and the like - issues where there isn't a default partisan split and where moderates and conservatives can agree. These aren't the push button issues like gay marriage, abortion or taxes, but they are areas that can be addressed on a statewide level and where moderates and conservatives can find common ground.
And on the big push button issues, there is common ground available too. Instead of focusing on outlawing abortion, conservatives and moderates should be able to come together to champion better sex ed, better access to contraception, and more church and community involvement to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Instead of focusing on strengthening the family by more attention on gay marriage, conservatives and moderates should be able to come together to promote more personal responsibility in marriage and to work to reduce the divorce rate.
There are plenty of ways where both sides can work together towards common goals that all agree are necessary. The end result is what most people are interested in, and there's no reason why we have to spend all of our time bickering on the means.
George, what it means is that there needs to be some kind of compromise or consensus between the two sides of the party that are vocal right now - the moderates and the conservatives. Both sides are right in some ways, and both sides are wrong in some ways. Personally I've tried to steer a middle of the road path between the two - in some ways I'm very conservative and in others I'm very moderate.
The voters in Virginia tend to be the same way, and it shows when you see how often Virginia voters split their ballots.
Sub-core issues include things like transportation funding, workforce development, government reform, crime, economic development, higher education, and the like - issues where there isn't a default partisan split and where moderates and conservatives can agree. These aren't the push button issues like gay marriage, abortion or taxes, but they are areas that can be addressed on a statewide level and where moderates and conservatives can find common ground.
And on the big push button issues, there is common ground available too. Instead of focusing on outlawing abortion, conservatives and moderates should be able to come together to champion better sex ed, better access to contraception, and more church and community involvement to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Instead of focusing on strengthening the family by more attention on gay marriage, conservatives and moderates should be able to come together to promote more personal responsibility in marriage and to work to reduce the divorce rate.
There are plenty of ways where both sides can work together towards common goals that all agree are necessary. The end result is what most people are interested in, and there's no reason why we have to spend all of our time bickering on the means.
George, the standard political philosophy about voters and ideology is that 40% of the population will tend to vote Democrat, 40% will vote Republican, and 20% will vote either way depending on the issue. The 20% in the middle are who you target, because they are the ones who are actually movable. You can't win an election just targeting your base.
Moderate isn't a position, that's true. What it tends to be is the catchall phrase for people who are not 100% on either the right or the left, but have differing positions. I call myself a moderate because I don't feel like being accused of not being a pure conservative when I don't zealously advocate social issues or when I don't denounce unions as communists.
I don't believe that Republican problems are the result of a lack of a consistent, coherent ideology. Our problems are based on three things - first, we need to be recruiting better candidates. Second, we need to demonstrate that our ideas aren't outmoded. Third, we need to be less rigid and willing to allow a variety of points of view from the center and right.
Smaller deficits aren't a defeat for Republicans. Our system of government favors incrementalism. It took Republicans four years to get the budget balanced in the 1990s. And that was at a time where we weren't facing an economic crisis or multiple wars overseas. Reducing the deficit was a victory, because it wasn't plausible to simply balance it outright. You get where you want to go by constantly moving forward - moving forward is the key thing. It may take a while to get there, but you get there eventually. Today, most people want instant gratification, and that's not always possible or prudent.
I know a lot of people who are pro-choice, but I have never once heard a rational pro-choice advocate say they want more abortions. That's why I think the focus of the argument is on the wrong thing. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it. When abortion was illegal, it was still around. Where pro-life and pro-choice advocates can agree is that we need to be reducing the number of abortions to the lowest level possible. I think that level can be zero - and that's the end goal. To end abortion. But I know we aren't going to get there by passing a law. It is going to require both sides working together to address the ultimate problem - unwanted pregnancies. Without those, you'd have no abortion. Why not focus on that, which brings both sides together, than trying to enact divisive policies that don't actually solve the problem?
Every major piece of legislation that Republicans have enacted have required some kind of compromise. Its the nature of our legislative system. Most of that compromise isn't policy related, it's your typical log-rolling. You vote for mine and I'll vote for yours. As Peter said, there's no reason why we can't compromise on how we do things, since to some, that's more important than the end result, as I noted with abortion.
The organizers insist that the movement be non-partisan because the issue is non-partisan. You can be a Democrat and still not like it when your taxes are too high or your government is wasting money bailing out banks.
You are giving Democrats far more credit than they deserve on having a consistent, coherent message. They don't. Yes, many of them tend to believe that government can solve all problems, but in terms of ideology and policy, they're as all over the boards as we are. From the blue dogs to the progressives, they've got the same differences in ideological cant as we do. The only difference is they had George Bush as the big, bad boogeyman to run against, and they had stronger candidates than we did at all levels. That's changing. And I would argue that it's the Democrats who have been running on the "we're not as bad as those other guys," not Republicans. The Democrats went from the party that couldn't win anything in 2004 to running everything in 2009. Did they do it by revamping their ideology? No. They just attacked us.
The transportation funding is a whole other can of worms. Democratic position is basically all transportation funding needs to be split between highways and public transit. They want fees and taxes to go up. They also like increasing the gas tax not only to raise revenue, but to force drivers off the roads. Republicans tend to look for less drastic alternatives, such as opening up offshore drilling and using all the money from the royalties for transportation funding. Some Republicans favor toll roads, where those that use them pay for them, rather than taxing everyone. Personally, I prefer none of that. Then there's also a debate over who should get the bulk of the money. NoVA wants it, because our traffic problems are bad. RoVA also wants it, because they feel they get short shrift. There is no reason why Democrats and Republicans can't work together to find a way to fund transportation that doesn't result in a greater burden on the taxpayer and provides a fair allocation to the areas in the state that need it most.
© 2022 Created by Tom Whitmore.
Powered by