TexasCHLforum.com

Well if nothing changes, then nothing changes. The Dems baited their trap perfectly & the Republicans bit on it fiercely. Abortion, gay marriage, contraception provisions in Obamacare, etc (and yes, even our treasured 2nd ammendment) all were perfectly laid out to play into our fundamental religious beliefs and we went all in for it. We stood up & proudly proclaimed that we had to take our country back from the godless heathans. Some would even say that the mandate was divinely inspired. But hindsight being 20/20, what we should have done was counter the Dems using their own terms - How pro-abortion are you?? What have you done to give gays the right to marry?? We should have tried to force them off of the center.

I honestly don't know if it really would have made much of a difference in this past election, since there's also the effect of trying to battle government hand-outs on top of the social issues. It might not have won the election, but at least it would have put the Republicans fighting the same fight. Lesson learned, I hope.

There is room for the basic Christian foundation in some of the principles that could eventually emerge. But in order to become more inclusive, it can't be the only driving force. I think that there can be a Republican resurgence if we can get the Dems to fight the fight that we want them to.

Am I the only one that finds it interesting that on a gun-related site many are debating the political impact of social issues/positions?

The election was framed to be about things that would never happen. Romney would never stop anyone from getting birth control. He wouldn't have acted to criminalize the things the left clings to and promotes. This election was one big push poll in the swing states.

Apparently the conditioning tactics to focus on non-issues (going back to George Stephanopolous [former Bill Clinton White House Communications Director] teeing up the "war on women" discussion during a republican debate) and away from the role of government have really worked.

TexasCajun wrote: I do agree with the article that Social Conservatism has to go. It may have started out as a way for the true conservatives to present a softer side, but it's become the wedge that the Dems drive between the Republicans and the rest of the country.

I'm not sure that's what he said. He said that fiscally conservative and socially liberal do not work together.

Sorry, but fiscally conservative and socially liberal does not work. If you doubt that, go look at the exit poll data.

A nation of Julias and their offspring are never going to vote fiscally conservative. Not unless they are also socially conservative or financially well off. A nation of Julias want security, they want a pater familias by proxy and that is going to be the government and the taxpayer.

If the American family continues breaking down, then fiscal conservatism is a dead letter. The family is an economic unit. A single parent family is too precarious and too vulnerable for that. Not every single parent family, but enough of them taken together on average are. Too much can go wrong and there is a much stronger need for security in the form of a safety net and antipathy to any talk of financial reform.

Kythas wrote:

That's the $24,000 question, isn't it?

Personally, I believe the trend away from religion has been a strategic move by the Left since the '60s. Once you remove the religious underpinnings of the family, and separate religion from morality, then it creates the environment where divorce or births out of wedlock become morally and socially acceptable, as morality then becomes relative and not absolute. Since single parents have a much more difficult time raising children, the State can then step in as a surrogate parent to replace the one which is lost. This is probably something that the Left identified generations ago and began a long, systemic campaign of promoting it.

How do you rebuild the nuclear family without also changing the social trend away from religion back to it? I don't really know that you can.[/quote]

I don't really think the separation of religion from morality was a strategic move by any group...I think in a lot of people's minds "religion" separated itself from morality, with continual scandals over everything from covering up pedophiles, tax evasion, sex scandals (both heterosexual and homosexual), televangelists bilking folks out of hard earned money while buying private jets, and so forth. Things that were never publicized in my generation, are now commonplace for my children's generation and many of them have lost confidence and respect for organized religion and view it as hypocritical and being more concerned with money and authority than salvation. I too doubt that the trend can be reversed.

If you have 90 minutes, check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 02SypCcYIc


If you don't, here's what my wife and I talked about...

The Constitutional part is fine. Being financially responsible, strong defense, etc.

The problem is the social aspects. We have done such a bad job of allowing the MSM frame the conversation about them. What the GOP needs to do (if possible, since the die's been cast) is take an almost libertarian approach to them and say, "Gay marriage, abortion, marijuana legalization are all state's rights issues. We should put these on the state ballots, and let the people decide. That is our position".

Also, look at the media. I have been saying this ad nauseam for 20 years. And in the above video, Bill Whittle talks about the ones who are in entertainment and media are not virtuous. Instead, they think it's a poisonous part of their psyche. They are, for the most part, liberal, and want to have virtue thrown out of the window for no other reason than to make themselves feel better.

You can be virtuous without being religious, I do believe. It's honor, integrity, honesty, prudence, among others. But it helps. We just need to find a way to teach that to the next generations.

psijac wrote:

Kythas wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

If you want fiscal conservatism, the only path that has any long term chance of success is through the rebuilding of the family.

This isn't a moral question, it's a practical question. And the exit data makes it very clear that there is a sizable gap between how married and unmarried people approach the Republican Party. That's the social element and socially liberal leads to fiscally liberal. We can either deal with this, and there are various creative solutions, most of which will allow us to also organize voters, or we can pretend it doesn't exist and that we just need to yell at people about being parasites addicted to entitlements.

That is actually a very good take on the situation...one that had not occurred to me before.

My question would be: How do you rebuild the American Family as a cultural institution, especially in light of the current trend to move away from religion?

That's the $24,000 question, isn't it?

Personally, I believe the trend away from religion has been a strategic move by the Left since the '60s. Once you remove the religious underpinnings of the family, and separate religion from morality, then it creates the environment where divorce or births out of wedlock become morally and socially acceptable, as morality then becomes relative and not absolute. Since single parents have a much more difficult time raising children, the State can then step in as a surrogate parent to replace the one which is lost. This is probably something that the Left identified generations ago and began a long, systemic campaign of promoting it.

How do you rebuild the nuclear family without also changing the social trend away from religion back to it? I don't really know that you can.

I compeletely disagree. Families can exist without religion, but religion cannot exist without families. Look at Iran the religious Majority has complete control over there. in the Bible a suitable punishment for breaking the 10 commandmants was genocide.

If you really believe that, please answer the $24,000 question. I know that I would really like to know.

recaffeination wrote:I don't know what's worse, communism or theocracy.

Our form of government has no relation to a theocracy.

Think sharia law when you think of theocracy.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

recaffeination wrote:I don't know what's worse, communism or theocracy.

Our form of government has no relation to a theocracy.

Think sharia law when you think of theocracy.

Anygunanywhere

Also, one big step in figuring out how to win is to accept the main stream media is stacked against the republican. With the media controlling the messaging and framing the debate, it will always turn into a "So Republican candidate, have you stopped beating your wife?" discussion.

The republicans NOT ALWAYS agreeing to debates where the moderators are against them would be a good start. Trying playing a "home game" once in a while. If the dem candidate won't play, demonize them for being cowards.