Keys to Conservative Success Found in NY-23 Loss
The big topic of discussion this week is the role conservatism played in the wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere, as well as in the loss of New York’s 23rd congressional district. Recent polls show that many more Americans self-identify as conservative than liberal, so it should not be terribly surprising that so many conservative candidates won Tuesday. It should not even be terribly surprising that some won big.
Though if that is the case, what is the explanation for Doug Hoffman’s loss in New York? There are many possible reasons — including the spectacle that the race turned into with Dede Scozzafava dropping out at the last minute and endorsing the Democrat — but one possibility proposed by Roger L. Simon and others is sure to be much discussed over the coming year.
Simon wrote that social conservatism was in part to blame:
America is a fiscally conservative country — now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification — but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.
I don’t believe the fact that Hoffman is a social conservative was the reason for his loss, but when it comes to priorities, Simon makes a point worth considering:
Hoffman’s capital “C” Conservative campaign tried to separate itself from the majority parties by making a big deal of the social issues. He was all upset that Scozzafava was pro-gay marriage, seemingly as upset as he was with her support for the stimulus plan.
The majority of Americans are conservative — not just on matters of fiscal policy, but also on many social issues. After all, in the last presidential campaign Barack Obama himself said he was against gay marriage. And increasingly — in part due to advances in ultrasound technology — Americans are moving farther from the pro-choice position, especially when late-term abortions are the issue. Earlier this year, Gallup found a majority of U.S. adults identifying themselves as pro-life for the first time since they began asking the question in 1995.
The problem was not that the positions held by Hoffman were too extreme or too socially conservative. However, there may have been a problem with the emphasis put on those issues.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating in this light. The Culture War is the long war. You have to focus on the here and now. However, one must always seize one’s chances to advance the longer agenda.
When we are successful in the short term, it’ll make people take another look at the long term, because we’ll have the credibility.
So, yes, in this climate, we put it down the list of priorities, but we must still talk about it. At least I want to hear a candidate express his views, because I can more readily trust a socon to be a true fiscon, than a fiscon alone, although not always (see Huckabee). Too often, a fiscon thinks he is a fiscon, but the rest of his agenda usually means more spending. Like McCain supporting cap-and-trade during the campaign. Oh, yeah, now he opposes it. Opportunistic bastard, always trying to be one of the cool kids.
NY23 was a strange case.
We must gear up inside roar,shining Our light within just one year time to renew GOP grassroots
Excellent insights, very well written.
Bravo!
I believe you are spot on in regards to the importance of jobs, prosperity and smaller fiscally responsible government why they are the driving force in the recent election results. My self as a “Conservative” place high value on these tenets. If you have Liberty, self determination and prosperity the other issues have a way of working out in the positive. It is one aspect of our Republic and why this form of government works. And works very well.
May be simplistic perspective, but I’m a simple working stiff and that is why I agree with your assesment.
God bless you. Please keep up the great writing.
Could it be that voters are fed up with creeps, but not enough so that they’ll accept a fire-sale dud?
I agree with Roger Simon. While it is important to know the views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. it is more important to the man or woman without a job right now to know they are going to be voting for someone who is interested in helping get the job market back on track. And of course, local issues are important to voters. I just hope the Republicans use their common sense in the coming years and not sink us at the dock with another election like the one that put Obama in the White House.
“Will making spending and budget issues paramount — rather than abortion and gay marriage — bring Republicans back at the polls?”
Geez — You Think ?
And with all due respect to Mr.Malone the LESS I hear about someone’s PERSONAL outlook, the better.
The State should keep out of my bedroom and my wallet as much as is possible. While I can actually welcome some specific State intrusion where the private sector is failing and the social good is suffering, I can never welcome some busybody telling me what to do because he/she has a bee in his/her personal bonnet.
Live your life as you feel to be right and BUTT OUT of mine.
Fiscal Conservatism is a public gesture ; social conservatism MUST remain a private affair.
If social conservatism is the problem, why did McDonnell win the governor’s seat in Virginia even after his “extreme” views from his thesis were pounded into the electorate’s soul? Why did the ostensibly “progressive” state of Maine vote 53% against gay-marriage? Hoffman lost because of the contorted nature of the race. If he had been the Republican nominee from the beginning, he would be the congressman-elect. What they now try to label “Social Conservatism” was not too long ago referred to simply as common decency. As Marc Malone said, it’s the long war and it’s worth fighting.
I think this is a good analysis. Don’t back away or compromise on the social conservative side, *briefly* tick all the boxes, but then spend the bulk of the time on the things that have the biggest impact on people’s daily lives. Otherwise you can end up looking out of touch and more like a single-issue pressure group than a political party.
RINOs say the problem is social conservatism because they’re so hen-pecked by the media but if there is a problem i think it’s much more to do with time allocation than the beliefs themselves.
We have 2 generally unmovable groups in the conservatives and the liberals. The libs are of a mindset – “there has to be a better way”. They don’t know what this better way is but know that it involves class warfare.
Conservatives are more in tune with the things that truly drive this Country’s strengths and are comfortable with the concept of laissez-faire market management, capitalism, meritocracy and limited government.
The independents are neither political junkies nor ideologues. They don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they want but they know when they don’t like what they have. Being without keel or rudder, they are blown here and there by the reality of the moment. If Obama and company continue their destructive policies, the pain will continue to intensify and the flotilla of the independents will find them selves in the “anything but Obama” column – unfortunately, without really knowing why.
We need to establish an honest, structured source of funding. I sent a modest check to Hoffman.
Next year, many of us will support honest candidates who don’t wish to destroy our country but who live in other states and districts.
My checks will (always) be modest but if enough of us send one we can get rid of some of the Pelosi crooks.
But, we should also have a central source, to which small contributions can be mad, that has the knowledge to use the pool of money with the greatest leverage. The Republican National Committee used to be able to fill this need but, today, simply can’t be trusted.
Every Congressional democrat, black or white, who votes with Pelosi this weekend should know that there are millions of Americans, from all over the country, who will fund efforts in that Congressman’s home district to help him/her switch careers in 2010!
Bill said “why did McDonnell win the governor’s seat in Virginia even after his “extreme” views from his thesis were pounded into the electorate’s soul?”
Easy. McDonnell campaigned on fiscal solutions. Even those who disagree strongly with his social views (like me, although I’m not in VA) were comforted by the fact that he said he’d moved beyond them, it was 20 years ago, he has 50% senior female staff. And he had specific fiscal gameplans.
Hoffman ran more as the anti-Dede, but didn’t put the practical meat on the bone that McDonnell did regarding how he would be a quantitative fiscal improvement. Solid free-market supporters went Hoffman anyway, but he didn’t articulate enough of a practical distinction for independents, the way McDonnell did.
Voters are making their views known in the ballot boxes re: social conservative issues; our candidates don’t need to worry about them. Instead, they should be doing just as you say: pushing for fiscal restraint, free market economy ideals, and jobs jobs jobs. Let the libs get hysterical about the social issues instead – which they will if our candidates just smile and refuse to discuss them. Ever try to argue with someone who won’t argue?
6. Defending the life and liberty of the defenseless is not having a bee in one’s bonnet. Child sacrifice is such a heinous act that anyone who tolerates its existence should be shunned from polite company. I oppose anti-sodomy laws outside of the military because what two consenting adults do in private is their own business, but gay marriage goes beyond that to asking me to endorse this behavior, and that I cannot tolerate.
I am so sick of this kind of advice. Opposing gay marriage is a winner for the GOP because gay marriage is VERY UNPOPULAR. What is so hard to understand about this?
It would be a betrayal of conservatism to neglect social issues. If all you are is an economic conservative, then you aren’t a real conservative, you are a libertarian.
Social issues are winners. Every time there has been a vote on gay marriage it’s been defeated. Conservatives need to make an Equal case for Social and Economic issues. That is the Only way to Win.
Has it occurred to anybody that in NY23 the more physically attractive candidate won? Owens displayed confidence and looked much better on TV than his opponent and with voters, especially with young, that could be the decisive factor.
The only reason to put up with a social conservative that wants to legislate matters of my bedroom is if they can manage to cut spending and lower taxes.
Modern republicans have shown their zeal in getting involved in my bedroom and raising taxes and adding spending as a way to do it. In other words, they welched on the deal.
Who knows if Hoffman would have walked the fiscally conservative walk like he talked it. Personally I’m tired of all these “small government” conservatives who can’t resist the urge to use the oppressive power of government to shove their social views down my throat. Its one thing to have social views that you think are right; its another thing to go shoving them down everyone else’s throat with the power of the federal government.
I’m sick and tired of hearing conservatives whine about how this or that bill funds abortions instead of abstinence education. A principled position would be to get the government the hell out of the whole deal and advocate your social position privately. But no, the conservatives are just as bad as the liberals — once they get in charge they start using the power of the purse to shove their views down everyone else’s throats.
Get the government out of it and put the people back in charge, or go suck eggs.
I’m stillstruck
on how this continues to be an argument. Hoffman was endorsed by the Club for Growth, who are
free market conservatives,
He campaigned on the failure
of the stimulus
and the up
coming health careleviathan, and cap n trade. If there was a failing by some lights, it was in not focusing on those local issues so much.
But if your currency is debauched and your economy kneecapped, the local bypass between Watertown and Plattsburgh will be redundant
“Defending the life and liberty of the defenseless is not having a bee in one’s bonnet.”
“Opposing gay marriage is a winner for the GOP because gay marriage is VERY UNPOPULAR.”
“It would be a betrayal of conservatism to neglect social issues.”
It’s not the issues it’s the emphasis.
The media will try and paint socially conservative candidates as *solely* social conservatives – that’s the point. Tick the social conservative boxes briefly and then move on to talk about the economy – candidates need to avoid being pinned down as one dimensional.
The media lies about Hasan’s background and motivation, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/take_look_at_hasan_old_mosque_tqVGxjbLxWz8SV5tnpmV2N,
about the FCCER which is effectively the death panel,in the stimulus bill, about the damage that cap n trade will cause, and they lied about
this campaign.
Their purpose
was obtained to get a yes
vote for this
detestable plan
#6 DougF and #17 Richard: Well said.
#15 Roger “Social issues are winners…..” Maybe in your state. As I have posted elsewhere, the social values/anti gay rights/anti abortion faction has controlled the Republican party here in Colorado in recent years. They write the party platforms and have worked hard to purge out those who don’t share their religious views.
Since 2004, thanks in large part to the heavy handed and inept leadership from the social values group, Republicans have lost the governorship, a Senate seat, two House seats, and control of both houses of the state legislature for the first time in over 40 years. It’s bad enough that the Dems, by keeping their radical lefties under control, have positioned themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.
In 2008, the social values crew, led by Focus on the Family, tried to amend the state constitution to declare a fertilized egg as a “person,” with all rights thereon. The initiative failed by a 27% to 73% margin. Yes, Colorado has a law banning gay marriage. But in general, social issues only candidates do not do well here.