The Future of the Right

Bush has been very pro-homophile, so he cannot be considered socially conservative.

I still think it  would  be better to divide the right according to

1. socially conservative.

2. economically conservative.

3. defense conservative.

i would say, that the defense conservatives are on top right now, with the economic conservatives second and the social conservatives a distant third.

Though of course most people are a combination of these, with varying degrees.

But that's just my opinion.

While not all I've noticed some Goldwater Republicans show distain towards Bush/Huckabee Republicans, especially evangelicals. That attitude was reciprocated and best illustrated with Huckabee's "Club for Greed" quip.

Such a lack of respect by all guilty parties won't maintain a winning coalition.

Now living in Washington, D.C. I've noticed a higher concentration of libertarian Republicans. Being in D.C. they're more apt to being in leadership and message-creating roles. Social conservatives feel alienated. We need to get these groups talk to each other more to find common ground.

I suppose you could count me among the "Progressive Republicans".  Though, as you clearly allow, there's a great degree of overlap among the various categories.

What I want in a president is someone who can do Great Things, but isn't necessarily inclined to do them.  I think McCain has the blessing of the former and the curse of the latter.  But, I'm willing to risk his propensity for doing more than he should (global warming, league of democracies) in exchange for his ability and determination to do what he must (fight the war on terror). 

It's possible to roll back regulations.  It's impossible to un-lose a war.

Your know, the Eisenhower style Republicans--disinterested in social issues but hostile to budget deficits and corruption?

They may never be moving forces of the "Right", but if we defines them as part of the "Left" we are going to leave a huge hill to climb in the Blue States

I don't fit neatly into any of your categories but I will say that anyone who doesn't care about limiting government should not define themself as Republican. If there is animosity toward Huckabee followers perhaps that is part of the reason.

The rest of the reason may well be that social issues do not fall under the duties assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. Taking it a step further, with the exception of his positions on social issues, Huckabee may as well be a Democrat. He would certainly push social programs at the federal level and finance them with taxpayer dollars.

I want Republicans on the federal level to reduce the size of government and spending. I want them to defend the country, including its borders, fulfill their constitutional responsibilities and leave much of everything else alone.

On the state and local levels legislative responsibilities do expand to include whatever concerns the people, including things such as public education.

I don't consider myself a crusader or Rockefeller Republican although I'm not adverse to creating conditions where a little democracy can begin to flourish in a dark cave.

As far as a prediction as to which group will lead the party next I believe it will depend on which group can put forward a strong leader. We are so splintered that it will take someone with a very strong personality and some elements of each of the groups to pull us back together. With the right person, or coalition, that could happen very quickly but McCain cannot do it.

I'm kind of surprised you couldn't find a category for Reagan Republicans.  I've described them as follows:

Reagan Republicans - like the Goldwater Republicans, are for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense AND conservative policies on social issues coupled with lower taxes.

Illustrative Quote: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price." - President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981

That's where you'll find me, and that's why it will be nearly impossible for me to support John McCain in November.

I don't think that Bush, or Bush Republicans, are actually very socially conservative. They may be Christian, which is a very different matter. Jimmy Carter is a Christian.

Goldwater Republicans - These Republicans vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense

I'm hard pressed to think of who these people are.  The nearest I can come up with are people like Tancredo and Sessions - social conservatives who vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense.

1. Status Quo Republicans: Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Hastert, Adam Putnam, Romney are garbage. These are the K-Street crowd that had us expand government and wasteful spending while protecting the Mark Foley's and other losers of the world.

1a. Huckabee will never succeed in this party or for us nationally, nice guy, but when you stink on 2 of the 3 issues: fiscal and defense policy, you are going nowhere. The country is not like Arkansas.

2. The hardline defense thing is something every Republican agrees on, without question.

3. A strong governing party uses it's core beliefs to answer the challenges of the day. You have to look at the issues facing our country, and say this is how we solve the problems. Right now there are a lot of major issues facing our country, and as someone said yesterday this loooks to be a civic generation, meaning it's like a T-Roosevelt/McCain model is our best chance to not get McGovernized-i.e. shut out of power for a generation.

4. For the editors I think you need to add a poster rating system.

Whichever of those ideological groups you adhere to, the essential tidal problem is demographic.

Republican victories have been based on the votes of married white Christians. (Forget age, income, and gender.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_incredible_shrinki...

That demographic is declining precipitiously; it's now below 50% of voters.

Can Republican policy positions and values succeed (strongly, in aggregate) outside that group? Which positions and values?

Putting together the positions and values that can gain widespread support from those outside that group, can it still be called a Republican platform?

In the long term, another telling statistic: less than 50% of Americans under age five are white.

Look, haven't we fiscal conservatives learned yet the Republican Party and the Status Quo Republicans, which includes John McCain, aren't about to limit government, aren't about to lower spending, aren't about to protect our borders, aren't about to shift power back to the state and to the people from the federal government?.

Haven't we fiscal conservatives learned that unless we curtail spending,  our conservatives values cannot be accomplished regardless of who we elect as president?

We need to stop printing money beyond our gold reserves without the peoples' consent.

Stop taxing wages. Implement a Fair Flat tax on corporate profits, no more than 10%.

As long as we elect political leaders who don't act to cut off the flow of money into government coffers in he first place, nothing will change, nothing can change. We are just fooling ourselves and our liberal, democratic friends

ex animo

davidfarrar