Why should the President abandon social conservatives, when majorities are with them on gay marriage and unfettered access to abortion on demand?
For one thing, the President IS a social conservative, and it's never a good thing for politicians to abandon their principles on those rare occasions when they seem to have some. For another, it's never good to abandon majorities if one is trying to win elections.
Ah, yes, but if he did abandon them, where else would they go? Vote for Nader? Vote for Kerry? Those goofs at the Natural Law and Constitution Parties? The social conservatives would still vote for him.
But the libertarians he has abandoned DO have other places to go -- the LP, for one. Some even advocate going for Kerry, on the theory that gridlock is better than what we have now.
Bush's social conservative support is a given. His libertarian support is not. Therefore, it would make sense to do a little kissing up to the libertarian wing.
I'd have to agree with Kevin here even though I strongly disagree with Bush on one of the two subjects that he mentions. Playing politics with his core beliefs while abandoning his base is poor politics and would be exposed for exactly what it is. While I'd appreciate a more libertarian president, from a political standpoint every libertarian vote he loses he'll pick up a "socially concerned" moderate vote (which contrary to popular belief, I don't believe to be economically conservative and socially liberal) and he'll make sure that his based is riled up.
It's one thing to hedge his views when they are politically unpopular, but another thing entirely to base his policies on narrow target groups. I think most would agree that Bush would prefer an America where abortion was not legal at all, but he's wisely focused on the aspects of it (late-term, etc.) where he has the public's support (and I say that as someone that is pro-life).
4 Comments:
Why should the President abandon social conservatives, when majorities are with them on gay marriage and unfettered access to abortion on demand?
For one thing, the President IS a social conservative, and it's never a good thing for politicians to abandon their principles on those rare occasions when they seem to have some. For another, it's never good to abandon majorities if one is trying to win elections.
Ah, yes, but if he did abandon them, where else would they go? Vote for Nader? Vote for Kerry? Those goofs at the Natural Law and Constitution Parties? The social conservatives would still vote for him.
But the libertarians he has abandoned DO have other places to go -- the LP, for one. Some even advocate going for Kerry, on the theory that gridlock is better than what we have now.
Bush's social conservative support is a given. His libertarian support is not. Therefore, it would make sense to do a little kissing up to the libertarian wing.
I'd have to agree with Kevin here even though I strongly disagree with Bush on one of the two subjects that he mentions. Playing politics with his core beliefs while abandoning his base is poor politics and would be exposed for exactly what it is. While I'd appreciate a more libertarian president, from a political standpoint every libertarian vote he loses he'll pick up a "socially concerned" moderate vote (which contrary to popular belief, I don't believe to be economically conservative and socially liberal) and he'll make sure that his based is riled up.
It's one thing to hedge his views when they are politically unpopular, but another thing entirely to base his policies on narrow target groups. I think most would agree that Bush would prefer an America where abortion was not legal at all, but he's wisely focused on the aspects of it (late-term, etc.) where he has the public's support (and I say that as someone that is pro-life).
Keen!
Post a Comment
<< Home