Wakeup call to modern conservatives: To win elections, you must provide a credible social justice agenda

[yllus]

Tories advised to grab social policy

Yesterday, Baron Tebbit's successor as MP for the London riding of Chingford, Iain Duncan Smith, was in Ottawa to repeat a message he delivered to a Republican audience in Washington earlier in the week -- namely, that to win elections, modern conservative movements must have a credible social justice agenda that provides an alternative to the traditional left-wing response of throwing money at the problem.

He remains a backbench MP but also heads up a conservative think-tank, the Centre for Social Justice, which he established five years ago.

The CSJ's ideas have been adopted by both Gordon Brown's Labour government and David Cameron's Conservative Party.

For example, its recommendation to increase alcohol prices through taxation to reduce binge drinking was introduced by the Labour government last year.

Mr. Cameron has endorsed more than 50 of the centre's policy recommendations, including the introduction of financial education into the high school curriculum to help tackle personal debt and more flexible hours for working parents to combat family breakdown.

In an interview yesterday, IDS, as he is frequently known, described how he set out to change the perception of his party when it came to issues such as social breakdown. "This is not to be woolly or soft but there is a growing level of social breakdown and dysfunctionality and it drives greater spending and bigger government. A lot of our problems such as burgeoning levels of tax and expenditure, higher levels of crime, gang problems and so on, all start from pretty much the same area," he said.

"In emphasizing social policy, we are rediscovering the conservatism of Edmund Burke," he told his audience in Washington this week. "There will be no sustainable reduction in the size of the state if civil society doesn't become stronger -- nurturing more self-sufficient, vigorous citizens."

Mr. Duncan Smith takes issue with the strategies adopted by centre-left parties such as Britain's Labour. "I think Labour has completely failed in this area. The difference between us is that Labour talks about money and I talk about structure," he said. Lack of money is only a symptom. "If you deal only with the absence of money, all you ever do is pick up the pieces. You never get ahead of the problem. You need to deal with lifestyles," he said.

The Centre for Social Justice has concentrated on family breakdown, personal debt, drug and alcohol abuse, failed education and worklessness and dependency. "We're trying to resolve the ills of society by aiming at the causes rather than the symptoms," he said.

Most polls in the United Kingdom show the Conservatives with a double-digit lead over Labour. Mr. Duncan Smith said the party's success is largely attributable to British voters re-evaluating the Tories.

After losing government in 1997, the Conservatives were perceived as having a very narrow range of interests -- the economy, immigration and Europe.

"You cannot win an election if people think that's all you are about -- they don't vote for single-issue parties," said Mr. Duncan Smith.

The popularized image of conservative social policy does seem to simply be, "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!" If that ever worked as a policy once, it doesn't today. At the same time, it's also demonstrable that traditional, "liberal-owned" policies of social justice/welfare are a failure as well. Is that because we currently attempt to address the symptoms instead of the cause? Mr. Smith seems to think so, and the British political dynamic seems to be leaning his way lately.

So what do you guys think? I think there's room in the conservative political agenda for social policy that goes beyond abhorring the coddling of minorities and the poor. The idea of mandatory fiscal management classes in high school definitely appeals. The core idea of using government resources to create self-sufficient citizens is an intelligent one.

 

[dphantom]

A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. But the problem of the last 8 years was the abondonment of many conser vative core principles. Now, conservatives have no voice to lead us and I am not sure when or where that next conservative leader will come from.

There is room in the conservative movement for many flavors of conservatives. We do not need to pander to minorities or special interest groups to gain their votes. Rather, we need to clearly articulate our positions and show how they are the bet for most people. That will take people who are in the middle and bring them into a conservative party, much like Reagan was able to bring blue collar democrats into a coalition that allowed him to put the country back on the path of prosperity.

By being clear about what we stand for, we have no need to "move to the center" as that is a guaranteed losing proposition. Instead, we bring the people to us.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dphantom
By being clear about what we stand for, we have no need to "move to the center" as that is a guaranteed losing proposition. Instead, we bring the people to us.

I don't believe there is a need to give up anything essentially conservative in order to articulate more popular social policy. Engaging government in programs and policies that will address long standing issues like fiscal mismanagement and alcohol/drug abuse isn't a quintessentially liberal cause - every citizen needs a solid education to base their decisions upon.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

A clearly articulated conservative position need not include any religion affiliation.

 

[Lemon law]

I think yllus is on to something, but the "conservative GOP" has learned the wrong message since the start of the Reagan administration. Ole Reagan may have promised a conservative fiscal policy, but in fact he spent spent spent even faster than the most fiscally irresponsible democrat while paying for it by putting it on the national credit card. It may have been popular with voters, but when GHB tried to duplicate it, mother Hubbard's Cupboard had run out of money, and GHB had to say read my lips, gotta raise taxes and quit spending like a drunken sailor. Clinton continued those policies, and the economy finally started recovering. Just in time for GWB to repeat the Reagan policies and spend spend spend on needless wars, a huge medicare expansion, and now due to killing all government regulation, we have a banking crisis far worse than the S&L bailout Reagan basically caused when he relaxed regulation.

Now we are in a much deeper hole, and have to spend more to bail out banks and stimulate the economy GWB&co basically wrecked. One day the rest of the world will wise up, quit lending us money, and our free ride will end. Meanwhile we care not a wit that we are spending our children's future to permit our living high on the hog.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

You're falling into the typical liberal trap of making assumptions over what a social conservative is. I mentioned nothing about religion and religion is not what epitomizes a social conservative.

As I said, there are many flavors of conservatism and the key to conservatives regaining their voice is the ability to clearly articulate a set of policies and practices that the majority of people can - in general - agree to.

This is absolutely the antithesis of "moving to the center" and catering to special groups. There is no need for that if the argument offered is compelling. We conservatives need to regain that compelling argument once again and the people will move to us.

 

[OrByte]

There is no social platform that appeals to the moderates or independents that could help grow the GOP.

This is a fantasy. As soon as you introduce social issues you have to deal with the Haggertys and other Christian whackos of the far right.

That means a move to the fringe, not the middle.

Abandon social issues, focus on fiscal conservatism, and continue to be the obstructionist party. Eventually the Ds will overplay their hand (spending) and the pendulum will swing back to the GOP.

rinse/wash/repeat

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

You're falling into the typical liberal trap of making assumptions over what a social conservative is. I mentioned nothing about religion and religion is not what epitomizes a social conservative.

As I said, there are many flavors of conservatism and the key to conservatives regaining their voice is the ability to clearly articulate a set of policies and practices that the majority of people can - in general - agree to.

This is absolutely the antithesis of "moving to the center" and catering to special groups. There is no need for that if the argument offered is compelling. We conservatives need to regain that compelling argument once again and the people will move to us.

Dream on, Fiscal Conservatism is appealing to many where as Social Conservatism isn't. Besides even Social Conservatives find it hard to live up to the standards they set.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Actually thats backwards. Historically, the USA has been religiously aligned. Policies and laws were once firmly rooted in Judeo Christian values. It used to be that politicians and voters in general were largely religious. The left wing block of voters has become secular at a rapid pace. The truth of the matter is that the left is dis-aligning itself with the religious groups in America because each day, by definition, a leftist liberal is more and more secular.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

A clearly articulated conservative position need not include any religion affiliation.

Bullpuckey.

Unless you abandon the social platform. Good luck with that.

 

[jpeyton]

I'm perfectly happy with them losing elections, so I'm not sure this is a good idea.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Actually thats backwards. Historically, the USA has been religiously aligned. Policies and laws were once firmly rooted in Judeo Christian values. It used to be that politicians and voters in general were largely religious. The left wing block of voters has become secular at a rapid pace. The truth of the matter is that the left is dis-aligning itself with the religious groups in America because each day, by definition, a leftist liberal is more and more secular.

You are right. Historically the USA has been religiously aligned.

I don't think that is the case anymore.

Do you think the GOP should attempt to appeal to the religious in order to win elections?

This has nothing to do with "left wing block of voters" This has everything to do with the moderates and independents that voted D instead of R this last go around. I don't think appealing to those voters on social issues is going to be the right strategy. But what the hell do I know...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Actually thats backwards. Historically, the USA has been religiously aligned. Policies and laws were once firmly rooted in Judeo Christian values. It used to be that politicians and voters in general were largely religious. The left wing block of voters has become secular at a rapid pace. The truth of the matter is that the left is dis-aligning itself with the religious groups in America because each day, by definition, a leftist liberal is more and more secular.

You are right. Historically the USA has been religiously aligned.

I don't think that is the case anymore.

Do you think the GOP should attempt to appeal to the religious in order to win elections?

This has nothing to do with "left wing block of voters" This has everything to do with the moderates and independents that voted D instead of R this last go around. I don't think appealing to those voters on social issues is going to be the right strategy. But what the hell do I know...

A lot more than some Young Earth Fundie Social Conservative Wingnut.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

You're falling into the typical liberal trap of making assumptions over what a social conservative is. I mentioned nothing about religion and religion is not what epitomizes a social conservative.

As I said, there are many flavors of conservatism and the key to conservatives regaining their voice is the ability to clearly articulate a set of policies and practices that the majority of people can - in general - agree to.

This is absolutely the antithesis of "moving to the center" and catering to special groups. There is no need for that if the argument offered is compelling. We conservatives need to regain that compelling argument once again and the people will move to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, what dphantom is falling into is the Rush Limbaugh trap of defining what a social conservative is. First Limbaugh is happier than a pig in shit when GWB is running things, uttering hardly a peep about the stupid spending excesses, and then when the policies he advocated flop flatter than a pancake, he later comes back and says that is not what a "TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE IS."

No matter how you cut it, its self serving hypocrisy. Nothing more and nothing less. Not only an argument that is a dollar late and a dollar short, its about 5 trillion dollars short and way too late. And to add injury to insult, Limbaugh still thinks Reagan was the greatest President ever, when he started this whole spend and borrow policy on steroids in the first place.

 

[MovingTarget]

From Wikipedia:

Social Justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society.

The "Conservative" party over on our side of the pond (i.e. Republicans) could use a few planks on thier platform like this.

Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity.

Whilst modern R's either ignore some of these concepts or see them as Kryptonite, they do need to address these issues. Here in the US, property redistribution and/or direct income redistribution are anathema to our system of government. However, progressive taxation is compatible, despite cries of OMGSOCIALIST!, which are patently false. Whether the R's want to admit it or not, the average person has been getting the shorter end of the societal stick so to speak for some time... If they do not address that, they will be out of power for quite a while...

 

[Fear No Evil]

There has been a Republican in the white house for about 20 of the past 30 years. Yet we keep hearing about how its dead and will never recover. Seems like they are doing SOMETHING right to keep getting elected. If Obama keeps going down the path he is, he will probably help push the Republicans back to the right. McCain was a moderate, and failed to get elected. If the party moves more to the left they will become democrats. I think a true fiscal conservative with moderate social leanings would be ideal.

But, it is always funny how the left always seems to want to give advice for how the Republicans need to act. Isn't that counter productive? Wouldn't you want the Republicans to be as unpopular as possible so democrats always win?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Any more a joke than Obama and the democrats being controlled by Nancy Pelosi?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
From Wikipedia:

Social Justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society.

The "Conservative" party over on our side of the pond (i.e. Republicans) could use a few planks on thier platform like this.

Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity.

Whilst modern R's either ignore some of these concepts or see them as Kryptonite, they do need to address these issues. Here in the US, property redistribution and/or direct income redistribution are anathema to our system of government. However, progressive taxation is compatible, despite cries of OMGSOCIALIST!, which are patently false. Whether the R's want to admit it or not, the average person has been getting the shorter end of the societal stick so to speak for some time... If they do not address that, they will be out of power for quite a while...

Another thing to consider: the conservatives across the pond in UK are further to the left of many of our domestic democrats. It's not an oranges to oranges comparison.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Wouldn't you want the Republicans to be as unpopular as possible so democrats always win?

No.

We don't need one party in power all the time.

our country needs the pendulum to keep swinging.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

Actually thats backwards. Historically, the USA has been religiously aligned.

nope

Policies and laws were once firmly rooted in Judeo Christian values.

nope

It used to be that politicians and voters in general were largely religious. The left wing block of voters has become secular at a rapid pace. The truth of the matter is that the left is dis-aligning itself with the religious groups in America because each day, by definition, a leftist liberal is more and more secular.

secularism is a good thing.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think yllus is on to something, but the "conservative GOP" has learned the wrong message since the start of the Reagan administration. Ole Reagan may have promised a conservative fiscal policy, but in fact he spent spent spent even faster than the most fiscally irresponsible democrat while paying for it by putting it on the national credit card. It may have been popular with voters, but when GHB tried to duplicate it, mother Hubbard's Cupboard had run out of money, and GHB had to say read my lips, gotta raise taxes and quit spending like a drunken sailor. Clinton continued those policies, and the economy finally started recovering. Just in time for GWB to repeat the Reagan policies and spend spend spend on needless wars, a huge medicare expansion, and now due to killing all government regulation, we have a banking crisis far worse than the S&L bailout Reagan basically caused when he relaxed regulation.

Now we are in a much deeper hole, and have to spend more to bail out banks and stimulate the economy GWB&co basically wrecked. One day the rest of the world will wise up, quit lending us money, and our free ride will end. Meanwhile we care not a wit that we are spending our children's future to permit our living high on the hog.

Maybe a "new amendment" in the US constitution on financial regulation is required, one that smooths out the irradic cycle to economy. Natural disaster is impossible to avoid, but those that are created by certain sectors in our society, basically to financially rape the lower classes, should have governmental mechanisms set in stone- beyond the reach of political manipulation. Same for the wellbeing of the environment.
All for one and none for all?
Here in Australia we were slightly luckier then the USA&UK, our politicians on both sides of the spectrum did not drop regulations on borrowing and have sound laws regarding bankruptcy.
But the conservative side has a nasty habit of selling off public assets which not only service the community, but returned a modest dividend to fund the future upgrades to those services and provide a stable base to employment and skills training, underpinning the economy to some extent. We were sold the free market doctrine here, but all we saw of it was lower wages growth (which against the CPI is an affective lowering of the standard of living) and the disablement of private sector unions, whilst the profits of multi-national corporations and their power to manipulate law and finance grew.
Even on the government side, we saw Tax bracket creep, new taxes like GST and the regulation of small business- regulations which basically made it necessary to have a comprehensive office staff and legal teams, creating overheads, forcing those operators to come under the wing of big business as contractors! Instead of standards enforcement at delivery level- consumer protection.
Undermining standards of living and the economy at ground zero, to almost a point of defacto slavery, it's high time these things are fixed, for once and for All.
Now if our economies in good shape look like a equilateral pyramid (not an Eiffel tower), it should have a granite coating of law to protect it from the erosive affects of multi-national corporate Fascism and their manipulation of our democratic systems. Law needs to be about intent like it was once upon a time, not technicality and ubiquity.
Rant over'

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dphantom
A clearly articulated conservative position, both fiscal and social will attract a solid majority. .

Wrong, in fact that's one of the reasons the Republican party is such a joke, it aligned itself with the Religious Right who tells everybody what's socially right and wrong.

You're falling into the typical liberal trap of making assumptions over what a social conservative is. I mentioned nothing about religion and religion is not what epitomizes a social conservative.

As I said, there are many flavors of conservatism and the key to conservatives regaining their voice is the ability to clearly articulate a set of policies and practices that the majority of people can - in general - agree to.

This is absolutely the antithesis of "moving to the center" and catering to special groups. There is no need for that if the argument offered is compelling. We conservatives need to regain that compelling argument once again and the people will move to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, what dphantom is falling into is the Rush Limbaugh trap of defining what a social conservative is. First Limbaugh is happier than a pig in shit when GWB is running things, uttering hardly a peep about the stupid spending excesses, and then when the policies he advocated flop flatter than a pancake, he later comes back and says that is not what a "TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE IS."

No matter how you cut it, its self serving hypocrisy. Nothing more and nothing less. Not only an argument that is a dollar late and a dollar short, its about 5 trillion dollars short and way too late. And to add injury to insult, Limbaugh still thinks Reagan was the greatest President ever, when he started this whole spend and borrow policy on steroids in the first place.

As usual, you are completely wrong. First, some conservatives were not happy with GWB and many of his policies. Most, though saw the alternatives of Gore/Kerry as worse.

Second, I do not know what a "true conservative" - your words, not mine - really is. I think there are various forms of social conservatism with the underlying theme being some recognition of a common moral and ethical framework within which to live.

It is the articulation of a framework that people can come together and generally agree on while knowing that some people will not always be in complete lockstep with all the philosophical points. Rather, it is the knowledge that people have enough in common that they can move forward under a set of guidelines that chart a clear path to some outcome.

Much like marriage, most couples rarely agree 100% of the time. So it is with conservatives. It is the strength of our movement provided we have a clear voice that can lead us.

 

[n yusef]

How can conservatives be for social justice when they're against gay rights, against women's rights, against any discussion of priveledge whatsoever?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: n yusef
How can conservatives be for social justice when they're against gay rights, against women's rights, against any discussion of priveledge whatsoever?

We have many other threads about gay rights/marriage, so I don't want to discuss it here.

But what are you referring to when you say conservatives (1) are against women's rights', and (2) "against any discussion of priveledge whatsoever?"

Fern