Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Progressive Republicans: Time for Red Dogs?

I read an interesting entry over at The Progressive Republican.

In the article, it talks about how the Blue Dog Democrats are the only real opposition to Obama's big plans, like health care, cap & trade, stimulus(es), federal budgets, etc.

What I like about Republicans as they prepare for 2010 is their ability to offer new ideas, to put alternatives on the table, to meet philosophical challenges head on with … oops, its the Blue Dog Democrats doing that. Where are the Republicans?

Its a great point. Where are the Republicans? Since Obama's inaugeration in January, the Republicans have not offered any real alternatives to Obama's plans; they have merely been blind opposition [read, whiners]. The Blue Dogs have been the only ones offering real solutions, alternatives (with real numbers, too!). What is going on?

The GOP is falling sharply in popularity these days (the latest studies indicate another 2 points dropped). Strange, since some studies also indicate the country is mostly conservative (thanks, Bluepitbull!)...

So just what is going on?

The GOP is killing itself by making everyone adhere to the party orthodoxy. Latest example: the eight GOPers who voted for cap & trade at the behest of their constituents are being asked to leave the party by other GOPers.

This happened to the Democrats, too. How did they survive? By getting more liberal and kicking out all who wouldn't toe the party core? No.

The Blue Dog Democrats, and the New Democrats, rose in to balance the party out. And now they run this country.

I blogged about this before, here, here, here, and here.

So this is what we need: Red Dog Republicans. Where the far-left Democrats were choking the fiscal conservative Democrats, the far-right is choking the social progressives within the Republican party. You want proof? The more the GOP swings to the right, going back to "Reagan", the more the party shrinks. The Conservative Bloggers keep talking about the party becoming more conservative, yet every time that has happened recently the party has grown smaller and loses more points. Could they be wrong? Could swinging to the right actually be the reason the GOP is shrinking?

Red Dogs:
  • Social Progressives (not necessarily liberal). Example: I'm pro-life, yet also pro-gay marriage.
  • Fiscal Conservative (not Reaganomics [voodoo economics], but truly fiscally conservative). Example: I'm not a fan of Obama's spending, but neither am I a fan of supply-side. I don't believe in trickle down; but neither do I believe in hand-outs.

Any others to add to the list? Anyone else want to be a Red Dog?


Anonymous said...

Red dog? Doesn't sound so bad. I've always considered myself conservative yet I vary issue by issue. They don't have a name for the likes of me, at least one that I will actually admit to. I find that the more I look, the more I find people that don't fit into a nice little corner labeled cons or lib. Maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

Lets see if I can give you an example.....

I am a Christian with values that go along with it, but I agree with the separation of church and state and I believe prostitution should be legalized.

Go figure.......

James' Muse said...

Exactly. I'm there too. I believe that certain things shouldn't be legislated. Example: gay marriage. I believe we should allow it by the state, but Churches shouldn't have to do it there. Most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin; therefore they should be able to do what they believe in their own doors (to a certain extent, of course).

James' Muse said...

I guess I don't think we should legislate morality, but societal processes. Morality should be governed by the Church. If they think something is a sin, they can excommunicate, rebuke, whatever.

But leave it out of the courts.

The reason I'm pro-life, however, is because there are lives at stake, and as a society we must protect our citizens, unborn or born.

TAO said...

The way I look at morality is very simple: If you have to legislate a value or a moral then your society has problems.

If you look at gun control for example; the issue is not really about guns its actually about people having no qualms about shooting other people...

If people have no qualms about killing others then guns are no longer the issue but rather respect for others and for life is the issue.

When you have to use the issue of gay marriage as a way to defend traditional marriages then obviously your divorce rate and your infiedilty rates are going through the roof...

I agree with James on the supply side economics and the Obama spending issue...doesn't seem to be that many people out there who will acknowledge that everyone has been using government to monkey with the economy for well over the last 20 years...and none of it was good for us in the long term...

bluepitbull said...

So...by that logic, we should have guns, but never use them. I am seeing even more of your lopsided logic than before.

bluepitbull said...

By the way, get ready for '94 again. Let's just hope they know how to handle it.

Anonymous said...

Actually it makes perfect sense to me (that's not always saying much though) :-)

We should be allowed to buy/own guns but should never have the need to use one. That is what we have to work on as a country, not the issue of gun control itself. (correct me if I am wrong TAO!)

I mean this in all honesty, what part of that is lopsided?

"doesn't seem to be that many people out there who will acknowledge that everyone has been using government to monkey with the economy for well over the last 20 years...and none of it was good for us in the long term.."

Oh, I recognize and condemn it. I don't have many answers but I do see the problem quite clearly!

Bluepitpull....I don't believe we have ever met, so I am just saying Hi! :-)

bluepitbull said...

OK, hi. Guns are for home and personal protection and there are many many state laws put into place for this.

Inevitably, someone will die because of handguns. People have the right to defend themselves and their property. The concept that we should never have to use them is absurd. We aren't exactly talking about a Minuteman missile here.

The minute gun rights go away, that puts us at the mercy of criminals who WILL have guns and at the mercy of the police force which in most places is underbudget and understaffed.

In Vallejo, CA, according to my sis who's a cop in Sacramento, they have cut 50% of their law enforcement and passed that jurisdiction to the Sheriff dept.

I understood what Tao meant and to an extent, I agree with it.

Sandy said...

James you are on a roll - another good one. Sign me up to be a red dog!

James' Muse said...

I think Tao was going with my not legislating morality point. I don't believe that morality should be the arena of congressmen but of the church.

Laws are for society's order. Nothing more.

Pamela D. Hart said...

James: You've made another good point. I'm thinking this "Red Dog" concept is a winner. There are issues where I'm very conservative then others where I'm liberal. This brings us back to the same issue of a 3rd party!

James' Muse said...

Pam: Exactly. The thing with a 3rd party is that we are so firmly entrenched in our two party system that a 3rd party just wouldn't be taken seriously.

But Blue Dogs and Red Dogs? If we could get the Red Dogs off the ground, then perhaps the two could merge into a true third party, and we could have three equal parties vying for the power, instead of two.