A winning strategy for the GOP Pt II: stop being bossy

Carol Mac commented on the "don't tread on me" post below:

I think I agree - but give a few examples, please.

I read a wide spectrum of blogs and news, etc. and I see the references to "issues", but often don't see them spelled out.

I'm a social conservative, but also very practical and generally very open minded. But as an example, I am pro-life and draw my line in the sand there. But, I think I’m willing for it to be a state issue. Could I vote for a pro-‘choice’ candidate? I suppose – depending on other issues. But it WOULD be painful.

And, where as Republicans or Libertarians do we draw the line at ascribing an issue to the state level? To me it seems we need to determine (and maybe that’s already common knowledge that I don’t know or understand) HOW an issue is categorized state or national level and then what those issues are.

All my liberal and/or Democrat friends say they are so for “personal liberty” issues. We use the same language. We need to do a better job of elaborating on details.

Maybe I’m crazy or dumb (or both ), but it seems the general populace of the GOP isn’t being given a real chance to be part of the discussion. I suppose these issues are discussed at the delegate level…

Carol, you do have to be involved in party politics - with time and money donated - to have influence but, even if we aren't active in the party, we can still influence those party animals whom we know personally. And we can sure talk among ourselves on the Net and refine our ideas.

There really is a Silent Majority made up of people in the middle of both parties and independents who are fairly conservative (but not ideological) commonsensical practical and open-minded. Recent poll:

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" and just 42 percent say they are "pro-choice," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

But a majority also don't want to overturn Roe v Wade probably because they don't want to be cruel and criminalize women who have abortions. It's a compromise. A live-and-let-live "libertarian" Republican abortion policy would be exactly that: a compromise. We can say in no uncertain terms that we do not like it one bit but still hesitate to be too judgemental and dogmatic. That's the practical middle-class American way. Don't make too many waves lest you upset the boat in which we are all traveling.

We can keep our right to life plank in the GOP platform but tone down the rhetoric. Be less strident and bossy. In the same way social conservatives can object to gay marriage and homosexuality but keep in mind that it is a free country and people are allowed to be wrong and sinful and well as righteous and virtuous. Civilized people do not impose or coerce; they tolerate differences.

Of course the problem is that Leftists, being self-righteous sanctimonious liberal fascists, are strident, uncompromising and coercive. It's hard to keep our cool when faced with their ideology. But we have to, in order to remain civilized adults and live up to our own standards.

You say:

To me it seems we need determine (and maybe that’s already common knowledge that I don’t know or understand) HOW an issue is categorized state or national level and then what those issues are.

In the same way that we may never be able to turn back the clock on abortion and homosexuality, we probably can't turn the clock back to the sort of government our Founders envisaged. But we can keep trying to do so. The Federal Government has only two jobs: to raise revenue to defend the nation and regulate interstate commerce. Everything else is the job of state, county and municipal governments. Obviously that's not the case nowadays but we can try to reverse some of the worst excesses of the Feds and try to prevent any more erosion of states' rights.

We may also never be able to turn back the clock on the welfare state but that does not mean that we cannot try. And we can keep pointing out the dangers of allowing government to be Big Daddy.

In the end it's mostly a matter of us sticking to our principles and communicating them cheerfully and sincerely. Truth expressed with cheerfulness, positivity, optimism and sincerity works much better than being strident, bossy, naggy and preachy. That's what I mean when I use the word "libertarian." I mean easy-going and live-and-let-live. And it has more to do with temperament and philosophy than policies.

We must stop being the bossy party and trust adult Americans to be free to make their own decisions.