• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues to concentrate on our fiscal crisis

The_Penguin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
808
Reaction score
205
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
-snip-

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he’s attended for 50 years.

-snip-
Hot Air
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,555
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues to concentrate on our fiscal cr

It's nice in theory, but unfortunately it's not plausible. I think (though i dislike him often) Ramesh Pomnuru has a good summation of this:

...Truces are usually popular, and most people see the economic issues as more important than the social ones at this moment. But I'm not sure how a truce would work. If Justice Kennedy retired on President Daniels's watch, for example, he would have to pick someone as a replacement. End of truce.

I also can't help but think of Phil Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996. Like Daniels, Gramm was an enthusiastic budget-cutter. Concern about big government was running strong in the years just prior to that election. Gramm had a solid social-conservative record, but consciously chose not to campaign on it; he famously flew out to Colorado Springs to tell James Dobson, "I'm not a preacher." That approach helped to doom Gramm's campaign.

Daniels, presumably, won't be trying to unite conservatives against the party establishment's candidate, as Gramm was, and so these issues will play out differently next time. But I am not at all sure that the party's grassroots will be less interested in social issues in 2012 than it was in 1996....



you lose the social conservatives, you lose the party. It would have to be someone that side of the fence really trusts; they've been burned a couple of times now. Given that social conservatism is also very popular; i'm thinking the next Republican candidate will need to understand how social conservatism leads to fiscal conservatism and dedication to limited government.
 
Last edited:

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues to concentrate on our fiscal cr

In principle I would agree that social issues should be tabled to deal with economic issues, but such a truce simply isn't going to happen. Election winning is the current MO for all our politicians, and there is no gain by such a move.
 

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues to concentrate on our fiscal cr

Translation: We want those who dont want the jackboot of government legislation of morality to shut the **** up and just give us your votes.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues to concentrate on our fiscal cr

you lose the social conservatives, you lose the party. It would have to be someone that side of the fence really trusts; they've been burned a couple of times now. Given that social conservatism is also very popular; i'm thinking the next Republican candidate will need to understand how social conservatism leads to fiscal conservatism and dedication to limited government.
Come again? Pandering to the Social Conservatives alienates the small government side. Social Conservativism is antithetical to small government conservativism. Social Conservative when it gains power expands the government to enforce a social moral code. You cannot shrink the government's role in our lives with a strong social conservative movement. Social Conservatism does not lead to fiscal conservative or limited government.

Pander to the social cons and you lose other parts of the party.

And what on EARTH makes you think Social Conservatism is popular?
 
Top Bottom