Future of Social Moderates vs. Social Liberals

[PJ]

I've seen alot of posts where people think that if the GOP becomes socially moderate, they would appeal to Hispanics and the Socially liberal population of New England. Even if the GOP was socially moderate, the Democrats would still be socially liberal, and therefore be more appealing to these two groups. Please explain if you believe I'm wrong.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What's the difference?  I keep hearing people interchange the terms "socially moderate" and "socially liberal" when referring to politicians.

[PJ]

Example of social moderate: Yes on legalizing gay marriage . Compromises on immigration. No on legalizing marijuana for medical use or otherwise, no on legal abortions, no on banning semi-automatics, yes on background checks.

Example of Social Liberal: Yes on legalizing gay marriage, yes on pathway to citizenship, yes on marijuana for medical use, could be yes or no on marijuana for other use, yes on abortion remaining legal, yes on banning semi-automatics and requiring Universal Background Checks.

So basically, Mark Kirk or Joe Manchin vs Patrick Leahy or Richard Durbin.

[Person Man]

Example of social moderate: Yes on legalizing gay marriage . Compromises on immigration. No on legalizing marijuana for medical use or otherwise, no on legal abortions, no on banning semi-automatics, yes on background checks.

Example of Social Liberal: Yes on legalizing gay marriage, yes on pathway to citizenship, yes on marijuana for medical use, could be yes or no on marijuana for other use, yes on abortion remaining legal, yes on banning semi-automatics and requiring Universal Background Checks.

So basically, Mark Kirk or Joe Manchin vs Patrick Leahy or Richard Durbin.

I would agree except for perhaps they would be perhaps in favor of restricting abortion instead of overturning Roe v. Wade. I still think that wanting to overturn Roe is socially conservative.

In a way, social moderates are literally the true conservatives. They generally think that the consensus on the law is where it should be.

[TNF]

Today's social liberalism is tomorrow's social moderation. This is kind of how it works. The Republicans will eventually accept marriage equality and abortion rights, but it'll be a long time from now, and by that point, the Democrats will have already moved more to the left on whatever the social issues are of the day, assuming the Democrats remain the more progressive of the two parties, that is.

[Person Man]

 I think with marriage equality becoming a reasonable expectation of a modern society, I think that the culture wars will die down like they did in the 70s unless there's something new learned or invented that is interpreted as challenging the existence of God (They find a breathable atmosphere around an exoplanet or create very convincing Artificial Intelligence in the next 10 or 20 years)  or  Republicans see marijuana  as a new wedge issue or if Assisted Suicide becomes a new issue for Democrats to push. Of course, there's always abortion...but each side knows that if there's a major push on that issue, there will be a large backlash.

[DC Al Fine]

Today's social liberalism is tomorrow's social moderation. This is kind of how it works. The Republicans will eventually accept marriage equality and abortion rights, but it'll be a long time from now, and by that point, the Democrats will have already moved more to the left on whatever the social issues are of the day, assuming the Democrats remain the more progressive of the two parties, that is.

Gay right, I can understand, but why would you think that the abortion is inevitably going to be accepted?

[JQ]

Republicans are in desperate need of female votes if they are to remain a major party. Support for reproductive rights would incite major GOP win.

[Mechaman]

I think with marriage equality becoming a reasonable expectation of a modern society, I think that the culture wars will die down like they did in the 70s unless there's something new learned or invented that is interpreted as challenging the existence of God (They find a breathable atmosphere around an exoplanet or create very convincing Artificial Intelligence in the next 10 or 20 years)  or  Republicans see marijuana  as a new wedge issue or if Assisted Suicide becomes a new issue for Democrats to push. Of course, there's always abortion...but each side knows that if there's a major push on that issue, there will be a large backlash.

Possibly.

Human Cloning would be an interesting issue where you see an odd coalition of bible thumpers allying with granola eating Greenpeace members and the like against moral-less "Wall Street" hacks, corporatists, and moderate heroes.

[Person Man]

That could be an interesting coalition by the end of the century.

[TNF]

Today's social liberalism is tomorrow's social moderation. This is kind of how it works. The Republicans will eventually accept marriage equality and abortion rights, but it'll be a long time from now, and by that point, the Democrats will have already moved more to the left on whatever the social issues are of the day, assuming the Democrats remain the more progressive of the two parties, that is.

Gay right, I can understand, but why would you think that the abortion is inevitably going to be accepted?

Because women will probably make up the majority of legislators at some point, as they already comprise the majority of voters and play a large role at least in the Democratic coalition.

[Mehmentum]

Human Cloning would be an interesting issue where you see an odd coalition of bible thumpers allying with granola eating Greenpeace members and the like against moral-less "Wall Street" hacks, corporatists, and moderate heroes.

You suggest that human cloning would only be supported 'moral-less' people and hacks.  Human cloning would allow us to grow organs which could then be used in transplants that would save countless lives, so the issue could theoretically appeal to a larger variety of people than you suggest.

There is the possibility that we could grow organs with matching genetic makeup to the organ recipients without using cloning. In that case there really wouldn't be a point to human cloning and I doubt it would be an issue at all.

[Person Man]

Human Cloning would be an interesting issue where you see an odd coalition of bible thumpers allying with granola eating Greenpeace members and the like against moral-less "Wall Street" hacks, corporatists, and moderate heroes.

You suggest that human cloning would only be supported 'moral-less' people and hacks.  Human cloning would allow us to grow organs which could then be used in transplants that would save countless lives, so the issue could theoretically appeal to a larger variety of people than you suggest.

There is the possibility that we could grow organs with matching genetic makeup to the organ recipients without using cloning. In that case there really wouldn't be a point to human cloning and I doubt it would be an issue at all.

That is true. Its also true that Mech's idea of a new socially conservative coalition seems to be the perfect storm for the creation of the "Coalition of the Annoying".

[Mechaman]

Human Cloning would be an interesting issue where you see an odd coalition of bible thumpers allying with granola eating Greenpeace members and the like against moral-less "Wall Street" hacks, corporatists, and moderate heroes.

You suggest that human cloning would only be supported 'moral-less' people and hacks.  Human cloning would allow us to grow organs which could then be used in transplants that would save countless lives, so the issue could theoretically appeal to a larger variety of people than you suggest.

There is the possibility that we could grow organs with matching genetic makeup to the organ recipients without using cloning. In that case there really wouldn't be a point to human cloning and I doubt it would be an issue at all.

That is true. Its also true that Mech's idea of a new socially conservative coalition seems to be the perfect storm for the creation of the "Coalition of the Annoying".

^^^
That was more of the point of the post than to establish my own personal thoughts on cloning.  But of course, when one is put in the position of playing "moderate villain" these kind of responses are expected.

Personally, I'm okay with cloning.  I'd feel safer with multiple Mes when I'm visiting East St. Louis.  Some other people would disagree on some f***y notion that clones don't have any "souls", "God wouldn't allow it", or "they emit radon ASCLOBIA pollutants!"

Moralfegs the lot of them.

[DC Al Fine]

Today's social liberalism is tomorrow's social moderation. This is kind of how it works. The Republicans will eventually accept marriage equality and abortion rights, but it'll be a long time from now, and by that point, the Democrats will have already moved more to the left on whatever the social issues are of the day, assuming the Democrats remain the more progressive of the two parties, that is.

Gay right, I can understand, but why would you think that the abortion is inevitably going to be accepted?

Because women will probably make up the majority of legislators at some point, as they already comprise the majority of voters and play a large role at least in the Democratic coalition.

Women aren't significantly more pro-choice than men. Also abortion support has remained pretty much static in the 40 years since Roe v Wade while a host of other social issues have moved. It will be an issue for the foreseeable future.

[Mehmentum]

Yeah, abortion doesn't appear to be moving in one direction or the other.  I expect it to be a divisive issue for years to come.

Also, I find it interesting that women and men have fairly similar views on abortion, except women seem to be more polarized, with more women than men saying its legal or illegal in all circumstances.

[Person Man]

Could you see abortion being a major factor that prevents presidential landslides or a party winning more than 3 times in a row?

[Indy Texas]

The problem with the term "moderate" is that it's never clear if it entails ideas that are themselves "moderate" or simply a basket of liberal and conservative ideas that "cancel each other out."

There are two candidates:

One is strongly pro-choice and opposes any attempts to restrict access to abortion; they also oppose gay marriage and support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The other accepts Roe v. Wade but thinks some restrictions such as third-trimester bans or not funding abortions with public funds are acceptable; they support civil unions and personally dislike calling them marriage, but think all states should at a minimum provide domestic partnership arrangements for same-sex couples.

Which one is moderate?

[PJ]

I'd say that a moderate could be either be someone with a mix of extreme Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, and Populist views, or it could be someone who compromises on these issues. But if the GOP wishes to survive, they should choose the latter.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

I've seen alot of posts where people think that if the GOP becomes socially moderate, they would appeal to Hispanics and the Socially liberal population of New England. Even if the GOP was socially moderate, the Democrats would still be socially liberal, and therefore be more appealing to these two groups. Please explain if you believe I'm wrong.

The electorate isn't far-left on social issues though; they're just not in line with the GOP.  If the GOP moved to the center, it would be closer to the electorate on these issues. 

[PJ]

Yes but the majority of Democrats and Republicans support gay marriage, which is a liberal stance. The moderate stance would be civil unions.

I've seen alot of posts where people think that if the GOP becomes socially moderate, they would appeal to Hispanics and the Socially liberal population of New England. Even if the GOP was socially moderate, the Democrats would still be socially liberal, and therefore be more appealing to these two groups. Please explain if you believe I'm wrong.

The electorate isn't far-left on social issues though; they're just not in line with the GOP.  If the GOP moved to the center, it would be closer to the electorate on these issues. 

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

Yes but the majority of Democrats and Republicans support gay marriage, which is a liberal stance. The moderate stance would be civil unions.

I've seen alot of posts where people think that if the GOP becomes socially moderate, they would appeal to Hispanics and the Socially liberal population of New England. Even if the GOP was socially moderate, the Democrats would still be socially liberal, and therefore be more appealing to these two groups. Please explain if you believe I'm wrong.

The electorate isn't far-left on social issues though; they're just not in line with the GOP.  If the GOP moved to the center, it would be closer to the electorate on these issues. 

I agree, but there are other issues where this is not the case, particularly on the death penalty.

[PJ]

I'm not saying that all of America is socially liberal, I'm saying that the two groups the GOP is aiming at, the Hispanic population, and New England, are.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

I'm not saying that all of America is socially liberal, I'm saying that the two groups the GOP is aiming at, the Hispanic population, and New England, are.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it would help the GOP in those areas to moderate.
1) If the GOP moves closer to Dems on these issues, economics (big gov't v. small gov't) would be more important with these voters and they'd lean GOP.
2) The average American would not get a -10 on social issues on the PM test, even in New England regions.  Thus, the Dem Party can still go too far left socially.

[Person Man]

I don't think what he saying that social liberalism wins. He is just saying that social conservatism doesn't win.
"We'll see" or "That's a tough issue" is better than "Name it, I'm against it." This doesn't mean that "we need to be an open society" or "do your own thing" is better than the former.