Nate Nagel wrote:
Look,
the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social
conservatives and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is
just noise. Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues
of free
trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and
alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.


What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor
of small government and low taxes, along with small government and
reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and
aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

A "conservative" not opposed to progressive income taxes? A "conservative"
not opposed to deregulation? There is no such critter.

Oh, we admit some regulation is necessary so the economic system can
function, but banning bug-bombs in New York City because some people ignore
the warnings? Banning Halon as a fire suppressant because of a threat to the
Ozone layer? Banning DDT? Emptying mental institutions? Liberal policies
(i.e., most regulations) often fail. And when they fail, they fail
catastrophically; innocent lives are lost, often in great numbers.

Economic conservatives (weak, strong, or otherwise) are indifferent - in the
main - to the agenda of social conservatives.

Conservatives are not opposed to ALL growth in government. We favor, for
example, a larger military, a larger border patrol, and larger prisons. Some
even support chaining miscreants to the wall. Upside down.


And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one
of the largest challenges facing us today?



A couple of reasons: Because the war in Iraq should be a non-issue in this
election. It's virtually over. (The left, however, wants a second bite at
the apple by making the war germane. Just like they want a third try at
defeating Bush.)

Another reason is that neither social conservatives nor economic
conservatives have a dog in the fight; they're indifferent to the war.
Almost. Economic conservatives see a down-stream benefit from free trade,
but new markets or cheaper raw materials are almost over the horizon and not
immediately important. Social conservatives see a slim possibility of
bringing Mother Church to the heathens. But neither of these reasons is
compelling.

It's up to us neoconservatives to thread the gap between the two to foster
American hegemony and world domination.

As to your original point about economic conservatives being opposed to the
religious right - there is a tension. But those who feel stronger about
economics are willing to put up with the Bible-thumpers because they need
their support. Likewise, the strongly religious can easily accommodate the
one-worlders and corporate masters because free trade doesn't really affect
God. All in all, it's a convenient marriage; loveless, but nevertheless
successful.

Contrast that with the conglomeration of interests in the Democrat party.
Environmentalists are opposed to drilling in ANWAR but the unions are in
favor. Civil rights leaders don't much like women getting preferences and
feminists don't like racial quotas. The Democrats are a family, an often
dysfunctional family.