George W. Bush: "I'm worried that I might be the last Republican president."

[adowcday]

Bush’s remarks can be taken two ways. One is that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates are not “real” Republicans. The other is that the core Republican message is being accepted by a smaller and smaller percentage of U.S. voters. I can’t for the life of me say who a “real” Republican is, but I think the appeal of the Republican message is missing women, minorities, and the young. Even if Republicans continue to win in various congressional districts or even on a statewide level, this is not a good prospect for nationwide elections such as for the Presidency.

 

[Robyn_p]

I agree it’s the harder task, and therefore it is the more pressing one. But it must also be addressed at the government level, mustn’t it? Liberals have made immigration about family, so we meet that head on. As long as we put immigration first, we will lose Hispanic Christians to pro-choice platforms.

Liberals talk a good talk, and often walk a good walk too. Conservatives must present an attractive vision and ideal. Freedom? Liberals have the more immediately appealing message. Inclusiveness? Ditto. What do conservatives stand for?

^^ This. Conservatives for the last several decades have focused almost exclusively on what they are against, and that’s just not appealing to most people. That’s partly why Pope Francis is so popular. He may be against some of the same things conservatives are, but he is primarily FOR something, Christ, and people can see that.

But perhaps the biggest problem with conservatism today is we’re not even consistent in what we oppose. So we believe that marriage is sacred…but the vast majority of conservatives have no issue with divorce. And the same politicians who say they are against abortion and believe all life is sacred will then turn around and defend the dropping of the atomic bomb or the use of torture and the death penalty, or will vilify refugees and spread fear. This hurts our image. Conservatives want to know why they’re losing the young? As a millennial myself, I can confidently say, that’s why. There’s no coherence.

Conservatives are never going to convince people that we aren’t mindless reactionaries just opposed to whatever liberals like if we don’t start changing our approach. I’m personally convinced that the only solution to this mess is to fully embrace the Church’s teaching on social matters. Because the Church doesn’t fit into the traditional left/right paradigm. That means we agree with the liberals when they are right and say “Hey, this is a valid concern. Let’s work together on this.” By doing that we can to show them that we really, truly, believe that life and the family are sacred and worth protecting.

That’s the positive, attractive message we could send, but it’s undermined right now by our blind spots. Until we honestly face ourselves and get rid of those, we won’t be taken seriously any time soon.

 

[meltzerboy]

^^ This. Conservatives for the last several decades have focused almost exclusively on what they are against, and that’s just not appealing to most people. That’s partly why Pope Francis is so popular. He may be against some of the same things conservatives are, but he is primarily FOR something, Christ, and people can see that.

But perhaps the biggest problem with conservatism today is we’re not even consistent in what we oppose. So we believe that marriage is sacred…but the vast majority of conservatives have no issue with divorce. And the same politicians who say they are against abortion and believe all life is sacred will then turn around and defend the dropping of the atomic bomb or the use of torture and the death penalty, or will vilify refugees and spread fear. This hurts our image. Conservatives want to know why they’re losing the young? As a millennial myself, I can confidently say, that’s why. There’s no coherence.

Conservatives are never going to convince people that we aren’t mindless reactionaries just opposed to whatever liberals like if we don’t start changing our approach. I’m personally convinced that the only solution to this mess is to fully embrace the Church’s teaching on social matters. Because the Church doesn’t fit into the traditional left/right paradigm. That means we agree with the liberals when they are right and say “Hey, this is a valid concern. Let’s work together on this.” By doing that we can to show them that we really, truly, believe that life and the family are sacred and worth protecting.

That’s the positive, attractive message we could send, but it’s undermined right now by our blind spots. Until we honestly face ourselves and get rid of those, we won’t be taken seriously any time soon.

Your way of thinking makes sense. The only quibble I have is that some liberals are quite stubborn, as are some conservatives, and are just opposed to everything conservatives stand for, without taking the trouble to examine what the latter are saying. My other point is that, while I think it is fine that you act according to Church teaching, there are liberals who will criticize you for that alone, stating that you are not open to diverse viewpoints from those who do not believe what you believe. (Not that the critics are open either.) You simply cannot please everyone, and most likely you should not try to. Nonetheless, looking inward and being for something rather than against can make a difference.

 

[PRmerger]

Are ALL US Catholics socially conservative ? Are ALL US Catholics pro-gun ? Are ALL US Catholics illiberal ?

This orthodox Catholic isn’t.

 

[Robyn_p]

Your way of thinking makes sense. The only quibble I have is that some liberals are quite stubborn, as are some conservatives, and are just opposed to everything conservatives stand for, without taking the trouble to examine what the latter are saying. My other point is that, while I think it is fine that you act according to Church teaching, there are liberals who will criticize you for that alone, stating that you are not open to diverse viewpoints from those who do not believe what you believe. (Not that the critics are open either.) You simply cannot please everyone, and most likely you should not try to. Nonetheless, looking inward and being for something rather than against can make a difference.

Oh yeah. I’m painfully aware of that. There are some who won’t be happy until the Church declares abortion a sacrament and there’s a woman in the Vatican. And I definitely don’t think Catholics and other conservatives should hide or de-emphasize our beliefs just to please people. But there’s also quite a few places where Church teaching and liberalism do overlap, and I think focusing on those issues can open up dialogue and like you said, make more of a difference than simply opposing every single thing a Democrat says.

 

[Sy_Noe]

This orthodox Catholic isn’t.

Isn’t socially conservative, pro gun or illiberal?

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t socially conservative, pro gun or illiberal?

Yes to all.

That is, I am NOT socially conservative, pro gun or illiberal.

 

[TCEL]

But perhaps the biggest problem with conservatism today is we’re not even consistent in what we oppose. So we believe that marriage is sacred…but the vast majority of conservatives have no issue with divorce. And the same politicians who say they are against abortion and believe all life is sacred will then turn around and defend the dropping of the atomic bomb or the use of torture and the death penalty, or will vilify refugees and spread fear. This hurts our image. Conservatives want to know why they’re losing the young? As a millennial myself, I can confidently say, that’s why. There’s no coherence.

Chesterton said that the business of liberals is to go on making mistakes, and the business of conservatives is to keep those mistakes from being corrected.

While we really need to repent and turn back to God, I’m firmly convicted that marriage and the family are a huge reason we are where we are today. It sounds so quaint, but it’s true. I know I harp about it. If we don’t get the family right, starting with the bedroom, then the liberal message will keep winning, and Christian conservatives won’t understand how they’ve been suckered.

I heard the other day, “Can there ever be too much birth control?” There’s something utterly depressing about that worldview. That’s actually a huge weakness in the liberal platform, and conservatives could easily address it if they didn’t, at a practical level, agree with it. And I’ve heard conservatives agree with it.

So, yes, there’s a lot of inconsistency on the conservative side, to their own undoing.

 

[irishpatrick]

I am concerned that George W. Bush might have been the last Republican President as well. Liberalism is very strong in America. Conservatism has been dealt some major blows since Bush left office. The powers that be want liberalism in America. It will be an upset if Trump wins this year. I have some hope that it will happen though.

Leftism reigns today, not liberalism. Bush might very well have been the last Republican.

 

[ProVobis]

Leftism reigns today, not liberalism. Bush might very well have been the last Republican.

As Chris Matthews once stated, “Progressives always win in the end.” (He might have said “liberals” or “the left” but he made his point.)

 

[Cider]

You can’t be democrat lite in order to win over their voters. They will just go for the real thing. Law and order must be upheld. There is no other way. As a legal immigrant I very much resent illegal immigration. There is no justice to it and not the right kind of mercy.

Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that gave amnesty to anyone who entered the country illegally prior to January 1st 1982.

Repubs hold him up as the best POTUS in recent history. At the same time that Repubs condemn current immigration reform plans that include a way for people here illegally to gain legal status and remain here while doing so. There are a lot of calls for mass deportations.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that gave amnesty to anyone who entered the country illegally prior to January 1st 1982.

Repubs hold him up as the best POTUS in recent history. At the same time that Repubs condemn current immigration reform plans that include a way for people here illegally to gain legal status and remain here while doing so. There are a lot of calls for mass deportations.

I don’t know much about Reagan. Does a great president never make mistakes? Did he secure our border? Did he successfully stop illegal immigration by granting amnesty? Anything that doesn’t solve this problem of illegal immigration is not a good solution, IMHO.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t know much about Reagan. Does a great president never make mistakes? Did he secure our border? Did he successfully stop illegal immigration by granting amnesty? Anything that doesn’t solve this problem of illegal immigration is not a good solution, IMHO.

When it came to Reagan, he signed a deal in good faith expecting that this would be a one time thing, and that the border would be secured…
That didn’t happen

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Hillary is already a write off on this issue. The idea of a permanent underclass of dependent voters doing menial work on the cheap is a win/win for one per centers like her. Democrats have no interest whatsoever at developing an immigration policy that includes regulating legal immigration through enforcing the law.

Trump is an unknown. He at least says he won’t be fooled again on this though. His main slogan this election cycle is to correct the stumbling block that tripped up Reagan, and actually stop ILLEGAL immigration.

But as a businessman he financially benefits from illegal immigration too, so it is hard to know just what he will do on the issue.

 

[GEddie]

Yes to all.

That is, I am NOT socially conservative, pro gun or illiberal.

While I am not stereotypically “socially liberal” in relation to all the sexual issues currently being pounded into our heads, I don’t care viscerally about them to the extent that a genuine conservative would.

And in other areas, I am closer to liberal these days.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TCEL]

While I am not stereotypically “socially liberal” in relation to all the sexual issues currently being pounded into our heads, I don’t care viscerally about them to the extent that a genuine conservative would.

ICXC NIKA

Why not? As a Catholic, especially?

I’m doing a Bible Study about the Trinity, and our current anthropology is so far removed from that understanding. We are not simply saved from something, but for communion with the Trinity. If we attack the family, that icon of the Trinity, it makes it more difficult for people to come to God. Misguided anthropology makes for misguided politics.

 

[Darryl1958]

Why not? As a Catholic, especially?

I’m doing a Bible Study about the Trinity, and our current anthropology is so far removed from that understanding. We are not simply saved from something, but for communion with the Trinity. If we attack the family, that icon of the Trinity, it makes it more difficult for people to come to God. Misguided anthropology makes for misguided politics.

To be sure.
God is not addressed as “our Father” on account of having a gender.

It is family relationship that is central to who God is.

It is too bad that so many consider that part to be the lesser priority.

 

[GEddie]

Why not? As a Catholic, especially?

I’m doing a Bible Study about the Trinity, and our current anthropology is so far removed from that understanding. We are not simply saved from something, but for communion with the Trinity. If we attack the family, that icon of the Trinity, it makes it more difficult for people to come to God. Misguided anthropology makes for misguided politics.

I’m just not certain anymore that we are called to use the punishing arm of the state to keep people from exercising their freedom in ways we disagree with. Especially since God has currently willed that we can’t do so anymore.

God never named the Church the moral enforcer for the civic society.

ICXC NIKA

 

[wllmjoseph]

By way of amnesty. In fact Hillary’s VP already promises amnesty within 100 days of inauguration.

It is all well and good the VP Candidate Tim Kaine to promise amnesty within 100 days of inauguration but as long as the House of Representative remains Republican that is not going to happen. There is little chance that the Democrats will take the House of Representative this year. The Republicans have 49 more seats in the House of Representative than the Democrats and quite honestly it is not even on the radar for the Democratic Party that they have an opportunity to take the House of Representative.

As a conservative and someone who is pro life I vote Republican. That being said the reason President George W. Bush may be the last Republican to be president is due to the lack of credibility of President Bush and the Republican party on the Iraq War. We had not business in Iraq. The other reason is the Republican’s failure to be an inclusive party. I have to stress again the demographics have changed. It is not longer possible to win a presidential election with a simple majority of the Caucasian vote. Especially when the Republican party will receive less that 10% of the African American vote and only 20% of the Hispanic vote. It does not help when Donald Trump has repeatedly antagonized the Hispanic community with his harsh rhetoric. He still could have been the anti establishment candidate but without offending people to the extent that he has.

 

[TCEL]

I’m just not certain anymore that we are called to use the punishing arm of the state to keep people from exercising their freedom in ways we disagree with. Especially since God has currently willed that we can’t do so anymore.

God never named the Church the moral enforcer for the civic society.

ICXC NIKA

Ok. Thanks for your response.

 

[TCEL]

That being said the reason President George W. Bush may be the last Republican to be president is due to the lack of credibility of President Bush and the Republican party on the Iraq War. We had not business in Iraq. The other reason is the Republican’s failure to be an inclusive party. I have to stress again the demographics have changed. It is not longer possible to win a presidential election with a simple majority of the Caucasian vote. Especially when the Republican party will receive less that 10% of the African American vote and only 20% of the Hispanic vote. It does not help when Donald Trump has repeatedly antagonized the Hispanic community with his harsh rhetoric. He still could have been the anti establishment candidate but without offending people to the extent that he has.

People who work in defense think we had business in Iraq. They doubly think we didn’t have the stomach to see it through, and that we left when we shouldn’t have. And they aren’t necessarily conservatives. However, if I didn’t know those people, I would probably agree with the general perception that we had no business there. So, your larger point stands. Perception is that we shouldn’t have gone in, and that narrative gained traction.

I agree with you, though, that Trump has been unnecessarily antagonistic, and that demographics have changed. That’s why it kills me when conservatives, many of whom are family and friends, don’t see the Catch 22 of contraception. They complain about “all these people.”