The “anti-establishment’ comments from the Right always remind me of the Left’s “don’t trust the establishment” anti-America crowd of ’60’s and ’70’s. It’s the same knee-jerk, across-the-board, ignore-loyalties, and follow-the-(anti-establishment)-leaders chant and rant heard around 1970.
This isn’t the first time I’ve written on this subject, but here goes, once again.
The Republican’s problem is that we failed to get out the Republican vote and lost what little majority we had in the House in the 2006 mid-term election and allowed the media and the Left to claim it was because of the war on terror (read former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates’ memoirs, Duty, for verification of the belief in DC). Then, conservative voters refused to vote for Republican candidates for President in 2008 and 2012. They ignored Reagan’s “80%” rule (“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”), stayed home, claiming “purity.”
(Or, how about Sarah Palin’s observation that the Dems never talk about “DINO’s:”
“Some far-right conservatives are enamored of the term “RINO,” standing for “Republican in name only.” But is there an equivalent term “DINO,” standing for Democrat-in-name-only? No, the Party of the Donkey isn’t that politically stubborn. They just call them “Democrats.” They win with their approach — and we lose (too often) with ours.”)
The reality we have to deal with is that there is a majority of Dems in the Senate, the White House and the media. Every effort – even the valiant effort to defund Obamacare by the House and Boehner in September – is twisted into something else. Have any of the anti-incumbents said one good thing about that effort by the House and Boehner, or did they just turn on the “establishment?”
Did they support Boehner and the House Republicans when they passed the bill defunding ObamaCare? Have they corrected anyone who claimed that the House Republicans cut Veterans benefits, when in fact, they cut the increase from 5% to 4%?
The anti-incumbents are teaching the same “lessons” of 2006-2012: Republicans can’t be counted on.
WingRight 
We lose elections because of social conservatives. Even if their beliefs are right (homosexuality is wrong), they go wrong when they attempt to impose their religion on other people. This is the same thing Liberals do (like environmentalists, for example).
Posted by Matt M | March 6, 2014, 9:27 PMI strongly disagree with you. If that were so, why is Ted Cruz so popular? Take a look at Dennis Prager’s recent essay on just this subject: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0314/prager030414.php3#.UxXvptYFRfw.facebook
“To respond to the first argument, it is hard to believe that most people who call themselves fiscal conservatives and vote Democrat would abandon the Democratic Party if the Republican Party embraced same-sex marriage and abortion.
“The left and its political party will always create social issues that make Republicans and conservatives look “reactionary” on social issues. Today it is same-sex marriage, the next day it is the Republican “war on women,” and tomorrow it will be ending the objective male-female designation of Americans (Children should have the right to determine their gender and not have their parents and their genitalia determine it, even at birth). Or it will be animal rights, race-based affirmative action or an environmentalist issue. Concerning the latter, how many “fiscal conservatives” who vote Democrat are prepared to abandon the party on the climate change issue? I suspect very few.”
Posted by bnuckols | March 7, 2014, 12:07 AMTed Cruz is/was strongly endorsed by Libertarian-leaning groups, and is routinely grouped with other Libertarian-leaning Senators (Lee, Paul). He’s also about as anti-establishment as they come (certainly the government shutdown episode from this past year is evidence of that). His popularity stems from his belief in small government and his opposition to the establishment status quo (and the voters’ belief that that he actually authentically supports those positions rather than just paying them lip service). I don’t think social conservatism has anything to do with his popularity except that he hasn’t done anything to specifically alienate social conservatives. If he ever really starts to sound like Santorum on a regular basis, I bet he loses his popularity.
Also, I read the article and I don’t see a lot of evidence to back it up. Just a bunch of general assertions. To be clear though, I think being socially conservative is fine. I am socially conservative myself. My problem is imposing social conservatism on others via government force. Instead, you should be free to be as socially conservative as you desire and some liberal should be able to do whatever it is they want to do as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s freedoms. If they want to make bad decisions, damage their health, or heap eternal damnation on themselves, that is ultimately their prerogative. Even if I were to forcibly prevent a fool from doing foolish things, that doesn’t change the fact they are still a fool.
To your point, most people probably wouldn’t switch from D to R just due to letting go of social conservative issues. However, in 2012, we lost TWO senate seats (Akin, Mourdock) that were easily winnable because a social conservative said social conservative-inspired things that the media ran with. The resulting discussion likely had effects on other national races too. Now, the media is going to bash conservatives either way, but we don’t have to give them so much ammo. I can truthfully say that social conservatives cost Republicans elections, because they, in fact, have done so. No Libertarian, anti-establishment-type has caused themselves to lose a winnable general election in that way.
Posted by Matt M | March 7, 2014, 2:46 PMIf you are in Texas, you’ve seen the Christian-themed commercials for Patrick, featuring Cruz. In person, he’s likely to be more overtly Christian-themed.
Akin, especially, was thrown under the bus for comments that were very mistaken. Unfortunately, he was actually abandoned by the “establishment” Republicans. This is one of the errors that Senator Cornyn has made, and that in his position as chair of the Senate Republican Committee..
You are right that liberals should be able to do what they wish ” as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s freedoms.”
Elective abortion is the intentional killing of a human offspring – only possible by mimicking past abuses by governments that claimed that some are not fully human.
The marriage and homosexuality issues are, as I said, experiments with children of tomorrow who can not give consent. The laws also result in increased government intervention at dissolution, distribution of common property, the right of association and freedom of labor choices, and the realities of inheritance, child custody and adoption.
Posted by bnuckols | March 11, 2014, 10:11 AM