Born Again Redneck in the State of Jefferson
Blah Blah Blah Diversity Blah Blah Blah "reproductive rights" Blah Blah Blah...It would take a LOT of time for me to dissect what is right and what is wrong with this whole thing.
They tar State's Rights as a "hall mark of segregationists" rather than the explicit meaning of the Tenth Amendment and insinuate that all Southerners and Conservatives are racist.
If these guys are honestly trying to give the GOP advice, here's a tip:
Nobody will listen when all you do is hurl insults.
Andrew, are you sure you read the same article that I did? I saw no insults. I did see constructive criticism. But I do see in your comment "a reactionary impulse within the GOP that seeks to dismiss any criticism or inconvenient facts..."
I too could pick holes in the article but it is basically telling the truth. There's no denying that the GOP is facing "a demographic nightmare." It's time to adapt or die. Of course I agree with the writer's prescription for adapting: become more libertarian. So, yes, I'm biased in his favor.
The well has been poisoned for the last two elections, and we still have the "base" insisting that if we put MORE poison into the well, we can drink the water again. And the poison isn't necessarily the issues; it's the rhetoric, which eventually poisons the issues. Illegal immigration was a very real, important issue, then we had the 06 elections, with all the nutjobs running on anti-immigrant platforms with over-the-top, and way to close to racist rhetoric, and now, illegal immigration is a poisoned issue.
The other problem is that the social conservatives, at least as defined in this article, have never learned the same lesson the liberals haven't, that you can't change the culture with legislation. Anytime these people see something they don't approve of, they scream, "There needs to be a law!" and that's enough reason never to vote for them.
But hey, I'll drink the kool-aid. Let's just pour more of that arsenic into the well!
Prof, I'm beginning to think that the GOP is finished - at least for the foreseeable future.
It's not that I don't see that there is some value to the article. But I do see a lot I have to disagree with. And I basically agree with the prescription. And yes, I could stand to grow in the reactionary impulse regard. Didn't mean to imply anything. 
BTW, being more on target-The new Young GOP leader sounds like a dope. Sad indeed.
Andrew, I think you probably took issue with the same things as I did: the "diversity" and "reproductive rights" nonsense. Of course, not being a Southerner like you, I didn't bristle at the criticism of Southerners.
I don't regard Florida as "Southern"-we are very uh, different, down here-er, there, actually. Maybe my current geographic location made me do it? I was writing up a long riff on this article, actually. My objections are a wee bit deeper than just those to things. A lot of it is the subtle accusations directed at everyone from Goldwater to the people who voted for Shay probably not even knowing about the racist stuff as being racist. Goldwater had his reasons for opposing the things LBJ did, but racism wasn't it. I also object to some of what I see as poor analysis of history, whiggish historiography (the "wrong side of history"-please, leave that crap to Francis Fukuyama). That and the caricaturing of the social conservatives as bible thumpin' control freaks. There's a lot of guilt by association...the implication that Dems attracted African Americans by being "diverse" and not "racist" rather than through hand outs and "what have you done for me lately". The implication that the Tenth Amendment is secessionist. The fawning over "Republican" Teddy Roosevelt (uh, hey, what party was he in the 1912 election? Not Republican!)
All that said, this is, to me, like being prescribed heart medication by a doctor who calls you a fat ass. Sure, he's rude and I'm probably going to look for a new doctor. But I'll take his prescription anyway.
Good analysis, Andrew. The writer is Latino and has a small chip on his shoulder.
Andrew, don't you think that what Goldwater meant by "states' rights" was a bit different from what Southerners meant? Of course white Southerners, like white South Africans, quite rightly resented Northerners telling them how to handle their "black problem" but we now know that white Southerners and white South Africans unjustly discriminated against ALL black people instead of just the black trash.
Fair point. The difference is the Fourteenth Amendment. Which means, States can deal with their problems themselves, but the are restricted from controlling people in all the ways the federal government is, via the incorporation doctrine.
Commenting by HaloScan
