Agreed

The public cannot overrule constitutional rights, even if the poll numbers are accurate (which they probably aren't)

OK good, now that the discussion has started, I'll weigh in.

In my opinion, Republican victories have been because of a two prong strategy to build up a solid base of support from which to campaign. The first and more powerful (lately) of these is a courtship of religious voters by backing religious values. This has worked better than I think even the Republicans have hoped, because they've been able to move enough towards moderate religious views to get a larger percentage of religious voters while not losing the support at the polls of the fundamentalists and evangelicals.

The second strategy has been based around "fiscal conservatism" which at its face appears to be a rational claim for smaller government and less government intervention (such as bailouts, social security, medicare, etc). However if you trace the movement back to the early 2000's it is actually the result of the Libertarian party being more or less consumed by the Republicans. This strategy has proved extremely effective, in that Libertarians have always had well constructed ideas and been highly competent in projecting those ideas.

The combination of these two strategies, has been extremely effective, in that the appeal to religious voters has allowed for the Republican party to keep up their base numbers, as well as sweep Midwest and Plains States, while the use of libertarian ideas, arguments, and candidates has lended the republicans ideological legitimacy and the appearance of a strong intellectual base.

However I think that this strategy is also ultimately failing them. The change of the American public's opinion on issues such as gay marriage indicate that the classically conservative religious base is eroding. Evangelical leaders, who represent one of the most energetic and motivated of the Republican constituencies, have been noting for years that the rising generation of evangelicals are far more socially liberal than the previous generations. Many are unopposed to gay marriage, some even support it; a growing number see the value and need for the large welfare programs the U.S. employs; and some are even switching sides all together. This demographic change in the religious base is going to leave the republicans representing an outdated and backward minority, who no longer have the clout or energy to sweep elections for them. (Obviously this kind of change will take several election cycles to become evident)

Regarding the "Fiscal Conservative" movement, many of these ideas, would be extremely unpopular to the majority of Americans, cuts to social security are likely to never be passed, or if they do get passed it will be an electoral nightmare for the party that passes them. The austerity response that fiscal conservatives would have had us employ in response to the recession has shown just how effective it can be in the Euro Zone. While the libertarian ideology has lent intellectual credibility to the party thus far, as the actual effects of such policies become more widely known (an effect that requires at least several years more likely 2 or more election cycles), the legitimacy offered will no longer be there. The republicans would be better served to move to a new ideology before their current one becomes discredited.

Shameless bump

I agree that the religious base of the party is literally dying off, but I disagree that it is one of the two strongest branches of the party. The religious right has been out of the national spotlight since DOMA was passed.

I would contend that we are beginning to see a resurgence of the so-called "Old Right", a right-leaning non-foreign-interventionism almost-libertarian faction that was last seen (with any political capital to speak of) in the early 20th century.

The whole fuckups with defining Rape during the last election, and the birth control healthcare mandate fiasco show that the Republicans are still pandering to the religious right quite extensively

the elites wanted obama to win the last election because he was their number one tool. example, the gun legislation - he wont let the separation of powers or the constitution get in his way - hell just executive action that.

also some of what you are saying is misconception. the right cant force obama to do executive actions and have a kill list and all this other stuff. it isnt a matter of obama caving, he really is a raging neocon.

We have been so successful because we are so awesome.

@ Puddle

I strongly disagree. The rape comments were way overpublicized and in no way represent the views of anyone in the party other than a handful of uninfluential extremists.

Also, the birth control debate is more about what the federal government shouldn't be able to do than opposition to contraception. The birth control debate was misconstrued by the left in any case. Seriously, if you can't afford condoms then you have bigger financial problems than being able to find a healthcare provider.

Condoms was not the question, but the pill, IUDs and other forms of contraceptives for women. And it is not at all a minor issue. The arguments concerning this issue are going to have very wide repercussions, if the conservative position is considered to be correct then the entire idea of free consumer decision making is going to be challenged. The idea that the employer has a right to determine how the employee uses her compensation is extremely worrying.

I say that if contraceptive isn't covered then things like Viagra shouldn't be. It's only fair.

I say if contraceptives aren't covered, then fertility treatments shouldn't be covered. If you're not going to pay for one person's choice to not have kids, you shouldn't pay for another person's choice to have them.

All agreed Hecks.

Both are good examples of why women do not have equal access to healthcare in this country

"if the conservative position is considered to be correct then the entire idea of free consumer decision making is going to be challenged. The idea that the employer has a right to determine how the employee uses her compensation is extremely worrying"

Fortunately this is not what is at stake. What is at stake is what *kind* of compensation employers are required to give. Once that has been determined there is nothing to prevent the employee from using her compensation for whatever she wishes. And is it the employee who is actually purchasing the insurance, or is the employer buying it for the employee? And if the employer is doing the purchasing, shouldn't they have the freedom to purchase a product that doesn't offend their moral sensibilities?

Can you speculate how this could possibly spill over into some other consumer freedom? In what other area will employers gain power over their employees' consumer choices?

The debate is whether employer provided insurance is part of the compensation package given to the employee for their work. The current position by most Americans, I would guess, is that it is. If it is, then the employer should have no standing to contest what is or is not done with it.

Sure, Puddle, but they are the ones giving it, so they have the right to decide what kind of policy to pay for, which will determine the kinds of things that *can* be done with it. What the employee chooses to do with it (among those things) thereafter is, you're quite right, up to him or her. And if he finds the compensation offered inadequate, he can say so and look for other work or try to negotiate for more.

Well, the problem is actually two fold. People forget that large companies like GE don't actually buy health insurance (nor do their employees). What the instead do is contribute to a fund that is managed by a third party benefits administrator. That fund is actually either employer funds, em,ployee funds, or a combination of both depending on how it is funded.

In the case where the employer contributes to the fund in whole or in part, they can argue they are being forced to pay for something that violates their religious/moral beliefs. If it is purely employee contributions or payments, the company should have no standing, but that is rarely the case. IF it is determined that "insurance" is part of the compensation, then those companies who buy insurance should have no say, but when TPBAs become involved, then the employer *is* the insurer and is stillr epsonsible to pay claims even if the funds alottment is exceeded so they still have a valid argument. In the case of hospitals, this is almost always the case as they would be foolish to pay an insurer who is going to pay them back when they could set aside funds for their employees. Now think about how many hospitals are Catholic owned and operated...

And in case you are wondering, I used to work for United MEdical Resources (UMR) now part of United Healthcare and they were a TPBA, so I know a *lot* about TPBA's and can list off customer after customer (including GE and IBM).

Your take on the issue is indeed novel and something I had not considered. The reason I haven't considered it, though, is that it really wasn't part of the "debate". The debate centered around the Democrats trying to paint the Republicans as engaged in a "war on women", not a "war on consumer rights". And I think the Democrats were fairly successful in framing that discussion to their own advantage, wouldn't you say?

Yes, they were successful. But the real issue is what I have pointed out and it is why the Catholic Church is still up in arms about the requirement. See, the "insurer" must provide birth control to the "insured" but the "insurer" is still the Catholic Church.

"The reason I haven't considered it, though, is that it really wasn't part of the "debate". The debate centered around the Democrats trying to paint the Republicans as engaged in a "war on women", not a "war on consumer rights"."

Well, if you want to get technical, the thread is *actually* about why, in the US, Conservatives have been more successful than Liberals in promoting their agenda of late.

@ Hecks - I appreciate the irony, but I questioned the premise of the OP from the get-go. The success of the Democrat party on framing this issue is an example of why I objected to the OP to begin with.

@hecks - I understand what the thread is supposed to be about, but I reject the premise outright. Unless this is just someone's opinion, please share some firm data showing this to be so.

That's fair. I just thought I'd point it out.

A fair point, some of it may be a confirmation bias, as most left leaning individuals are of the belief that the right is winning, and vice versa. But in Florida, I am primarily exposed to conservative activists, conservative voters, conservative politicians, and conservative electoral victories. So the combination of those two factors probably account for my view as to which group is currently the more successful.

Regarding the insurance debate, it is also centered around the new laws which more or less mandate everyone be insured, and what that insurance must provide. It seems to me (OPINION) that if a business is unwilling to obey these laws due to religious convictions, they should shutter their business. Since it is a minimum standard we are talking about here, imposed by law, it would be like a company refusing to pay their female employee wages because they believe that only men can handle money. Freedom of religion does not extend to economic activity. As a member of one religion I can not refuse to do business with someone else because they are an infidel/heretic/non-believer.

So we should shutter the doors of 50% of the hospitals around the country. Smart move...

And it isn't like we are talking about breast cancer exams or something. We are talking about birth control. Nobody is telling a woman she can't use it, just that a religious institution isn't willing to pay for it.

If these 50% of hospitals (a number I find highly doubtful) feel that strongly then yes. There would be a gap in the market and new firms would move in to replace them QUICKLY.