Fox Debates: Thompson Takes the Lead on Social Policy
by David R. Usher | View comments |
Print This Post
Fred Thompson has connected the dots between fathers not being able to be fathers, and many of our greatest social and economic problems.
Sunday night in the Florida presidential debates, Fred Thompson made a statement of tremendous historic political significance:
Part of the problem in our education system and with our children has to do with the societal breakdown that's going on in this country. We need more fathers to stay and raise their kids.
This is the first time that anyone in national politics has connected the dots between fathers not being able to be fathers, and many of our greatest social and economic problems. His statement is particularly stunning because it was made discussing education – which is perhaps the least obvious of the many intractable social problems that arise because of the war on marriage.
I regret to say that Mike Huckabee, whose campaign staff had shown great interest in my “Marriage Values” campaign theme and policy changes, has not kept pace on this crucial point. According to his director of policy, Janis Cherry, Mike is “very comfortable” with his message on social issues. I was quite surprised at her response: how could Mr. Huckabee be comfortable with his position on anything when he is trailing the polls with only a 5.4% share?
Fred Thompson might well be the man in 2008: Thompson holds second place in the polls, holding an 18.7% share. If Thompson follows through on this truth with a strong “marriage values” agenda, he could take the lead quickly. The other leading contenders, Guiliani, Romney, and McCain are not electable: they are paper Republicans with fatal flaws that will not galvanize the conservative base to rise to their support. But Thompson will have to be better prepared for these debates in the future: his responses to other questions were weak and disorganized, yielding him last place in the Fox post-debate poll.
Many Americans are now aware that welfare reform remains uncompleted: all our social data is negative, illegitimacy is up 36% since “welfare reforms” were enacted in 1996. The failure of federal government to stop massive funding of the destruction of marriage in 1996 now impacts nearly every American very negatively. Stephen Baskerville’s new book Taken Into Custody, demonstrates the tremendous size of this highly-motivated, discontented voting block. Failure of Republicans to proactively speak to this block will result in mainstreamers supporting Democrats, who are promising to take care of all these problems by taxing the hell out of married families, corporations, and rich people.
The mainstream-to-conservative base will not be motivated by boilerplate conservative campaigns. As in 1994, where the Republican landslide came about because Republicans ran on “Family Values,” those who would get behind Republicans and invest their time to help them win expect Republicans to finish what they partially completed in the 1996 welfare reforms.
Anyone who believes this is not true should recognize the fact that Republicans have been losing power since since they started abandoning social issues to Democrats.
“Marriage Values,” in concert with a strong position on national security, are the two keys necessary to the White House and retention of Congressional seats. If the G.O.P. and the leading candidates fail to grasp this fact, November 2008 will be a Ghoulianish nightmare for Republicans.
davidrusher@swbell.net
http://www.dadsnow.org/ACFC-MO/
Read more articles by David R. Usher
Is marraige an issue? Absolutely. Is it the dominant issue of this election? No. Wrong or right it would be difficult for Thompson to start preaching family values with his beautiful young bride by his side while Hillary stands as another victim of the failure of men in marriage. Most voters simply would not take the time to distinguish between the two. Perception is often realty for the voters.
Comment by Honker | October 23, 2007
Although it is good to see at least one Republican sounding like a conservative, I doubt that will be the deciding issue on which the election will hang. Nor do I think we conservatives, even social conservatives, should make that our top priority. Defeating terrorism, closing the border, reducing debt & taxes, and establishing Constitutionally responsible courts ought to be our top priorities; after which, if the final choice is between two candidates one of whom is a social conservative, then all the better.
The problem here is we're looking at soundbytes and not at candidates long-term records. One sound bute does not make a position. In this case, Mr. Usher has not even given us the full quote, which reads:
"We've not gotten the transparency and the accountability that we thought we were getting.
States ought to be allowed to experiment and do the things that they know best at the state and local level. And we can't lay all this at the feet of any government. We have to accept some hard truths. Part of the problem in our education system and with our children has to do with the societal breakdown that's going on in this country. We need more fathers to stay and raise their kids."
This rendering combined with Thompson's repeated statements and voting record suggest a different message than the one Usher hears. He's not introducing the idea of keeping families together because he's not the first make that point. There is that, but the message is federalizing every problem is not the answer, especially family matters; which are best handled at the state and local level. This is more in keeping with Thompson's 'small government' philosophy, one I agree with.
I do think Thompson is one, if not 'the', best candidate. However, it does not yet look like he will be the primary winner and, unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat or both Giuliani and McCain tank, he's unlikely to take the lead from them. On the assumption he is not the winner, we need to decide how far we can bend supporting a less conservative pick. Again, my bottom line is the winner is sufficiently committed to principle issues.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | October 24, 2007