Social Conservatives don't appear to get it

Looking at the responce before and after the California recall, and seeing the numbers that Tom McClintok polled, Social Conservatives don't understand that they can't win elections by themselves. I guess (with some evidence) that Social Conservatives number about 1 in 6 Americans, and a Pepperdine prof recently put their numbers at closer to 1 in 8 Californians. You can't win elections with those numbers. You have to attract someone else. The current alignment of party politics makes it much easier for you to attract Republicans who are Fiscally Conservative and Republicans who are foriegn policy Hawks than most other kinds of voters. In some states, like Missouri, its still possible to run as a Socially Conservative Democrat, but this works better in the South and West than it does anywhere else.

Tom McClintok was both a Social and a Fiscal Conservative, and this expands the base of support he can draw from. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative. Since Schwarzenegger took moderatly liberal views (yes on abortion, but also yes on parental notification and no on late term abortions; yes on civil unions but no to gay marriage) he put himself in a possition to attract all the voters who were no committed to one of the polar possitions on social issues. Conservatives could see him as better than Davis, and knew that there were lines he wouldn't cross, and liberals could see him as someone who might not advance their agenda, but wouldn't threaten it either.

As a Republican who is socially liberal (in terms of policy), fiscally conservative, and most importantly as far as I am concerned, commited to a strong foriegn policy, I don't like social conservatives. I was poised to vote for Mel Carnahan over John Ashcroft in 2000 for the Missouri Senate seat because of Ashcroft's conservatism. I turned out to be the reverse of many voters, because far from casting a sympathy vote for the deceased Carnahan, I could not vote for someone who could not serve, and certainly didn't want to give the Democratic governor a blank check to name anyone. So I voted for Ashcroft and held my breath. His appointment as AG, and the fact that his tenure has been dominated by security issues rather than social issues has made him perfectly palatable to me, where things could have been far less happy.

I prefer to vote for a candidate who will support strength in the world, because the surest route to peace is strength. Weakness invites attack. If the candiates are equally good, bad, or the office isn't one with any foriegn policy role, I look to the more pro-business candiate. Since social issues come third, I generally only consider them if they are either radically left or right. Personally, I probabaly am fairly socially conservative, but the last thing I want is the government imposing a social policy agenda. I especially recoil from one that has the absolutist authority of revealed religion. Wars have been fought over consubstantiation vs transubstantiation. The Founders wisely sought to remove the state from these debates.

Hence, Social Conservaties must realize they must form a coallition with other voters, and that means comprimise. In traditional races, its easier, because you just need to avoid nominating a candiate who frightens the rest of the coalition. In open multi-candidate elections like the CA recall, its harder because if you are voting for a candiate less likely to form a coaliton than another candidate is, you will lose. Victory goes to the candidate with the biggest tent.