<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Campaigns versus movements 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sorendayton.com/2007/05/29/campaigns-versus-movements-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sorendayton.com/2007/05/29/campaigns-versus-movements-2/</link>
	<description>Merely an aggregation of a dispersed life online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:32:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Ruffini :: What Is and Isn&#8217;t Movement Politics</title>
		<link>http://sorendayton.com/2007/05/29/campaigns-versus-movements-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1682</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Ruffini :: What Is and Isn&#8217;t Movement Politics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 19:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/05/29/campaigns-versus-movements-2/#comment-1682</guid>
		<description>[...] Soren Dayton sums up our discussion nicely. I find that there is not very much to add, except to reiterate the centrality of ideas in defining any new Republican coalition. The problem with the Democrats&#8217; new movement is that nobody knows what they were elected to do. End the war in Iraq? Maybe not so much. By contrast, whenever we have come to power in a movement election, we have explicitly spelled out our ideas, even to a fault. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Soren Dayton sums up our discussion nicely. I find that there is not very much to add, except to reiterate the centrality of ideas in defining any new Republican coalition. The problem with the Democrats&#8217; new movement is that nobody knows what they were elected to do. End the war in Iraq? Maybe not so much. By contrast, whenever we have come to power in a movement election, we have explicitly spelled out our ideas, even to a fault. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fredo</title>
		<link>http://sorendayton.com/2007/05/29/campaigns-versus-movements-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1681</link>
		<dc:creator>fredo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 15:56:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/05/29/campaigns-versus-movements-2/#comment-1681</guid>
		<description>Ruffini&#039;s point about maintaining an &quot;activated&quot; base that would move beyond campaign cycles is an interesting one.  It seems to be a more &quot;liberal&quot; approach to politics: where interest groups are permanently mobilized for political battle, rather than Russel Kirk conservativism, where people want to be free of ideologues to pursue their lives.  But liberals are waging a full time political war, so I understand the impulse: must not the battle be joined?  It&#039;s an interesting question.

The Douhat &amp; Salam article was a treat.  Thanks for the links.  I think their ideas would lay the groundwork for a long term conservative majority, although admittedly it&#039;s unclear if it would be a Republican one (given the tension he highlights between the &quot;base&quot; and &quot;entrepreneurial/elite&quot; Republicans on a number of important issues).  While it&#039;s unlikely that the conservative majority would empower Democrats, the pro-family &lt;i&gt;economic&lt;/I&gt; issues they outline (wage subsidies, payroll tax-offsets for children, recognition of economic value for homemakers in qualified plans and Social Security, newborn tax credits, meaningful health care reform, etc.) would have appeal to a block voters and legislators that would probably cut across current partisan boundaries.  Whether that would result in a realignment, or merely a governing coalition I don&#039;t know.  At the end of the day, the primary principle of the article is that married couples are the base of the GOP, the most reliable voting block, and need to be incentivized to make a large investment in having and raising children (our nation&#039;s most important resource).  Doing so will require recognizing that returns on labor continue to languish behind returns on capital, and, while that is not intrinsically &quot;bad,&quot; it must be addressed if conservatives are going to have success at the ballot box.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ruffini&#8217;s point about maintaining an &#8220;activated&#8221; base that would move beyond campaign cycles is an interesting one.  It seems to be a more &#8220;liberal&#8221; approach to politics: where interest groups are permanently mobilized for political battle, rather than Russel Kirk conservativism, where people want to be free of ideologues to pursue their lives.  But liberals are waging a full time political war, so I understand the impulse: must not the battle be joined?  It&#8217;s an interesting question.</p>
<p>The Douhat &amp; Salam article was a treat.  Thanks for the links.  I think their ideas would lay the groundwork for a long term conservative majority, although admittedly it&#8217;s unclear if it would be a Republican one (given the tension he highlights between the &#8220;base&#8221; and &#8220;entrepreneurial/elite&#8221; Republicans on a number of important issues).  While it&#8217;s unlikely that the conservative majority would empower Democrats, the pro-family <i>economic</i> issues they outline (wage subsidies, payroll tax-offsets for children, recognition of economic value for homemakers in qualified plans and Social Security, newborn tax credits, meaningful health care reform, etc.) would have appeal to a block voters and legislators that would probably cut across current partisan boundaries.  Whether that would result in a realignment, or merely a governing coalition I don&#8217;t know.  At the end of the day, the primary principle of the article is that married couples are the base of the GOP, the most reliable voting block, and need to be incentivized to make a large investment in having and raising children (our nation&#8217;s most important resource).  Doing so will require recognizing that returns on labor continue to languish behind returns on capital, and, while that is not intrinsically &#8220;bad,&#8221; it must be addressed if conservatives are going to have success at the ballot box.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

