Wrong, GOP: Bush-Era "Compassionate Conservatism" Not The Answer

As I predicted, the Republican establishment is busy fighting the party's future as friendly to the liberty-minded. Despite the fact that rational minds have pegged the GOP's 2012 electoral embarrassment on the Republican Party's anachronistic social conservatism, the establishment is calling for an even greater shift to the right, the "right"--according to them--the domain of big-spending Bush-Era "compassionate conservative" morality legislators and wealth "redistributioners". (Remember Medicare Part D and the expansion of the ETIC? Those were the brainchildren of "compassionate conservative" Republicans.)

Rick "sex should only be for procreation" Santorum recently penned an editorial incorrectly contributing the GOP's poor performance in campaign 2012 to a "lack of message". According to Santorum, if Republicans could only convince the electorate that they "care", they would win elections. Only a fool would believe that modern Americans would warm up to a party that "cares" so much about them that it seeks to seize even more wealth from the productive economy, usurp more civil liberties, and further violate the 10th Amendment in order to condition behavior. Younger whites certainly don't bigger government telling them how to live, and apparently Santorum missed the memo that American Hispanics are becoming more secular.

Santorum's editorial was ridiculous, but The Week's Matt K. Lewis takes the taco for being obtuse. In his recent editorial on the future of the GOP, Lewis actually called for Bush-era "compassionate conservatism" by name. Apparently, Lewis isn't aware that attempting to sell an idea by citing one of the most unpopular presidents in history, George W. Bush (who still gets negative approval ratings), probably isn't the best idea.