How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
According to the media and popular culture, the only thing that matters in the whole world these days is redefining marriage as quickly as possible.
As should be expected, GOP elites are falling into line. We had U.S. Senator Rob Portman explain that his principles in defense of traditional marriage were overturned by having a child who disagreed.
Yesterday, George Will said opposition to same-sex marriage is "quite literally" dying off.
And our beloved libertarian Charles Murray spoke at CPAC and endorsed redefining marriage, flirted with legalized abortion, and favorably quoted Karl Hess's line about abortion being homicide, sure, but justifiable homicide. He said that none of his children would even think of voting for a Republican:
Unless the G.O.P. drops what he called its “litmus tests” for candidates on these divisive social issues, Murray warned that conservatives were likely to alienate a large swath of the voting public, including his children, who might otherwise be attracted to the Party. He admitted, though, that, “I’m not known as an astute electoral analyst.”
I'm not an astute electoral analyst either. In fact, I'm pretty bad at it. Heck, I'm not even a Republican. But you all seem pretty savvy with this stuff. So let's discuss what everybody knows.
Obviously the GOP doesn't have a litmus test on either abortion or same-sex marriage, so the question is really about whether to pressure Republicans in general to be more supportive of killing unborn children and redefining marriage.
Now hardly seems like the right time to get cool with killing babies, even if it were to be decided less on principle than on politics. The pro-life cause is at least as much a winning one as a losing one. But as for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and other groupings? If the Supreme Court upholds Vaughn Walker's decision, in which he calls most church bodies hate groups and says that the one thing that used to be universally essential to the definition of marriage -- sexual complementarity -- is now completely unimportant (or much worse!) for limiting it, would any of us be terribly surprised?
Religious and secular support for traditional marriage is already grounds for blacklisting. How can a political party expect to support it and survive? Should the GOP get with these amazing times and follow the culture?
All these smart people must be right, right?
Two stories give me pause. I know a Colorado man who used to be Democrat but became Republican decades ago. He ended up becoming a big-time party activist and was one of the community leaders who supported a particular state senator in Colorado. She recently came out for a civil unions bill that "dangerously imperils" religious charities (you can have same-sex marriage or religious liberty and we seem to think one is much more important than the other). Her reasoning for supporting the bill that hurts religious groups is that "Jesus" would want her to. This, on top of all the other disappointments he's faced in recent years, was enough for the man to tell me that he's completely done volunteering for the party. He said he felt "betrayed."
I go to church with another man, one of the most accomplished men I know. He's had tremendous success in the military and in business. He's served presidents at a high level and is frequently asked to run for high office himself. A seamless conservative, he discussed with me how poorly things have gone for social conservatives and was talking about how he'd decided to "retreat to the pew." He noted that once a battle is lost for social conservatives, it is hard to roll it back. He added a post script:
I do realize that my view - retreat to my pew - would be a catastrophe for the Republican party. Regardless all the happy talk about "renewal" and "the vital center" the party only wins at the national level when both wings - economic conservatives and social conservatives - are energized.
I certainly don't mean to sound cold when I say that I agree politics is not the best ground for the fight for the unborn, for the sanctity of marriage and for all the other marks of a virtuous society. These have always been difficult fights and they've always been fought in the hearts and minds of the people. By the time you're debating whether sexual complementarity (!) is an essential component for marriage, you've probably lost.
But just politically speaking, I can't think that going Portman/Murray/Will is as good for the GOP as these folks seem to think it will be.
I know many women became generally conservative primarily through their social conservatism. I'm sure many men have followed that path, too.
Or what about those folks who really only vote GOP not because they're generally conservative but because they have traditional values -- as this Twitter exchange shows:
@MichaelBD: Once the GOP follows Charles Murray's advice it frees people like me up to vote for Dems on foreign policy, basic competence.
@Joncoppage: Not to mention evangelicals concerned about the poor/social justice, increasingly environmental stewardship, etc
@MichaelBD: there may be a winning GOP coalition out there, but it isn't built on Bloomberg voters.
I like to refer to social conservatives as battered wives, but even battered wives eventually wake up and realize that leaving their man is preferable to what they're enduring. Well, that or they end up dead.
So, savvy analysts: what do you think are the implications of the party telling social cons -- perhaps the largest and most steady block they have -- to take a hike and get back to their pews?
Are we sure that a) the GOP can be sufficiently liberal enough to compete with honest-to-goodness liberals and b) it will bring in more people than it will lose?
- Comment (170)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (41)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
If the Repubs drop opposition to abortion and cave to the Dems on issues of religious freedom (SSM is a Demo bluff, the core issue is control of religion), then they've lost me entirely. If you sell out your core then you've proven you'll sell out on anything else.
They've already proven they're for Leviathan on the economy (compassionate Conservatism, massive subsidies for their own pet areas, porkfest), and Leviathan on Law and Order (drug war, airport security kabuki, VIPER checkpoints on the FREEways), and Leviathan on the education of my children (No Child Left Behind).
I fully expect them to sell me out on guns and my church next.
Mar '12
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
I have voted Republican since 1972. I am a SoCon come lately. The way things are going, the GOP will be losing my vote. I see no alternative party to vote for (no thanks Libertarian), so I guess I will just stay home.
Oct '11
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
I am not qualified to answer any of the core questions, but there is something I would like to ask : Why not attack the cultural institutions that makes the core issues difficult for the GOP ?
If a young voter thinks that the GOP are a bunch of hillbillies who escaped their fly-over country reservations, because He saw it on John Stewart or Colbert Show then maybe you start from there to save the party future instead of dumping your principles. I am not a highly paid political consultant, but would think that the half a billions dollars spent by Republicans in the last election could support so many Conservative young talents that could overturn the cultural narrative. I think there was talks about buying women magazines.
Wouldn't the world be better if this discussion would happen in a bunker deep down bellow DNC headquarters, instead of Ricochet, as they decide on becoming pro-life to not lose the next 50 elections. If only Obama was the most uncool thing on earth and every kid wanted to be Ronald Reagan.
Edited on March 18, 2013 at 2:52pmDec '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
There's the Constitution Party, I guess. That's always my first inclination when I contemplate retreating to the pews.
Edited on March 18, 2013 at 2:46pmMar '11
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
It sounds like a good way to woo the low information voter.
May '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
The GOP no longer believes in limited government, restrained spending or any other fiscal conservatism. Just look how they vote.
All that is left is So Con stuff. Get rid of that, and tell me exactly how the GOP differs from the other guys.
Us too, but less!
If Gay Marriage (tm) becomes the law of the land, they will force Churches to conduct gay weddings or lose tax exempt status. Just watch.
Oct '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
I have said this repeatedly here in Rico and I will continue to say this until Rico gets fed up and blocks me and cancels my subscription.
We don't need to change the substance of our message and we don't need to change who we are. We need to change how we disseminate our message and who we are to the American people.
http://bit.ly/SIfxyT
Nov '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
I think that the more Republicans act like democrats, the worse they do electorally. I give you the Washington State election for governor (I hate that goober word). Rob McKenna is a smart, competent Republican. He obliterates his opposition in 5 out of 5 debates. He has an intimate knowledge of the issues our state faces and plans to solve them. He has always been a strong supporter, in word and deed, of bi-partisanship. And he's almost a Democrat. The good people of Ricochet would probably call him a RINO. He's stated over and over again that he's pro-choice. Yet what are the ads that are run over and over again in the run up to the election? "Rob McKenna is going to take away our womanly rights."
Rob loses. Why? Because the opposition successfully painted him a Social Conservative? I don't think so. Those people were going to vote for Jay "imadope" Inslee anyway. No, he lost because the conservatives in this state didn't see a difference between he and Inslee. Rob knew it. When he came to my little town he said it: if we lose it will be because conservatives_stayed_home.
Nov '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
So my point is this: They are going to paint you as SocCons anyway, regardless of what you believe And if you squish to the middle, you'll lose your base.
Sep '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
The first two comments here really make the point. Since social conservatives see their issues as moral ones, there is little room for compromise. If you think abortion is murder, will you say,"I oppose the candidates baby-killing initiative, but I voted for him anyway because of his tax policy"?
And if you get rid of the social conservatives, who has the most votes? The Democrats or the guys standing next to them going "me too!"?
Feb '12
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
skipsul
'If the Repubs drop opposition to abortion and cave to the Dems on issues of religious freedom (SSM is a Demo bluff, the core issue is control of religion), then they've lost me entirely. If you sell out your core then you've proven you'll sell out on anything else.'
EXACTLY!!! In that event, they will have lost me too - as well as most of the loyal workers who have carried so much of the water here in Minnesota for the last three or four decades.
Nov '11
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
This is how most people feel. Just say it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/chatting_about_gays_at_gleasons.html
I believe we are winning the abortion debate socially, with doctors and the public. I think videos showing partial birth, hammering on killing botched abortion babies, and quotes from the eugenicists are very effective. Show it in it's ugly realilty.
Dec '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
Things like this lead me to contemplate whether the term conservative only rightly applies to social conservatives. Defense hawks can be strong on defense and flaming liberals, i.e. Joe Liberman. The fiscally sane can be for sound policy and be flaming liberals (some libertarians?). But, persons who are socially conservativecannotbe a flaming liberals. They can be dovish on war, but still aren't liberals. They can think government doesn't spend enough on domestic welfare programs, but they still aren't liberals. If they hold two positions, pro life and pro traditional marriage, they are defined as conservative regardless of any other positions they hold. One can be aberrant on almost any issues and still fit into either philosophy. The only binary issues are the social ones.
I could be wrong. Someone find a pro life, pro marriage liberal democrat to refute me.
Dec '12
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
One of the reasons I am a Conservative is that I believe there are certain "truths" that are indisputable based on what C.S. Lewis called the Laws of Nature. On my list of "truths", killing babies is wrong and marriage is between a man and a woman. No amount of public opinion or liberal media hype and propaganda can change those truths. If Republicans cave in and follow the liberals in supporting those things, I will be looking for a new political party.
Jun '10
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
GOP is definitely moving in the direction of being "an echo, not a choice."
Why vote for the wannabees (the "new" GOP), when there is already a party experienced with, and long-time supporters of, these issues (the Dems). GOP will almost certainly lose more voters than they gain.
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
Bryan G. Stephens:
Us too, but less!
It reminds me of how people try to convince traditional churches to become more like Episcopalians and UUs. Nothing against the latter groups, but numbers aren't the thing they have.
This, though, is more like asking traditional churches to adopt contemporary worship. I always thought, "Why would someone go to a Lutheran church for praise music when clearly the megachurch down the road is the place to go for praise music."
Jan '12
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
A pragmatic response to your question, "Are we sure that the GOP can be sufficiently liberal to compete (prevail) with the Liberals...":
The GOP will never be able to; the ground will always be moving on every trending topic; they will be constantly required to 'update' the party's position on a multitude of social issues.
They would be cast in the role of cheap 'look alikes' by the media, and would have to defend against the charge of 'expediency' in every race against a Democrat.
Also, such a conscious tack would not be supported by the 'worker bees' of the party and would further sap their enthusiasm for donating time and money to what they would view (after eight years of Obama in office) as a 'lost cause'.
Jul '11
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
Mollie - not just the media but also the readers of Ricochet are all about SSM; just look at any marriage related post on Ricochet.
Churches don't have to change, they can become more traditional, if only they don't expect the Government to run their wedding ceremonies for them.
Coercion is a losing strategy.
Sep '12
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
The GOP needs to figure out a way to lose gracefully on gay marriage. Because the only other option is losing badly. Winning is off the table. My recommendation is to pull hard for federalism and democratic processes, and oppose judicial fiat, as well as constitutional amendments designed to hamper the free will of future generations.
The good news is gay marriage is not an existential issue for the country. Yes, it's a blow to marriage. Yes, it's probably going to damage heterosexual marriage and it's not going to do a damn bit of good for gays. But it's not any worse than no fault divorce, and the damage was inflicted the moment the question got asked. We might as well go all in, because the argument is doing more damage to this country than our losing will.
Mar '11
Re: How Beating Up Social Cons Will Grow the GOP
Anyone see John Fund's article on NRO today?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343228/autopsy-2012-blame-consultants-john-fund
He covers this ground very well.