Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KAMINSKY: Get back to basics, Republicans, and drop most social issues

Gummed-up Old Party

By Ross Kaminsky, Special to the Rocky

Published December 6, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More Speakout

More stories »

The Republican Party is indeed a "big tent" with room for a wide range of views on many issues. However, when an excessive focus on social issues diverts attention away from fundamental Republican values of liberty, limited government and fiscal responsibility, the end result is a GOP that's no better - and is possibly worse - than the Democrats.

Many Republicans argue that the religious right is heart of the GOP "base." I disagree. Most religious conservatives are also fiscal conservatives whereas the converse may not be true. So, social conservatives will generally vote Republican if the GOP returns to representing its fundamentally American values, even without the party focusing on social issues. However, libertarian-leaning or less religious Republicans will not vote for a party which emphasizes social issues at the expense of what Benjamin Franklin called "essential liberty."

John McCain proved this point. According to the Cato Institute, "roughly 74 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two or three decades." And that's for a candidate of whom the religious right was very suspicious. Efforts to burnish McCain's social conservative credentials, particularly during a time of economic crisis, made him even less credible overall, hurting him among independent voters while not helping him with the religious right.

While some might argue that religious voters remaining loyal to the GOP suggests a continuing emphasis on social issues, I believe the proper response is "Haven't you noticed that we lost?"

Some Republican focus on social issues is appropriate, namely to prevent the forcing of a liberal social agenda down the citizens' throats. This is especially true regarding the courts. For example, the California Supreme Court's ruling in May allowing gay marriage over voters' objections was ripe electoral fodder - not just to motivate voters who oppose gay marriage, but also voters who recognize the danger of unaccountable judges acting like legislators.

Being the party that simultaneously protects people's liberty and their traditional values can be a political winner, particularly if the GOP is to make inroads with African-American voters or improve its standing among Hispanics. After all, the passage of California's Proposition 8 which changed the state's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is widely seen as having passed because of black voters, who are obviously not currently a Republican strong suit. But that was an issue of defending values, not imposing them.

This explains why "defensive" social issues ballot measures, such as Proposition 8, have passed where "offensive" measures, like South Dakota's abortion bans and Colorado's "personhood amendment," have failed. The nation is essentially, if moderately, libertarian even though most people can't define the term.

So, while Republicans should oppose the imposition of a liberal social agenda on society, the party cannot expect to win by just aiming to impose a different social agenda. We don't need a Christian sharia any more than we need gay marriage forced upon us.

Even the average inattentive American voter sees the hypocrisy of arguing for liberty in one area and against it in another. Yes, the Democrats represent a mirror-image hypocrisy, but liberals don't claim interest in principles of liberty, so the hypocrisy hurts Republicans far more than Democrats.

Once the Republican Party gets beyond defending the values of most Americans and moves into proposing new Bible-based policies, social issues become a political liability, repelling more voters than they attract. The GOP must focus on living up to the principles of our founding which are the true glue of American society and, if properly explained and implemented, should lead to electoral success without an intense focus on social issues.

Robert Novak hit the nail on the head when he said, "God put the Republican Party on Earth to cut taxes. If they don't do that, they have no useful function." When social issues conservatives distract from that mission, they are not simply other Republicans under the big tent. They are the arsonists burning the tent down.

Ross Kaminsky is writes about political economy and current events at Rossputin.com. He is a resident of Nederland.

Comments

  • December 8, 2008

    12:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Hillman's article is better Ross. I guess conservatives should just leave their values at home when voting?

  • December 9, 2008

    6:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    hogarm writes:

    Where are the realists? When abortion is criminalized, how many more prosecutors have to be hired? How many more jails will have to be built? How many more schools, day-care centers, foster-homes, specialized hospitals, orphanages will be needed?
    Who is going to pay? With what, higher taxes or more borrowing?
    Individual liberty is the opposite of theocracy.

  • December 9, 2008

    7:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Miseslover writes:

    hogarm--
    you are what is scary about the abortion debate--
    if people cost us money, we're better off just killing them. WOW!

    Nonetheless Kaminsky is right, unless the Republican Party goes the way of Ron Paul, they are doomed to obsolescence and then extinction.

  • December 9, 2008

    10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Coco writes:

    Mises - hogram is not advocating killing anyone. If abortion becomes illegal, then what he/she has listed are all things that will HAVE to be dealt with. Clearly, if you pass a law, there has to be prosecution. The statistics show that ~1/3 of American women have had an abortion. Are you ready to put 1/3 of American women in jail? And how about the men who impregnated them? Felony jail time or business as usual? As the article stated - get your nose out from under my tent - consenting ADULT relationships are not the place for politics.

  • December 10, 2008

    11:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    MikeGray writes:

    Coco, your logic is seriously flawed. It assumes that if abortion were made illegal, that 1/3 of American women would still choose to have abortions in defiance of the law. More than likely, a vast majority would not.

    Second, it is backward to determine the legality of something based on how cumbersome it would be to enforce the law. If something is made illegal, it is because a sufficient portion of the society deems it to be morally wrong and thus unacceptable. It doesn't matter if you're talking about abortion or bank robbery.

    Third, abortion concerns not just two consenting adults but a child as well. Given the fact that most everyone agrees that it's wrong to give birth to a baby and then chuck it in a dumpster, that means there's a point when a bunch of cells becomes a baby. And so far, I can't seem to find general agreement about when that happens. That means that the issue is much more complicated than a simple "get the government out of my business".

  • December 10, 2008

    4:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    hogarm writes:

    MikeGray; you can learn a lot about reality by observing the rest of the world. Brazil, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest abortion rates and a very high pregnancy mortality rate.
    Norway, where abortion is legal, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Brazil is a religious Catholic country, Norway is a highly secular country.

  • December 10, 2008

    8:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jwcalla writes:

    hogarm,

    It is the primary responsibility of governments to protect and safeguard the human rights of those under its jurisdiction. To that end, it is certainly within the confines of legitimate political action to limit abortion.

    To say that the Republican Party is for "limited government" and therefore shouldn't be involved in the "private" affairs of others is losing sight of the government's duty.

    It could be argued that -- at the federal level -- Republicans have no need to emphasize "social issues" as strongly as they typically do (almost to the exclusion of actual federal policy), but they certainly have a role in advocating for the defense of human life.

  • December 10, 2008

    8:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MikeGray writes:

    Well hogarm, considering the high rate of crime in Brazil in general, do you find that surprising? You could have used stats from Somalia too, a country run by warlords. Trying to compare different cultures and societies is not always productive when there are many variables involved in the explanation.

    And you conveniently ignored the other two points.

  • December 10, 2008

    10:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    hogarm writes:

    World wide, about half of abortions are illegal and half of abortions are legal. Country by country, there is no correlation between the legality of abortion and the rate of abortion.
    There is a high correlation between low rates of abortion and education of women, availability of contraception and higher income levels.
    There is a high correlation between high rates of abortion and subjugation of women, unavailability of contraceptives, poverty and influence of religion.
    Religion is not part of the solution, religion is part of the problem.

  • December 10, 2008

    10:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MikeGray writes:

    Actually, religion has little to do with the problem. As a non-religious person, it is a simple matter of logic to me. Since people cannot agree upon when life begins, and since the idea of murdering a human being is about as offensive an I idea I can think of, I see no reason to not err on the side of caution.

    Of course, that demands personal responsibility from people and a willingness to live with mistakes that are made. The fact that people would even take the risk that they're actually killing a baby and not a clump of cells tells me all I need to know about the issue and about the people involved in a voluntary abortion.

    Cases of rape and the like are a little more understandable, but are a small percentage of the total and should not be compared to couples who have abortions because they were too lazy or stupid to use contraception.

  • December 10, 2008

    10:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jwcalla writes:

    hogarm,

    Considering that the three primary religions teach that one is to be responsible with sexual activity and that abortion is wrong, it's hard to argue that religion is partly to blame for a higher rate of abortion.

    Think things through.

  • December 11, 2008

    1:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Squib writes:

    MikeGray,

    So the logical thing to do in the cases of rape and incest would be to allow murder the unborn child. Correct? Even though it is innocent of any wrongdoing, other than being the child of a rapist?

    I think that this “with the exception of rape or incest” clause that people use is bunk. If you believe that abortion is murder of an innocent person, then how can you justify it under any circumstance? That type of logic to me would say that it is OK to murder any person conceived as a product of rape or incest: in the womb, just born, or 12 years old. Your logic needs to be re-examined.

  • December 12, 2008

    2:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MikeGray writes:

    Incorrect.

    I didn't say it's OK, I said it's more understandable. In other words, I can see where people might make the argument, which is exactly where they always go when the debate comes up, as if those cases somehow justify the legality of abortion. My point was that it's such a small number that it shouldn't be the primary factor when determining the legality, which is right where the pro-abortion crowd likes to steer the debate.