One of our critics and one of our staunchest defenders respectively got at the weakness in the argument GOProud and this blog have been making asking the GOP to sidestep social issues.
The critic, Tim, in a comment, contended that my “compromise of not discussing social issues” means that Congress will not move forward on DADT and DOMA repeal while “immigration reform for gays will languish. Somehow,” he adds, “the status quo doesn’t seem that great.”
In a blog post, styled as an open letter to GOProud, North Dallas Thirty looks at the status quo from a different angle and also finds it also not great:
But the key to dealing with social issues is not to ignore them completely. Indeed, by making them off-limits, you infuriate those whose support you need and leave yourself open for the Obama Party to exploit them against you. . . .
Take, for instance, abortion.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the simple fact is this: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi rammed through a bill that not only requires you as a taxpayer to fund abortion, but for that money to be sent to organizations who are covering up statutory rape and refusing to notify parents — and then donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to that same Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.
Read the whole thing, not necessarily because I agree with it, but because I do believe he raises some valuable points. He suggest that instead of avoiding social issues, we “grab” and “reframe them.”
NDXXX is spot on about abortion. But, I see that not so much as a social issue, but more as a fiscal. No government should pay for abortion.
And yes, I do acknowledge that social conservatives are part of the GOP coalition. But, Republicans risk losing independent voters if they bend over backwards trying to appease these folks. So, keep the focus on fiscal issues, but make clear they understand social conservatives’ concern.
The less government is involved in our lives, the greater influence private institutions will have. The government should not mandate that social conservatives pay for a medical procedure they find abhorrent.
But here’s the rub. If we ignore the social issues, as I advocate, we would certainly appease social conservatives on DADT, DOMA and immigration for same-sex partners. For them, the status quo on such issues is a good thing. Yet, on federal funding of abortion, the status quo is not so good. Nor is a good thing for those social libertarians, like myself, who don’t believe taxpayers should pay for abortion.
Now you understand why the majority of gay people distrust you gay republicans?
Well thanks for the hat tip Dan, however using NDT30 as your role model on social change is asking Strom Thurmond to promote interracial marriage. At no point does he want any of those things to pass as he has mentioned in the past, he doesn’t believe in gay marriage, he thinks gay soldiers should shut-up or be run out of the military and he thinks that all gays are whiny brats that should be happy to be shut in the closet. So he’s never going to advocate any position that does call for change. His answer was ignore everything because gays can’t hope to change anything. Really 60% of Marines are for repeal and he focus’s on the 40%? what’s next will he call for republicans to cede every vote to the Democrats because a majority is simply an inconvenient fact?
Your answer seems to be to elect people that won’t help you and than wonder why nothing is changing.
I support cleaving the gay vote from the democratic teat because single party voting is a useless strategy in a democracy. The party will use you and ignore you knowing you won’t leave. So now that you have supported people who won’t vote for you the question is how to still use them to advance your agenda, (This is your Underpants Gnome Issue You want republicans in office but you have no idea how to get to huge profits) First target Republicans that will support us, second get them to add legislation like DADT repeal to the Defense Bill and than ram it through. So we are at this point, now we have to find a way to silence McCain swing Murkowski, Snow and Collins and get it done. Stop whinging and call your friends on the Hill. Call in your favors this is the fight you earned them for.
Dan, one man’s definition of what rightly constitutes a soc con issue versus the manner in which nearly ANY issue could be spun as a social issue, is a wide and varied assembly. Some here have recently called for treating DADT repeal as a social issue and, honestly, some probably could contend that nearly every issue can be spun as a fiscal and/or spending issue… including abortion.
I think the better focus is to argue that the GOP ought to stay away from making soc con issues the primary focus of their agenda and, instead, stay focused on reversing spending, downsizing govt, reducing axes, expanding the moribund Obama economy, and insuring our natl security is actually secure from threat(s) rather than marching down the aisle again on flag burning, English Only, etc.
That doesn’t mean social issues won’t arise in the new Congress or the lame duck Congress for that matter –it just shouldn’t become the primary or overriding focus of the GOP’s agenda no matter how tempting it might be to GOP leaders to toss some meat to the “rabid dogs” (kidding).
I’d like to see Boehner and McConnell advise, when a social issue arises for consideration, that the GOP want’s to stay focused on restoring jobs in America, reducing our run-away Obama govt, and igniting the entrepreneurial forces that will lead to real, sustainable job growth –not just 1-time union jobs or Census worker dead-end jobs or another ACORN scheme.
And then advise the press that as an individual leader Boehner or McConnell are going to probably vote yea/nay on that issue when it gets to the floor but that’s for every member to decide, our Caucus didn’t take a position on it.
The family values we ought to be speaking non-stop on are prudence, fiscal discipline, living within our means, pocketbook/kitchen table issues and leave the job of pushing back against the Left on the culture war to cable news.
Actually, no, JS, I don’t. If they were truly broad-minded, they would appreciate the challenges we face.
“Distrust” suggests that they assume we support everything our party does. And by pulling that one comment, you ignore my reference to Tim’s point. He’s right. My argument is flawed. I do believe we should move forward on those issues.
By acknowledging the flaws in my argument, I show that I recognize my party isn’t perfect. And those gay people who distrust us remain blind to our recognition of our party’s imperfections.
Compromise is necessary is politics, but some of these compromises wouldn’t have been necessary had Democrats used their majority when they had it to move forward on certain issue. And they could better have accomplished that by reaching out to those Republicans, like Susan Collins, for example, who support DADT repeal.
oops “reducing axes” above should have been reducing taxes.
I guess I was subliminally thinking about ILC grinding axes. Sorry.
Tim, good advice in your last lines, but I’m not whining here. I’m just making a point.
That said, I’m going to a an SLDN fundraiser on Thursday night in West Hollywood. I’ll ask them what I can do to swing Collins and Snowe in the lame-duck session.
I used “whinging” for that very reason! “to cry in a fretful way”
Dan I do want to apologize for thinking that you were unable to change your opinion and I salute your ability to pivot. But dear lord don’t pivot to the one person so torn by his personal issues that he cannot say a single nice thing to say even about gays serving honorably in the military.
Good Luck I’ll be sending a pointless letter to Inhofe and Colburn and a few to staff members for Snow and Collins. It might be good to remember that staff members have a disproportionate effect on their boss.
And, no thread would be complete without off-topic MM poo-flinging. Go, MM! You’re everyone’s hero! 😉
But what I came to say: It’s worth remembering that the GOProud open letter was about legislative agendas. They weren’t asking anyone to shut up or abandon their convictions or to stop fighting left-wing nonsense. They were only writing *legislators* to say that fiscal / Tea Party issues should be placed at the top of the legislative agenda. I agree. And, I agree with NDT and Dan also: The federal government should not be funding abortions, and addressing fiscal issues would logically involve cutting that funding – along with much else.
Tim, thanks for the clarification — and apology.
Please note, I do take criticism seriously, particularly when offered in a civil tone–
To me, one of the ways to reduce the federal spending would be to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Yes, I know they do good things, but those can be funded by donations of their supporters. Yes, I know we can’t balance the budget solely by cutting Planned Parenthood (or NPR or…), but a million cut here and a million cut there, and eventually we reach a trillion.
“…I…acknowledge that social conservatives are part of the GOP coalition.” But you really, really wish we weren’t. Admit it, B. Daniel.
“…apease these folks…” Nope, no disdain for social conservatives there.
B. Daniel, if you and GOProud would insist that the Democrats also ignore social, and especially gay, issues you’d have much more credibility. For now, your one-sidedness makes you look like what I deeply suspect you are: social liberals using any strategy possible to defeat social conservatives.
“…leave the job of pushing back against the Left on the culture war to cable news.” Translation: surrender and give the social Left total hegemony over the culture.
NDT,
Very well written, excellent points one and all.
Dan,
Here is where I think you are getting off on the wrong foot. I think you erroneously believe that “appeasing” (telling choice of words, there) social conservatives means all the Democrats demagogic lies about what social conservatism means will come true. It doesn’t. It means defending Constitutional social conservatism. And we should not and must not throw social conservatives under the bus so that independents wont believe Democrats lies. We must instead stand up to Democrats lies and explain to independents that social conservatism IS Constitutional conservatism. THAT is a winning, not losing issue.
you are starting to come around. We will win you over yet! 😉
American Elephant, I find it amusing that you try to define social conservatism in a way that doesn’t involve taking a position on the issues. Clever. I would’ve expected that from B. Daniel but it’s surprising coming from you. I think you need to rethink you definition of social conservatism, though.
If social conservatism is about how issues are brought before the public and not about the position taken on the issues, then Bill Ayers could be a social conservative simply by using the legislature rather than the courts to impose his radical vision on the country. Tell me why that wouldn’t be so, AE.
Hypothetically speaking, it would be so.
But it’s an asinine argument.
I have more faith in the people, and more respect for their God-given right to govern themselves than that. Which is the ultimate right from whence all the others are derived. It also happens to be the underlying premise of this nation, and the very reason it remains socially conservative to begin with.
Gosh! GOProud’s friends, allies and fellow travelers think the homo-quislings are more disgusting than we lefties think they are:
“Today, Tea Party Nation, along with over 180 other Tea Party Groups, Leaders and Activists released a letter to the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. Last week, GOProud, a non-Tea Party group, sent a letter to Senator McConnell and Speaker to be Boehner, claiming to speak for the Tea Party movement. It was signed by 16 people. We decided to send a letter that speaks for the mainstream of the Tea Party movement. This letter is going Senator McConnell and Congressman Boehner today.”
Ouch.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2631442/posts