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.