Two state senators in Michigan recently introduced bill , which deals with sex ed and the regulation of crisis pregnancy centers. In effect, state funds are used to appropriate crisis centers and mandate “information about the wide range of options available to women facing unintended pregnancies, including abortion services.” The bill also makes it easier to sue the counselors at these centers, should they not encourage an abortion in the conversation. The reasoning?
“Warren said in an interview … that studies show that for every one dollar spent on preventing sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy, the state saves four to six dollars in the first year in social services costs. “We can spend those dollars on other needs we have in the state now.”
Translation: Poor kids cost the state too much money, so let’s kill ‘em.
What the hell is that?
This site is called NextGenGOP because people come here to discuss the future of the Republican Party and how to best form and adjust the party platform to experience success in 2010 and beyond. It’s a conversation I commonly have with friends and co-workers, as well. There seems to be a strong sentiment that social conservatives are the reason for 2006/08’s butt-kicking, holding on to an unpopular extremist agenda that pushes away too many independents. Many would rather allow bills like these to pass than fight the old Christian Right agenda to no end. However, recent polling strongly suggests that the GOP would be well advised to continue opposing such terrible legislation.
- Abortion. This issue is said to be a third rail – so politically charged that anyone discussing it can only suffer at the ballot box. But look at the alternative above – Democrats haven’t stopped pushing this issue. From the primaries between Clinton and Obama last year to doctors’ conscience laws, the Left has kept actively engaged with topic and diligent in their efforts to turn babies into cash with a knife and a vacuum.
Opinion suggest that the public, moderates quite centrally, might be fed up with their insistence on the wanton murder of children – more Americans identify as pro-life than pro-choice for the first time in since a tie in 2001. Once the pro-choice agenda became clear, people began to realize that it is just too much. This is why so many conservatives want to excise the pro-life agenda nowadays, for fear that a similar knee-jerk public reaction could lead to a pro-choice voting windfall.But can we find a middle ground between forging ahead as blatantly as the Left and scuttling the ship entirely? Certainly, we can throw out any far-fetched ideas like an anti-abortion amendment or in-all-cases prevention laws on the state level. However, strong opposition to over-reaching pro-choice legislation polls well and ought to be sought. At the same time, the next Republican President with a court vacancy to fill certainly shouldn’t promote a pro-choice candidate in order to just grease the wheels. The issue won’t be avoided – just ceded, as an inevitable firestorm swirls public sentiment anyway.
- Gay Marriage. People see gay marriage being approved by state supreme courts one by one across the country and lazily assume that national opinion must be shifting on the issue. However, voters still disapprove by a margin nationwide, handfuls of justices here and there aside. Opposition to it even has a cross-over appeal, as more liberals identify as opposed than conservatives in support.
For an example of this cross-over appeal, we can look at California’s prop 8 vote from this past Fall. Voters there (yes, that’s right, in California) voted to overturn gay marriage due in large part to huge African-American turnout. Early exit polls said that the African-American and Latino communities voted for the socially conservative proposal by as much as a margin. Deeper analysis suggests it is probably closer to , but that is still a significant divide – larger than Barack’s winning margin, in fact.
Opposition to gay marriage and a cautious, dignified stance against abortion are popular among voters, including some of the demographics over which Republican mapmakers drool. Running away from them would be contradictory to the evidence available and harmful to the party’s electoral outlook. Simply put, socially conservative issues are some of the best things the Republican Party has going for it right now.
Sure, we all see an opportunity to present ourselves as the party of fiscal restraint and steady hands in juxtaposition with Chairman Obama’s policies, but we’re not going to get there by throwing everyone who happens to also care about other things under the bus. Even though it appears new and shiny now, we were always the party of fiscal conservatism, but the lack of evidence of it in our elected officials (and maybe a war in Iraq) got our hats handed to us. Old-fashioned positions on gay marriage and abortion did nothing to hurt the party – they’re simply a couple of the few things our leaders didn’t screw up.
Bills like the one cited above are just as disgusting and appalling to voters in the middle as they are to those of us on the Right. Murder for money is murder for money, no matter who you are – the only ones blinded to it are the unpopular extremists spinning their wheels on the Left. I know many people are questioning the role, and even the presence, of social conservatives in the new GOP’s national agenda, but do we really want to adopt the unpopular Machiavellian platform instead?
Last 5 posts by Gideon D'Assandro
- The Reality of Racial Politics - August 17th, 2009
- Thank God Obama's President - August 3rd, 2009
- Health Care Coverup - July 23rd, 2009
- The Suppressed EPA Report’s Effect on Healthcare - July 12th, 2009
- GOP Finally Pushing Cohesive Message - June 28th, 2009
Gideon,
With respect to this particular post, I find myself in strong disagreement with much of what you have asserted. While I know not the precise context or terms of the legislation proposed in Michigan, a state-funded agency should make those receiving its services aware of all available lawful options. On the wider issues raised, I would dispute your claim that opposition to abortion generally and strong opposition to same-sex marriages are winners for Republicans. Were that the case, the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections should have shown stronger results for George W. Bush. Instead, he barely won in 2000, and picked up only Iowa and New Mexico despite losing New Hampshire in 2004. You may be correct that these socially conservative issues have some appeal among many on the left and right generally, and within certain demographic groups, but the reality may be that other issues matter more to these groups. With respect to the referendum in California back in November, many voters skipped the referendum question on same-sex marriage. Had all Obama voters voted on that question, the passage of Proposition 8 seems improbable.
What made past American conservatism great was the aversion to excessive government, reckless spending, and irresponsible regulation. George Will had it right when, following the 1980 election, he attributed the Reagan victory to Goldwater, the same Barry Goldwater who was skeptical about restricting the presence of homosexuals in the military and efforts at prohibiting abortion.
Electorally, George W. Bush is the only successful Republican presidential nomine to ever have stood on a strongly socially conservative platform and won. His father won (and campaigned in 1988) on the coattails of Ronald Reagan, and the Gipper won on economics and national security following the controversies of his predecessor’s administration. Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower focused on such issues either regardless of their personal views. I share the frustrations of those displeased with the last administration, though perhaps not always for the same reasons as others.
While I can see that these socially conservative issues are important to you, and to many across our great country, they are not universally within the party. Republican politics should emphasize pragmatic realism abroad, and a respect for constitutional and economic liberty at home. That said, more broadly, the is some overlap between the fiscal conservative and the social conservative. Certainly, both have legitimate objections to the public funding of medical abortions.
Thanks for the well-thought response – a civil exchange goes nicely with a variety of opinion.
I would like to offer a clarification. I did not mean that Republicans going forward should run primarily on a socially conservative platform. It’s hard to do it right, and most certainly a touchy subject. However, the alternative being proposed by many – abandoning it altogether – strikes me as much too strong an over-correction.
I’d love to see someone run in ’12 for the President and counter Obama’s record with solid credentials in fiscal conservatism. But adopting the Left’s positions on gay marriage, abortion, et al seems like an unnecessary step to do that. At least I hope that its an unnecessary step.
here, here! i agree completely with James.
i agree with you gideon! social conservatives bring a lot to our party and we should keep them! we need to stop shunning different factions of the republican party, if we are going to become a majority once again we all going to need all types of conservatives to join together and vote for GOP candiates. like chairmen steele said “im about addition not subtraction.”
I’ve seen the clips of Steele here and there that have made us all cringe a bit, but when you see him in person and get a feel for the guy’s mannerisms – he’s not half bad. I walked away a much bigger fan than when I just knew him from tv blurbs.
Gideon,
Agree on some points, disagree on others, but I’m glad to see a variety and breadth of opinions on the site.
- Aaron
Well, thanks!
I would agree that Chairman Steele is correct to focus on “addition not subtraction”, but this suggests that Republicans as a party organization should have a slightly broader platform in some areas too.
What are you thinking of, specifically?
Well, for example, those who are pro-life and those who are fiscally conservative could probably agree that public funding for medical abortions is wrong, so the GOP platform could focus on opposition to public funding and possibly late term abortion rather than abortion generally.
sounds pretty smart! good one james.
That sounds good. How much do you want the agenda limited – just electorally, or in action as well? Hypothetically, let’s say there’s a contested bill up for debate that limits abortion or some such thing. How do you feel about GOP leadership whipping votes for that?
That’s a very good question, Gideon. Presumably, if the party platform lacks a plank opposing abortion outright, then the leadership likely is not ‘whipping’ members to vote for a bill restricting abortion. Or, due to the diversity of opinion in the party (but broad consensus against public funding), the party leadership in Congress seeks the passage of said measure anyway, if it believes the votes exist to carry the measure.
Ok, gotcha.