Potential Republican Crack-Up

[KMB]

For the past 20 years, there's been a discussion in political circles and the media about the "fault lines" in the Republican party over the hot-button social issues such as the death penalty, abortion, affirmative action and gay rights.

The presumption has always been that these issues would ultimately cause a rift between conservatives and moderates that would split the Republican coalition. The pundits and the MSM have been expecting and predicting this split for as long as I've been watching politics and they've been puzzled by the fact that it has never occurred.

I believe that the reason that it hasn't occurred is that the underlying assumptions are wrong. There are no "moderate" Republicans. I think Republicans are almost all conservative. Today, there are no Republicans left who are philosophically in line with Nelson Rockefeller, John Anderson, Lowell Weicker or Mark Hatfield. I know that this line of reasoning may be challenged by the Maine & Rhode Island Republican senators but the Republicans in those states (who vote Republican in presidential elections) are conservatives. The New England Republican Senators get elected by appealing to Democrats in overwhelmingly Democratic states.

There were approximately 62 million people who voted for GW Bush in 2004. I believe that probably 61.5 million of those people (1) support the death penalty (2) oppose affirmative action and (3) oppose gay marriage. I also believe that an equally high percentage of Bush voters (even those who are pro-choice) believe that the Roe v. Wade case was a hideous decision.

Pro-choice Republicans also are aware of the dirty little secret of the abortion debate -- which is that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, there would probably be no effect... There are probably no more than 7 - 9 states where abortion would actually be outlawed and there are currently few (or no) abortion doctors practicing in those states today anyway. Overall, the number of abortions occurring in the next ten years would only be affected by 1% or less if Roe v. Wade were reversed.

So this is, I believe, why the Republican coalition never cracked or splintered. It has confounded and infuriated the opposition but the Republican coalition really never had the fault lines that so many people thought it had.

However, I now think that one may be developing. The impending divisions in the Republican party won't be "moderate" vs. "conservative". It will be "evangelical conservative" vs. "non evangelical conservative". The issues that cause the breach won't be abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage or affirmative action. Instead the divisions will be caused over: (1) stem cell research, (2) evolution and (3) the Terri Schiavo case.

I think that 25 years from now, we'll all look back on the Terri Schiavo case as a cataclysmic event in American politics. There were tens of millions of people who looked at the pictures of Terri Schiavo and thought just one thing: "My god, if that ever happens to me, pull the plug, stop the feeding or do whatever it takes to finish me off."

At the time many Republican leaders spoke of the fact that this was a unique case but the tone of the debate both in and out of the media was that this was essentially a first step.

I remember that pro-Brady Bill and pro-Assault weapons ban politicians repeatedly assured the public that this wouldn't mean banning guns while activists and media pundits indicated that this was a first step towards doing so.

With the Terri Schiavo case, activists -- evangelicals --similarly didn't view this as a unique case but as a first step towards preventing feeding tube or life support removal in any case regardless of living wills or not.

This had an effect on non-evangelical Republicans or "secular Republicans" . . . By itself, I don't think that it would be enough to cause a breach but this isn't just one issue. The other issues that are occurring at the same time are an inexplicable renewed debate over evolution and the stem cell research debate.

With regard to the former, there's no polite or nice way to put it so I'll just be direct. People who believe in evolution think that people who don't believe in evolution are idiots -- pure and simple. The perception that an evolution believer has of a non-evolution believer is of a person saying, "Duh, my grandfather wasn't no ape."

Secular Republicans look at people who publicly discuss their doubts about evolution and who don't want it taught in public schools with utter disgust.

With regard to stem cell research, secular Republicans are excited at the prospects and supportive of practically any scientific research and they simmer at the thought of obstruction of research on religious grounds.

These three issues: evolution, Terri Schiavo and stem cell research are close to causing (or may have already caused) an irrepairable breach in the Republican coalition.

I'm a conservative. I believed in a 2nd war against in Iraq to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. I also believe in making the '01 & '03 tax cuts permanent; drilling in anwar; that members of al Qaeda who are captured are illegal soldiers and not entitled to due process. I believe in progressive indexing of SS benefits, support the confirmation of John Roberts, think Antonin Scalia is the ideal justice and favor ballistic missile defense.

I also support the death penalty, oppose affirmative action, oppose gay marriage and think that the Roe v. Wade decision was a farce. I could go on but the point is made -- I'm a conservative....

But, I also accept the truth that the human species has a pre-history and I support stem cell research and I think that keeping Terri Schiavo's existance without life going was cruel and sadistic. That feeding tube should've never been inserted 14 years ago.

As a result of all of this, I now find myself in a position that I would have never dreamed of 5 or 10 years ago which is that I object to Hillary Clinton far, far less than I object to Tom Delay. Or Rick Santorum. Or Sam Brownback. Or Tom Tancredi.

Hopefully, Rudy Guiliani will be the nominee in '08 and make this all a moot point but if he isn't then I'm confronted with the possibility that I'll probably vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she stands against so much that I believe in.

If there are others like me out there, and I think there are, then get ready for a 2nd Clinton Administration.

[MikefromOhio]

FRiends...

with us today is FReeper KMB, who, like someone I could mention from yesterday, is more or less saying that the GOP will split along religious and/or Philosophical lines.

I think someone needs some shock "therapy"...


anyone?

[Darksheare]

I know.
He seems to either be unaware of that, or is aware of it but hoping that he hasn't been lied to again by the libs.

[KMB]

Not relishing the thought but yes. If she were up against someone who opposed Stem Cell research or refused to disavow the anti-evolution crowd then yes... I know that bush opposed Stem Cell Research in '04 but I actually thought that he'd change positions after the election and even if he didn't, Iraq was the more important issue.

In '08, if it was someone like Brownback (and I think he could be a darkhorse for the GOP nomination) who opposes stem cell research and, most importantly, refuses to support evolution, then I probably couldn't vote for him.

It'd only be for 4 or 8 years... Not the end of the world.

[Darksheare]

"You'll do this and nothing else if I vote for you?"
'Yessssssss.'
"MMM.. Okay!"
'Your ssssssoul issssss mine!'
"What was that?"
'Oh.. nothing.'

[MikefromOhio]

LOL

well when those fuses turn black, they tend to fry :)

[section9]

Actually, you're wrong. Rudy won't be the nominee. Rice will be. And she's strongest on the issue that most Republicans really care about, 2nd Amerndment. That's the one issue, incluing abortion, that a Republican simply cannot compromise on.

Roe won't be repealed tomorrow. Maybe in 5-10 years it might be sent back to the states, but that will be the extent of it. Some of the yahoos on this board think a Human Life Amendment would pass Congress and be approved by the State Legislatures. They're just chasing after the Perfect in place of the Good. Meanwhile, abortions keep going on and they keep promoting dogcatcher candidates like Brownback and Tancredo. I mean, I understand where you're coming from partly, but Hillary would kick these guys in the balls. Saying you'd vote for Hillary instead of Brownback is a bit like saying you'd vote for Heinrich Himmler instead of Jesus Christ. Any guy who's going to vote for a gungrabber like Hillary under any circumstances needs to check his conservatism.

RKBA keeps the party together. The Donks think its abortion. That's why they're stupid people. Remember that: it's the guns that make the party go. Condi knows that-you should too.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Darksheare]

They glow funny too.

[darkangel82]

McCain was unacceptable before the Feingold bill, because he is a RINO.

[mware]

As a matter of fact Bush was the 1st president to allow embryonic stem cell research to occur. (Something I disagree with him on.)

If embryonic stem cell research had any chance to be fruitful don't you think that the private sector would be knocking down the doors?

Do the research, adult stem cells have saved thousands of people in 56 different clinical treatments. Embryonic stem cells have 0 treatments.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Why is it that these people claim to be "Conservative" when it is obvious that they have not the faintest idea what being a conservative actually is?

So much of this stuff that they claim to care about falls under the category of "Stuff the Fed has no business being involved with in the first place." To vote for a democrat is to vote for INCREASED federal involvement.

To vote for a conservative is to vote for someone who understands the inappropriateness of federal involvement and, whether he agrees with it or not, will attempt to remove the Federal government from the equation.

[mware]

Make that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Hillary! stands for Hillary!. She could care LESS about you. She'll lie, steal, cheat...whatever to get your vote. The fact that you don't know this already, leads me to believe that you've been in her camp all the while.

[KMB]

I don't think Rice will run but I'd support her if she did. She'd be an ideal President though.

[codercpc]

I am Pro - Life, somewhat squishy on the death penalty, against gay marriage, and I don't have a strong feeling either way about evolution (I am more for intelligent design, but also believe in evolution). But you are wrong on so many levels.

Terry Schiavo upset me, I didn't think the government should have gotten involved. I was accused of being a death monger, and many other things on this very site. But I don't think it would ever make me leave the Republican Party.

Stem Cell research could be a problem. As a Pro - Life believer, I do have an ethical problem with producing embryos only to destroy them for research, but I have no problems with using "left over" embryos that were destined for destruction anyway. I would love to see more legislation on the amount of embryos that can be created for in vitro tries, but since that isn't happening, I think they could be donated for good use. As long as there was no financial incentive, and the parents of the embryo donated them of their own free will, I don't see this any different than donating organs. I know that many Freepers disagree with this, but the reality is that they will never all be adopted out, and they will be destroyed, so if they can do more good I am for it.

But, I think your main premise is wrong, I think the two main issues that WOULD split the Republican Party are, gun control, and illegal immigration. And with the first one (Gun Control) Rudy fails miserably!!!!!

[Darksheare]

I dunno.
Most of my generation, Gen X-ers to the 30 year age threshold, are conditioned to think government should do 'this' or government should do 'that' as well as 'there aughta be a law.'

So they see government as an end all be all, and think in terms of 'government' instead of 'right and wrong'.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Well yes. That too! But I was just giving concrete resent history examples as to why his heroes were unacceptable.

Bottom line is that they are not conservatives and so whether they agree with me on issues or not is moot.

[KMB]

You think I missed the period from '92 to present??? You think I don't know that she'll lie, cheat or steal or do practically anything under the sun to get a vote??? Of course I do.

Bill Clinton signed one of the most conservative bills in the past 75 years in 1996 (welfare reform) in order to get re-elected. She's the same. She'll do whatever, WHATEVER it takes to get elected -- and that means ditching 90% of her agenda.

[darkangel82]

True, they're Repubs first and conservatives second, when it should be the other way around. Plus, if you've ever thought of voting for anyone named Clinton, you aren't a conservative. I think this article was posted just so the OP could say "See, they are cracking up."

[Darksheare]

"You think I don't know that she'll lie, cheat or steal or do practically anything under the sun to get a vote??? Of course I do."

Then why do you state that you'll vote for the insane holstien?

[MikefromOhio]

So you are cheerleading for her now I see....