Hot Topic: Should the GOP De-Emphasize Social Issues?

PJ Media ^ | February 7, 2014 - 1:12 pm | (PJ Editors)

[Olog-hai]

For the last 10 days, we’ve had something of a running debate among GOP columnists on the question of whether Republicans should de-emphasize social issues as part of a broader political strategy to appeal to more voters.

It began when Roger L. Simon penned a column titled “How Social Conservatives are Saving Liberalism (Barely).” Simon believes that social issues, specifically gay marriage, may keep Republicans from victory …

[stars & stripes forever]

Stars & Stripes Forever believes God, Traditional Family Values, and Country will give Republicans the victory …

[SoConPubbie]

Sounds like the Tea Party, too.

That's just the myth that Ron Paul Libertarians espouse.

The Tea-Party gatherings I've gone to or witnessed were chock-full of people holding signs declaring their Pro-Life and anti-Gay Agenda positions.

[SoConPubbie]

and religion, definitely. That has cost all the elections. It’s a no win deal.

You're on the wrong site bub!

We don't surrender or back off of any conservative issue.

Your looking for the Karl Rove site, you know, the Democrat Collaborators Club site.

[Olog-hai]

Hear hear.

[savagesusie]

It is such an impossible notion. You can NEVER separate “Social” issues from Human Beings——everything we do in an economy has to do with social issues.

Natural Law Theory-—basis of our Judicial system—where “...Laws of Nature and nature’s God” and Bill of Rights and Civil Rights-—all come from Natural Law and Social Contracts-—”SOCIAL” issues. We promote Truth (Natural Law is Science/Truth with God’s Design). Homosexuality is AGAINST Natural Laws and God’s Design. It is unconstitutional to promote such irrational cr(p in “Laws” which have to be Reasoned to be Just. Same with Abortion-—it is killing human beings-—provable by science-—CAN”T DO IT-—it is unconstitutional.

Our JUSTICE system is meant for SOCIAL ISSUES!!!! Do these fiscal conservatives want to eliminate “Justice” too. After all, Justice is a Virtue ( a SOCIAL ISSUE). This whole subject is STUPID!

“Without Virtue (social issue, people). there can be no Free Republic” Socrates-—which all the Founders reiterated.

Why? Vice destroys all societies—all contracts— economics-—all families, and literally kills off the kids. There is no future.

[greene66]

There’s already a Party that represents deviancy and cultural rot, the Dems. If the GOP starts embracing things like fag-marriage and dope, they will never get another vote from me. To put it mildly.

One of the two key reasons Romney was the first GOP candidate to not receive my vote was due to his history of helping facilitate gay marriage in his state while governor.

[Olog-hai]

Lots of libertarians were trying to jump on the Tea Party coattails when it was clear that they were going to have some success back in 2010. Now it seems that those not attempting to redefine the Tea Party are joining with the GOP-e in bashing them.

[SoConPubbie]

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

And yet that same Thomas Jefferson, as President, was going to church services in the House of Representatives.
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

[SoConPubbie]

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

And yet that same Thomas Jefferson, as President, was going to church services in the House of Representatives.

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

[SoConPubbie]

Candidates for FEDERAL office should concentrate on issues in the purview of the FEDERAL government.

Like a Human Rights Amendment clarifying that Life starts at Conception?

How about that there are no laws cementing the idea that their are special classes of people, like Gays (Hate Laws etc.)?

[chris37]

The questions implies that the GOP somehow emphasizes social issues, which it most certainly does not do.

[ansel12]

Sounds like the Tea Party, too. Basically, atheistic secularist fiscal conservatism.

That is the opposite of reality, if the GOP turns against social conservatism, then the tea party would turn against the GOP. The tea party is more religious than the GOP, so religious that almost half the tea party identifies themselves as the "religious right".

""New Poll: Tea Party Overwhelmingly Christian And Socially Conservative.""

""A new poll is out today from the Public Religion Research Institute. It covers a lot of ground, and I encourage you to go read the whole thing, but a few things popped out at me.

Mainly I was fascinated by the questions on the makeup of the Tea Party Movement, it's the first research I've seen that really delves into how the members of the movement view themselves. Letting people tell you the stories they tell about themselves to themselves is usually the best route to understanding where they're coming from.

So, first, it's an overwhelmingly Christian group. 81% identify as Christian, and nearly half (47%) say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement.

Secondly, it isn't libertarian, it's much more socially conservative, with 63% saying abortion should be illegal and only 18% in favor of gay marriage.

Third, it is fundamentally a Republican movement. 76 percent identify or lean towards the Republican party.""

[Rocky]

Sure, if you want most of your base to stay home, not contribute, not campaign. Sure, go ahead.

[Jim Robinson]

Yup. And one of the primary purposes of the federal government is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And what are these Blessings of Liberty:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[rodguy911]

Eau contraire we need to bring up social issues since we have nothing else we can pin on the left....except maybe Benghazi, or maybe the irs going after tea parties or maybe 22 dead seals,or maybe about a dozen other scandals that we win 100% on. But, let's not go there! Let's do the social issues where we have to fight to even stay alive.That makes more political sense.
Yeah, that will win. Smart strategy. How could we lose. s`

[CatherineofAragon]

I think the GOP WILL do this. At some point in the future I can see them formally promoting queer marriage. And if they don’t outright sanction abortion, they’ll either give weaselly lip service to a woman’s “right to choose”, or shut up about the issue entirely.

They will do all of this without me. If you support abortion and queers, you’re not a conservative, period.

[arthurus]

No.A purely libertarian free market society sounds good but cannot exist without a Judaeo Christian basis.

[arthurus]

You cannot separate social and economic issues.

and here is why->

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php#.T7FZOLE1bRo.facebook

[christx30]

I’m probably going to get hit for this, but I’m going to say that yes, the GOP should get away from social issues. No one likes regulation on their business. And people sure as hell don’t like being told what to do in their personal lives. That’s not up to the government. Offer your opinion. Sure. But if you tell me you want to pass laws that effect me on a personal basis with my children or personal relationships, I’ll vote against you every time. Most people in the country are like this. It’s why the left keeps winning these days. People don’t like someone else’s religion being the basis for laws.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Keep repeating your mistakes. Deemphasize is not to mean ignore. Keep feeling like a female, we need some thinking.