Posted on 07/31/2005 1:19:25 PM PDT by 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.
No, I kinda missed that one.
I was either offline, or tormenting some unfortunate soul on one of the lower levels.
McCain the RINO?
Hmm, that says more than you wanted to admit you know.
The ONLY thing that could split the Republican party, is if the candidate for president started promoting gun control in a big way. THEN you would see a mass exodus!
OR:
A big amesty plan for illegals. It might just be the lack of securing the border that does the Republicans in next time.
Non-evangelical and secular conservative here. Much as they anti-evolution morons annoy the hell out of me, it will take a lot more than that to get me to bolt the party. Besides, I actually like most evangelicals (despite my theological disagreements with them), which is something that I can't say about the increasingly left-wing, anti-free market ideas that I hear from the Buchanobots, who long for the 1950s when unions and Democrats controlled America and being an entrepreneur was a pain in the a-s.
If federal monies are to be spent, spend them where they are saving thousands of peoples lives right now and easing their suffering.
This piece reads like a better crafted version of "I'm not a racist, lots of my friends are black" bs. There are legitimate differences in the Republican Party, and we must recognize that to be a MAJORITY party we must find ways to co-exist with moderates (sometime's wrongly labelled RINO's)..
...but this piece is just agit prop to create a "Republican's are splintering" myth. Watch the MSM play more of this BS and try to turn the myth into reality.
On the contrary Harmless, it would be the yahoos who to this day, in 2005, show up at school board meetings to say that they don't want evolution to be taught in classrooms.
It would be the people who want to pass up the possibility of eliminating numerous diseases because of religious conflicts and last but not least, it would be the people who wanted to prolong Terri Schiavo's existance.
That's who you'll have to thank for a Rodham-Clinton Administration. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.
Rudy aint going to get the nomination. A northeast liberal Republican like Rudy who has some of the most corrupt friends on the planet aint goint to do it. Other tnan "law and order" Ruina the cross dresser IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY CONSERVATIVE!
Rudy is a BIG TIME GUN GRABBER TOO.
How on earth can you call yourself Conservative when you made the claim above? Sheesh. FR has lowered it's standards. There was a time when Darth Sidious got banned because he said he'd vote for the NC Sentate canditate Nelson Bowels (d) over Liddy Dole (r) because Bowles was at least a real Tarheel instead of a grew up/moved away carpebagger like Liddy.
You openly support Hillary and you still breathe.
Also, get off the kool aid. You have fallen prey, like so many other Freepers, to this obsession with Hillary. She's just another Dem politician, no better or worse than the rest.
I'm only thinking of potential candidates. Right now, it looks like the candidates would be Frist, McCain, Santorum (possibly), Brownback, Tancredo and Allen. Wouldn't be thrilled about any of them but I couldn't vote for Santorum, Tancredo or Brownback.
Yahoos?
A good portion of the Conservative movement are Christians.
Are you certain you want to embrace the same anti-God ideals of athiestic marxism that Hillary does?
Your posts here are telling us a heck of alot more than you are saying.
You've already said that if there are more people like you, there will be a President Hillary.
"I'm only thinking of potential candidates."
McCain is NOT on the list of potential anything.
Clemenza,
I hope it never comes to actually electing her but you have to acknowledge that the anti-evolution stuff is like fingernails on a blackboard in terms of annoying.
Since Tom Coburn isn't going to run this time, I'm putting my money on George Allen.
Try Erskine Bowles -- not Nelson.
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.
You believe as Hillery does. That says it all. You actually want her in. Because you want... what?
Government money going to support Embryonic stem cell research?
Can you point out to me just WHERE in the constitution that is to be found? The Conservative position here is that NO government money should be going to it because it is not something the federal government should be involved in in the first place.
The teaching of evolution in Government schools falls under the same category. It is not something the federal government should be involved with in the first place.
Since you seem not to understand this then you are a democrat at heart and I have no doubt that you will be voting democrat in the next election.
Please do not let the door hit you on the way out.
LOL! Nelson Bowels is an attorney in a neighboring city!
Some how I don't think you are who you say you are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.