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.
Clinton signed it because the Republicans had enough votes to override his veto. By signing it he was able to take credit for it.
Your position on Stem Cell research is perfectly reasonable and yet most of the evangelicals would call you a NAZI for it. That's the whole problem.
Also, and this point was evidently lost, I don't actually want the GOP coalition to split up. I don't want to have to live under a Rodham-Clinton Administration but the evangelicals need to take it down a couple of notches or that's exactly what's going to happen.
The Constitution protects us all even the religious.
It was one of the top 4 or 5 bills passed in a 50 year period.
Clinton was able to round up enough Democrats to vote for it to give him cover and that's why it looks like there were enough votes for an override. If clinton had opposed it, then most of the Demos would have done so as well.
Don't forget that he vetoed the same bill twice earlier but had a couple of small provisions made (cosmetic changes) and then he signed it. There were no overrides of the first 2 vetoes.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty. "
That pretty much sums up the Conservative position quite well, thank you.
No Mike. I'm really not.
Really?
Sounds like you are.
You seem to give the Dem's all the credit for this bill. come on.
You could have at least left your pom poms at home then.....
I also could never, ever vote for anyone that was in favor of Partial Birth Abortion (as Hillary is) or Gun Control (as Rudy is), and for you to say you are Pro - Life conservative, and be more worried about evolution than PBA is a farce.
By this logic, you must fanatically oppose President Bush on the grounds that in Sept 2002, he went to the UN for a resolution against Iraq which was ultimately passed -- UN RES 1441 in Nov, '02. He then went back in Feb '03 to press for another resolution to authorize use of force but ultimately pulled it for lack of support.
Yeah, he does keep posting glowing praise for Bubba's "accomplishments'.
Last place I heard such praise was among the elderly in Morristown NJ, the age group Bubba butt raped politically the most with his sleazy politics.
But to hear them tell it, "Clinton did alot for us!"
*Puke*
Go check out that thread.
See who it was posted by.
By your post, you are admitting that this is NOT the place for you.
Actually I would say that they are not even Rupubs first. They are actually more old-style democrats in that they don't think there is any issue that the federal government should not be involved in.
That wasn't my intention. ALL and I mean ALL of the credit belongs to the GOP for welfare reform. Clinton opposed it till the end. He would have vetoed it a 3rd time but he thought that it would hurt his reelection. It was only when he decided that he needed to sign it that he was able to round up about 20 extra dem senators and 25 extra dem representatives to vote for it...
That's why it appears that it passed with "veto proof" majorities. But all of the credit belongs to the GOP.
yeah he *TRIES* to convince us he is a conservative, but its FAILING miserably....
Oppose partial birth abortion. Oppose gun control. Favor strengthining anti-illegal immigration efforts -- especially with regard to "OTM" category (Other than Mexicans).
As for abortion in general, I think the roe v. wade decision was a joke that interfered with the political process. It should be overturned but I don't think that it'd have a major effect if it were.
In post 85 I linked him to the Boss words.
He didn't seem to like them much.
He doesn't seem to have actually READ the linked thread though.
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.