In Defense of "The Oogedy-Boogedy Branch of the GOP"

Townhall.com ^ | November 21, 2008 | John Hawkins

[Kaslin]

Every time the GOP takes a beating at the ballot box there are calls to get rid of those doggone social conservatives -- or as Kathleen Parker refers to them, the "oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP."

This is a fascinating argument -- well, fascinating if you like watching people who don't even realize that they're doing little more than projecting their own personal biases onto the Republican Party and calling it political strategy.

Atheists, agnostics, Elvis worshippers, Jedis, Satanists -- it doesn't matter; they're all welcome in the Republican Party (Ok, not the Satanists so much. They're creepy losers). However, we live in an overwhelmingly Christian nation founded on Christian principles -- and reaching out to people who have Christian values makes so much sense that even the Democrats hold their nose and do it -- a little.

Additionally, maybe it's just my imagination, but didn't we just run a candidate for President who's notoriously unfriendly to social conservatives? I'm also pretty sure I remember some sort of "wrinkly white haired guy" who almost completely ignored issues like gay marriage and abortion on the campaign trail, even though Obama had huge weaknesses on those issues. So, if a non-socially conservative GOP is such a huge winner at the polls, shouldn't John McCain be gleefully preparing to knife the conservative movement in the back from the White House -- as opposed to gleefully preparing to knife the conservative movement in the back from the Senate?

I guess that's one of those questions we'll never be able to answer. You know, sort of like: if socially conservative issues like opposition to gay marriage are such huge political losers, how is it that those issues keep winning at the ballot box? Moreover, why is it that Barack Obama -- who has done everything except be a flower girl at a gay wedding to let people know that he really supports gay marriage -- adamantly claims to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman? This is not exactly up there with the Bermuda Triangle on the mystery meter, my friends.

Perhaps after you read this excerpt -- which, rather bizarrely, is from a piece by Christine Todd Whitman and Robert M. Bostock urging Republicans to stop catering to social conservatives, you'll understand why so many Democrats do lie about their position on gay marriage,

Nor did the Republican ticket lose because "values voters" stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 -- 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago -- 1.8 million more.

So, if we believe Whitman and Bostock, "values voters" made up 26% of the electorate, but the GOP should stop trying to reach out to them? Oh, ok -- that makes perfect sense -- in topsy-turvy world, where right is wrong, smart is stupid, and everyone lives in houses made out of giant badgers.

If the GOP is going to tell 26% of American voters to take a hike, who, pray tell, are we going to replace them with? The 500,000 people who voted for Bob Barr? Maybe we can get Scott McClellan, Colin Powell, and Christopher Buckley to start voting Republican again. That's not quite 26%, but it's a start, right?

It's also worth noting that if the GOP wants to reach out to demographic groups that we're not doing very well with, like Hispanics and black Americans, socially conservative issues are one of the best ways to do it. "About one-third of Catholics in the United States are now Hispanic." Moreover, 90% of Hispanics are members of some branch of the Christian faith. The same goes for black Americans, "85 percent (of whom) say religion is very important in their lives."

All that being said, I will grant you social conservatism can be a loser if it comes across as preachy, bossy, or overdone. Moreover, there is a weird discomfort some people have about Christians who are serious about their faith getting interested in government. However, Christians had better be interested in the government because the government is certainly interested in them. It's interested in shaping the minds of their children, it's interested in shaping the culture around them, and it's interested in shaping who gets to be married in their church. If people of faith are willing to help the GOP in return for having their interests protected in Washington, the Republican Party would be extraordinarily foolish to turn them away.

[raybbr]

"About one-third of Catholics in the United States are now Hispanic."

Who ever said Catholics were conservatives? In my experience they are mostly democrats.

[Skooz]

The day the Republican Party jettisons the social conservatives is the day it becomes a permanent minority party and will forevermore cease to be relevant.

The social conservatives are the backbone of the conservative movement. Without them, the Republican Party is the party of Rockefeller and Gerald Ford: perfectly happy to take the back seat to Democrats as long as they are allowed in the club to swig cocktails.

[sauropod]

...the Republican Party would be extraordinarily foolish to turn them away.

Therein lies the truth of it. This is why Margaret Hoover (pro-abort wench) is representing the establishment Republican position rather than Michelle Malkin on O'Gasbag.

[DTogo]

Time for a new truly Conservative Party anyway, let the GOP come to it instead! Those who don’t want to can come out of the closet and declare themselves the Democrats we always knew they were: Hagel, McCain, Snow, Bush, etc.

[y6162]

I think we’re doing a fine job of ejecting socially liberal Republicans aka Democrats. Bubye Frum, Parker, Noonan, Brooks, et al. Try making a buck writing for liberals.

[sobieski]

Bob Casey D’s; socially a bit more conservaitve, but in favor of a safety net.

BTW: Who named Kathleen Parker a ‘conservative’? I never read her or even heard of her since she started attacking Sarah and other Conservatives.

[DTogo]

This is why Margaret Hoover (pro-abort wench) is representing the establishment Republican position rather than Michelle Malkin on O'Gasbag.

He has a fondness for blondes who let him push them around. Dark-haired beauties with a spine bruise the Old Man's ego.

[PjhCPA]

Now there’s an idea for a new tagline

[Smokin' Joe]

Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago -- 1.8 million more.

Did McCain get those votes, or did Sarah Palin deliver them?

She energized the pro-life crowd, and a host of others with her Conservatism. McCain had 'em sleeping in the aisles.

[Paradox]

The day the Republican Party jettisons the social conservatives is the day it becomes a permanent minority party and will forevermore cease to be relevant.

I have an interesting relationship with social conservatives. I, personally, am socially conservative. On the other hand, I really don't care for much of the public social conservativism in the party. Similarly, while I consider myself a Christian, it is a deeply, personally held belief, and I am uncomfortable when I see religion injected into political discussions.

Having said that, all the Social Conservative type people I know are TREMENDOUS people, they are my favorite people, and they are essential to the health of the party, and the conservative movement.

Thats where I stand on the matter, while I may personally get uncomfortable with some of the oogedy stuff, on the other hand, I love those folks, and I defend them rabidly. Parker's attacks on these folks is uncalled for.

[Senator Goldwater]

The author has it right: Republicans shouldn’t take electoral advice from a party that has only gone over 50% when there was Watergate or a Wall Street meltdown 45 days before an election.

[Kaslin]

Kathleen Parker opines regular in Townhall.com I used to always post her editorial until she attacked Governor Palin. She is a syndicated columnist from the Washington Compost

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

It looks like we're going to get to see the Oogedy-Boogedy branch of liberalism
and Fabian Socialism. Again. Thanks to Obama and the return of the Clintons.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Parker, is what Ronald Reagan referred to as the “Eastern Liberal Establishment”.....non-Conservatives who pretend they are

The GOP will lose big if it ever gets away from the social conservative base....key word here is “base”

[goldstategop]

What government does - affects our values a lot. So we're going to tell voters that want the government not to mess around with the values they've been brought with, that we don't need them, are we going to compete for the same kind of voters the Democrats are already getting? And why exactly would they ever want to vote Republican?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Texas Federalist]

Actually, in your home state, Catholics are the most solidly Republican voting block, as well as in most of the northeast. In 2004, for example, the Catholic vote in Massachusetts was only 50% for Kerry even though he was a Catholic from their home state. In contrast, Massachusetts Protestants voted about 66% for Kerry. In 2008, the Catholic vote compared to the Protestant vote in the northeast shows a similar trend.

New Jersey
Protestant 52-46 Obama
Catholic 55-45 McCain

Connecticut
Protestant 67-31 Obama
Catholic 50-46 McCain

Pennsylvania
Protestant 50-49 Obama
Catholic 52-48 McCain

Ohio
Protestant 52-48 McCain
Catholic 52-47 McCain

Minnesota
Protestant 51-47 McCain
Catholic 52-47 McCain

McCain would have won all these states with just the catholic vote. It is the southern states with a high percentage of Hispanics where the Catholic vote is largely Democrat.

[DPMD]

Double Amen!

I’m sick of those who are suggesting the GOP loses because they pander to the wrong crowd, and should, instead pander to the correct crowd. It’s still pandering, and that’s best left to the democrats.

Let the GOP truly understand the consequences of life without conservatives. Then, at least, they, along with Will, Parker, Noonan, and the others who seem to like making a living as butt boys, can continue bending over for the democrat party.

[TheFourthMagi]

So, if a non-socially conservative GOP is such a huge winner at the polls, shouldn't John McCain be gleefully preparing to knife the conservative movement in the back from the White House -- as opposed to gleefully preparing to knife the conservative movement in the back from the Senate?

Exactly.

[TheFourthMagi]

McCain campaigned?