Posted on 12/04/2008 5:14:43 PM PST by yongin
In 2002 and 2004, Republicans ran hard on social issues and the courts — and scored victories at every level of politics. In 2006 and 2008, they left those issues off the table, and got walloped. It follows, naturally, that the social issues are to blame for the Republican defeats.
At least, that’s the conclusion that a chorus of commentators has reached. They are attempting to persuade Republicans to soften or downplay their party’s social conservatism and hide its social conservatives in order to resume winning elections. About this campaign to sideline the social Right, three things can be said with a fairly high degree of confidence: It is predictable; it will fail; and it is wrong.
The impulse to blame social conservatives arises nearly every time Republicans fail. They were blamed for the elder Bush’s 1992 defeat, as though he would have won if only Pat Robertson had not spoken at the Republican convention. They were blamed for losses in the House in 1998. And now they are being blamed for McCain’s rout.
Republicans’ social conservatism provokes more intense and angry opposition than their positions on other issues do. In some parts of the country — places where political writers tend to congregate, for example — social conservatives are so thin on the ground that it is easy to underestimate how widespread their views are. So it is understandable that many people would leap to the conclusion that Republicans would have more support if they backed off on social issues.
Yet there is no real likelihood that the party is going to abandon or reduce its opposition to abortion in particular or kick aside the social conservatives in general. Social conservatives are, for one thing, too woven into the structure of the party to be ejected. In 2004, the Republican convention showcased pro-choicers such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudolph Giuliani, George Pataki, and Colin Powell. So far, the only candidates anyone is mentioning for 2012 are Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, and Tim Pawlenty. All are pro-life.
The Giuliani campaign’s spectacular flameout shows how hard it would be for Republicans to become pro-choice. Unlike previous pro-choice Republican presidential candidates, Giuliani did not run on his pro-choice position, had a record of accomplishment, tried to meet pro-lifers partway, had huge national name recognition, and took orthodox conservative positions on economic issues. He was no Arlen Specter. Yet he still couldn’t make it. The conventional wisdom blames his failure on his “late-state strategy.” But he adopted that strategy for a reason: He could not compete in Iowa or South Carolina or Michigan, largely because of his position on abortion. (Maybe things would have been different if he had taken a pro-choice, anti-Roe position.)
WORSE THAN MISGUIDED If the pundits’ advice were right, Republicans would be doomed, since they are highly unlikely to take it. Luckily, that advice is misguided. No, actually, it is worse than that: The case that an overemphasis on socially conservative positions has been a major cause of Republican defeats is obviously ridiculous.
In 2006, for example, the Republican senator who went down hardest, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, lost to a pro-life Democrat — in an election that also saw pro-abortion senator Lincoln Chafee lose. In 2008, meanwhile, one of the most liberal states in the country, California, banned same-sex marriage by referendum, as 29 other states have also done. In both elections, Democrats played down their social liberalism in most competitive races and instead ran on economics and foreign policy.
Nonetheless, some people are still at least going through the motions of blaming the defeats on social conservatives and counseling the party to move left on social issues.
The only change that Commentary contributor Max Boot advocates for Republicans based on the election returns is to be more willing to nominate pro-choice presidential candidates. But it is hard to believe that Republicans would have done better with Giuliani as their nominee. He would have had a huge problem with conservative turnout, and that’s just for starters.
John Avlon, who worked for Giuliani during his mayoralty and presidential candidacy, has argued in several publications that Republicans, to survive, need to become more like Giuliani and, perhaps more to the point, like Avlon. He writes:
Even the editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry, recognizes that Republicans need to reach the center as well as the right to win in our center-right nation.
Republicans will emerge from the wilderness only when they reconnect with independent and centrist voters who are fiscally conservative but socially progressive and strong on national security. That means modernizing by embracing a big-tent philosophy on social issues that can credibly attract libertarians again. It means regaining credibility on fiscal issues with clear contrasts like a balanced budget and flat tax.
Avlon is mistaken in thinking both that all centrists are social liberals and fiscal conservatives and that all people who talk about “the center” have this type of voter in mind. The latter mistake accounts for his recruiting of Lowry to his side of the argument. The notion that “a balanced budget and flat tax” plus abortion rights is a formula for political success, meanwhile, borders on the fantastical — particularly when you bear in mind that keeping both economic promises would require either tax increases on the middle class or massive spending cuts.
Avlon has also cited a 2007 Kaiser Foundation/Washington Post study that suggests that independent voters are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on abortion and same-sex marriage. But that very same study showed that only 16 percent of independents match the profile of fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters that Avlon wants Republicans to court.
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker writes that “the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.” (No, I don’t know what “oogedy-boogedy” means either, but I gather it’s bad.) That many people find Evangelical Christianity off-putting is clearly true. Parker reflects that sentiment more than she justifies it, but she does make one attempt to support her thesis. She cites Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz, who argues that “increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs” have been “devastating to the Republican party.”
The ‘oogedy-boogedy’ branch of the GOP Roman Genn
Married white Christians are indeed a declining share of the electorate. Single people also tend to have more socially liberal views than married ones. But they also tend to favor (and depend on) government programs more than married people, so they would presumably lean left even if Republicans ditched the social Right. Meanwhile it is quite clear that Republican positions on social issues are more attractive to black and Hispanic voters than their positions on economics or foreign policy. Indeed, many blacks, Hispanics, and Asians belong to religious traditions that partake of oogedy-boogedyness.
Former New Jersey governor and EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman wrote an anti-social-conservative book with Robert Bostock a few years ago. After the election, they argued in the Washington Post that “social fundamentalists . . . who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research” have taken the GOP “hostage.” Actually, the Republican presidential nominee’s positions on those issues were mostly in line with public opinion: He favored a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape and incest; opposed same-sex marriage but also opposed a constitutional amendment to ban it; and favored federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research while opposing cloning. On the last two issues, he parted company with most social conservatives. Some hostage.
Whitman and Bostock note, correctly, that Republicans suffered more from moderate defections than from conservative ones — but simply assume that those moderate defections were caused by the social issues. And then they turn to the exit polls, and perform an astonishing sleight of hand.
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, one concludes that McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago — 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates. I looked up the numbers to confirm that Whitman and Bostock were doing what they seemed to be doing: treating “values voters” and white Evangelicals as identical sets. In their analysis, there are no Evangelical moderates. There are also no Catholic social conservatives. Karl Rove has pointed out that more than 4 million people who go to church more than once a week — people who tend to be quite conservative politically — voted in 2004 but not 2008. That’s a more relevant number than the ones Whitman and Bostock cherry-pick.
Even if they played the numbers straight, Whitman and Bostock would not have much of a case. The logic of their position is that if a group of voters has stayed with Republicans during a rout, the party should respond by working to drive them away, too.
DISTRACTION There is no question that social conservatism repels some voters. But there is no real reason to think that it costs the Republican party more voters than it brings, or even that the party has overemphasized it. It is surely the case that social conservatives could present themselves more attractively. They could pick their spokesmen more wisely, for one thing. At a recent National Review Institute conference in Washington, Maggie Gallagher pointed out that social conservatives have two models of politics: the mass uprising or the secular Messiah who will put everything right. The patient and endless work of politics fits neither model.
People who disagree with social conservatives should, of course, feel free to make their arguments on the issues. But the argument that socially conservative positions are a drag on Republican tickets is dubious, as is the fact-free fervor of those who insist on it. Check that Kathleen Parker quote above: The Evangelicals are “what ails the party.” The implication is not just that they are a bigger problem for Republicans than, say, the voters’ preference for Democrats on health care. It is that the latter issue is insignificant.
David Frum, similarly, has recently written that a “painful change” on abortion and a “less overtly religious” message is “the only hope for a Republican recovery.” This kind of sweeping language ought to be backed up by more evidence than the critics of the social Right have yet produced.
The attempts to blame social conservatism for Republican defeats will not reduce its influence in the party. What they will do is distract attention from the changes the party really does need to make.
The wipe out was caused by the ECONOMY...stupid...
The author could have added a clincher arguement using Prop 8 in CA showing how conservative social issues still win, even after the Repubs have moved left.
Why? I didn't depend on government for crap. All I remember when I came of age and jumped straight from poor black kid into the middle-class, what how stupid it was that the government took one-third of my paycheck.
BTW, Ponnuru mentions the Prop 8 vote in the 8th paragraph of this.
For one, I’m really tired (as many are) of Frum, Parker, and Whitman attacks on social conservative voters. They live in NYC, DC(area), and NJ respectively. They seem to have never worked in the trenches on a campaign nor do they understand the passionate people who tirelessly volunteer on behalf of GOP candidates or causes. Being a writer or a candidate from their circuits of influence is not enough to determine who gets to stay in the GOP. And I appreciate Ponnuru factually driving the point that their assumptions are false and void of facts.
Wrong.
Social conservatism is part and parcel of the Republican base.
What repels some voters, including conservatives, is the evangelical drum beat that accompanies it.
HINT: Non-evangelicals do not want to see religious freedoms infringed upon, they do not support abortion, and they will act to support the Ten Commandments. Non-evangelicals, however, just might not like having someone's bible interpretation shoved up their face any more than they like having someones "sexual orientation" shoved up their face.
Conservatism must retain, well, the conservative part, it cannot become identified solely by the religiosity of only one of it's constituents.
I agree. As a fairly intense bible believer, I believe that when I am talking to you about your SOUL, I should be emphatic that the narrow way is NARROW.
When I am talking to you about your VOTE, then I want to be as broad as possible.
It is weird to me that such common sense seems like the language of betrayal to other Christians some time. Maybe it is because we have been sold out so many times, but I don’t see why that is such a shocker to them. Sometimes I wonder if Christians bother to read the bible anymore to get their philosophy of human nature. It does sort of tell us what to expect.
I thought that after the 2004 election moral and religious values were a deciding factor and all of the ‘Rats subsequently tried to get on the ‘social conservative’ bandwagon.What happened to that deal?
"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
100% agree. Good post.
Exactly
Social conservatism had nothing to do with this
Unemployment and inflation rising every month this year to their highest levels in decades, the economy being in its worst recession in decades, the market slumping the worst since the Depression, 90% thinking we’re on the wrong track, Bush having the wost approval ratings in US history the entire year of the election, the GOP being the party of a war that even after the success of the Surge 65% of voters still opposed on election day, an increase in the black/hispanic vote to its highest level ever while the white vote simultaneously shrank to its lowest level ever, the historical diificulties of winning a 3rd term even under good circumstances(see Al Gore), and last but not least being outspent by an unprecedented 300 million dollars ALL had way more to do with what happened that opposition to abortion or gay marriage(which, btw, Obama also strongly opposed).
Flip those #s above to what they were in 2004, or even slightly worse and McCain wins, just like Bush did. When they’re as bad as they were, he really had no shot.
If they’re that bad for Obama and the dems in 2012 will all the pundits talk about a resurgence of social issue when the GOP wins?
They’re the same folks who said the dems had to abandon their social liberalism to win after 2004 and being pro choice hurt them. Guess what? They didn’t have to change anything. They just needed the economy to go in the tank and the war to get really unpopular.
Just like the GOP did after 1976 although substitute the Iran hostage crisis for the war.
I
Well said.
Huckabee was the perfect example of that. A liberal by any definition... but supported by evangelicals because he talked bible to the Republican electorate.
People (The Cocktail Republicans mainly) talk like social conservatives are whackos and on the fringe. Let’s think about arguably the two biggest issues..
(1) Against the killing of innocent babies- Oh yeah that’s just totally irrational. /s
They cut the limbs of babies in the womb or suck their brains out. Yet we’re the crazy ones for objecting to it.
(2)Against having to recognize the marriage of Adam and Steve- well, seems the majority of the citizens of CALIFORNIA are against that.
I think abortion should have been talken about MORE during the election, especially considering Obama’s support of infanticide. Abortion was probably mentioned about twice in the entire campaign by the pres. candidates. The media didn’t touch it.
The GOP ticket had a bad card hand and the party played it poorly. Still considering the deck was stacked against us, McCain (or shall I say Palin) received 59 million votes. That more than what Reagan received. So we’re not dead yet. We do have to realize we aren’t in Kansas anymore. We have utilize new technology fot GOTV efforts, and better relate to surburban independents.
Hey, whaddaya doing keeping 2/3 of the government's money???
/ONLY kidding!
It was overtaken by Feminists.
I could barely pay the rent and eat, to say nothing of buy a new suit, and Sam Rayburn had ranches, cattle, chauffered limousine, a government salary 5 times my own, and he paid less taxes than me.
What a ripoff.
But see, the problem is that the social conservatism (anti-abortion, pro-religious freedom, Ten Commandments, etc.) IS what non-evangelicals think constituted the "shoving our faces in religion". I'm sorry, but evangelicals aren't running around the country at Party meetings and regional conventions sticking a Bible in everybody's faces and demanding they convert. I realise that this is a meme that exists among the non-religious, but it's a false meme - it simply isn't the case. When non-religious types complain about "forcing religion", the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-religious liberty agenda is what they have in mind - it's sort of a code word, if you will. You can't have social conservatism without having non-religious types whining about "people shoving religion down their throats". So, the choice is either hold onto social conservatism, even though it ticks off the non-religious libertarian types, or else give social conservatism the ol' heave-ho, and condemn the GOP to permanent minority status as some sort of Libertarian Party with a few more votes.
I might add that non-religious liberals who complain about the Religious Right have no problem with Catholic Priests promoting Amnesty for illegals or black pastors urging sending increases for public schools. “Forcing religion” is okay as long as you agree with the agenda.
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.