Posted on 04/22/2014 5:26:46 AM PDT by xzins
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned if the Republican Party ignores social issues in the upcoming national elections, then evangelical voters will simply stay home.
The evangelical vote in America has been a key ingredient in deciding who becomes the Republican nominee for president. Polling bears that out.
Yet the social issues near and dear to the hearts of evangelicals are under attack within Republican circles.
A few years ago, former Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind., wanted to declare a truce on the hot button social issues.
"All I was saying was we are going to need to unify all kinds of people. Freedom is going to need every friend it can get," he argued.
That's the line by some within the GOP who say that the only way the party can get more votes and win elections is by staying away from controversial social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
But Huckabee, who's considering running for president in 2016, told CBN News that ditching these issues may cost the GOP evangelical votes.
"It leaves them at home. They just don't go vote, which they didn't do very strongly in 2012. There were fewer evangelical voters who voted for Romney than McCain. If 10 percent more evangelicals had voted for Romney, Romney would be president right now," Huckabee said.
Nevertheless, many in the Republican Party appear intent on phasing out social issues.
Just this past week, the Nevada Republican Party stripped out all language pertaining to abortion and marriage.
And after President Barack Obama won re-election in 2012, a Republican National Committee document concluded the following: "When it comes to social issues, the party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming."
But Huckabee suggested the GOP might want to rethink that strategy.
"This notion of 'don't mention those issues because you might offend the voters who are leaning left,' you better worry about who are you going to leave at home, cool off, and completely chill out the voters who just will say, 'Well, I really don't have anyone to carry the issues that matter for me,'" Huckabee warned.
Huckabee insists that social conservative candidates will need to stand firmly for their values and convince the party that issues like marriage and abortion are an important part of the total equation.
"I think it's a mistake to think that younger voters are going to make their entire election decisions on a candidate's position on same-sex marriage," Huckabee predicted.
"If a candidate can articulate the reason he's for traditional biblical marriage is because of his biblical viewpoint, then will they hold that against them anymore than they would hold it against a Muslim who won't eat pork or drink liquor? If they do, then the problem is bigger than what the position is; it's why they hold the position," he added.
I’m fine with going on the offensive about it from time to time. However, that is different than leading with it, which is the Huckabee / Santorum notion. But another point here:
The 2014 election compares with the 94 and 2010 models much much better than the Reagan elections for two major reasons. 2010 best of all. Clearly, that election was not about social issues, though social conservatives did well - by emphasizing other issues. This shows that social conservatism can be advanced even when it is not the lead emphasis.
What Huck is saying is correct. He is outlining a plan for conservatives to win, and if we follow that plan - we will win elections.
And how do we know that? By looking at recent history. As we all know, George W. won the election in 2004 over John Kerry. And what single demographic group put him over the top? It wasn’t Soccer Moms or NASCAR Dads.
It was Evangelicals.
But since then the Republican party has betrayed its base. They have not only ignored us, but have kicked us to the curb. And when the predictable happened? They blame us.
Hoo Boy.
Any time Life comes up we should attack with the same vigor that we use to support guns.
After all, it too is the first right mentioned in the Declaration....LIFE, liberty...
And it’s mentioned in the Bill of Rights: (5th Amendment - “no one deprived of LIFE...without due process.)
We should be anxious to jump at the chance to defend life.
Well I don’t disagree with any of that….and to be clear - I don’t think we should lead with guns either. I would also say that guns is not just about guns, or hunting…it is about life - the sanctity of and preservation of life OUTSIDE the womb.
Life outside the womb, too, is precious. Not as defenseless, but just as precious. In fact, if life outside the womb is not free, then who in the world CAN stand up for life inside the womb. I think this is a major major major point that few social ONLY conservatives understand. In fact, I think it’s a point almost no one seems to be able to put into words.
Then again, I just did.
I think the candidate is the general of his own campaign.
If he says “get lost” to one group of voters, and he says, “hey, you, I like your type” to another group of voters, then he’s liable to get some of what he strategized for.
The social conservatives did what he said and got lost.
The liberals figured “why go for liberal light” so they went for Obama.
The general’s strategy didn’t work, FA.
If I may speak for zxins, I think what he means is (and he should correct me if I’m wrong),
“Do you believe, assert, or otherwise claim that a woman has a ‘right’ to terminate her own pregnancy at any point in said pregnancy?”
I agree with you.
Guns is a subset of the pro-life argument: self-preservation.
You’re wrong on how Reagan led his campaigns. Sorry you just are.
I also somewhat resent your false equivalency. If we are not free, as living beings outside the womb, please tell me who will be able to stand for life inside the womb.
Serious question. You should give it some thought.
But your’re still wrong about Reagan’s campaign. Rolling back the evils of our own government, and of the Soviet Empire, were priorities one and two.
…and I would take it one step further….all issues of liberty (which means reduced government by definition) are really issues of life, self preservation, etc.
You’ve got to remember, CEW, that Reagan big-time courted the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell. It was a linch pin in his coalition. It brought in a huge number of blue-collar democrats for him.
Prior to Reagan, it was (and I hesitate to admit this) Jimmy Carter who accidentally won the moral vote with his “evangelical outreach” one memorable point of which was the “lust in the heart” statement in the Playboy interview (of all places.)
The morals voter wasn’t so pronounced post WWII until then...not until the drug/sex rebellion of the late 60’s.
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.