The Role of Social Issues in the Party

For the past week or so I’ve been having a really interesting conversation with Martin Rybicki over at Republicans United about moderate/centrist  Republicans and their role in the party. My position going into this discussion was that I think ‘moderate’ Republicans definitely have a place in the party but I think that position needs to A) Still grounded on the Right and not the mythical ‘Center’ and B) Republicans who are really just social liberals need to call themselves such and stop hiding behind the ‘moderate’ label.

Again, I’m not suggesting we eject anyone from the party. Quite frankly, Republicans need all the votes they can get right now. Obviously we need to do some soul-searching and determine what our platform will be going forward, but whatever it is I hope we can make the Right as wide a block as possible. This means bringing socially liberal and socially conservative Republicans together on issues like foreign policy or fiscal policy and being okay with them diverging on abortion and gay marriage.

Martin and I had what I consider a breakthrough in our last couple of exchanges. Martin acknowledged that socially liberal Republicans are just that and suggested that we attempt to let social issues be defined on a regional basis. If I understood his point correctly he is saying the party could mostly ignore social issues at the national level and allow politicians to reflect the social views of their given locales with no concern for potential internal conflicts. Readers can tell me if my assessment and response seem fair.

From Martin:

I believe in having Republicans who are socially liberal representing socially liberals areas. Obviously a socially liberal candidate would not work in some parts of the nation. It shouldn’t be a major division throughout the party, its something that regional candidates must hash out amongst themselves. The problem in the social conservative movement was its goal to rid even socially moderate or liberal republicans who are in areas where most people ARE socially moderate or liberal.

If you say that I personally prefer social moderate or even liberal issues and stands, that’s true, I personally do take many of those positions. On the platform, it would be nice if the party, as David Frum said, ratcheted down the social conservatism or social issues in general. Again, it doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have stands on these issues, but it would be relegated to individual congressmen. A republican from San Francisco won’t feel threatened as neither would a republican from some conservative heartland state by the party’s platform. They represent their respective constituents and our economic/governmental centrism is the base idea for all with the party platform leaving out a narrow social view.

But again, I don’t know if THAT, a peaceful co-existence can happen since I again bring up what they, the socially conservative, did to the others in the party in the past.

My response:

I have no problem with socially liberals Republicans in senate seats, governorships, etc. I agree with you 100% that social views differ from region to region, state to state, etc. So I could see how you an Olympia Snowe in Maine who is socially moderate/liberal and a Mitch McConnell here in KY who is socially conservative and both are reflecting the attitudes of their voters but coming together on other issues like fiscal policy or national defense. I could also see the party loosening it’s emphasis on social issues to avoid internal conflict between social moderates/liberals and social conservatives and focusing on non-social issues.

Where I think there is obviously a choice to be made by the national party is at the national level i.e the Presidency. As much as it may conflict with the Founder’s intent and our own desires, the views of the President on social issues does matter. So does the party need a position on those things in advance, or can the primary candidates in an election year let the voters decide who they favor and the party adopt that position for that year / term (if elected)? On one hand I like that voters could ‘reset’ the national party’s social priorities every four years to reflect the current temperament of the Right, but on the other hand, doesn’t that make the party seem a bit too opportunistic? I don’t know the answer there…