A Path Forward
December 1, 2009 8 Comments
I’ve been doing some thinking as of late, sparked by a Facebook message thread between some contributors to the Republicans United blog. The question raised by myself was how we can merge a vibrant moderate/centrist/progressive faction with a more traditional conservative faction. The person who has done the most intellectual heavy-lifting on trying to figure this out is a RU contributor named Martin Rybicki. He has written a series of articles for RU under the title The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party. While Martin and I will probably never agree on his desire to drag the GOP towards the Center and on whether or not a true Center even exists, he has got me thinking about his ideas on reconciling moderate and mainline Republicans.
In Part 9 of his series Martin discusses separating social issues from other issues like economics, defense and governance. Martin correctly recognizes that social issues represent the main point of friction between mainline conservatives and those leaning towards the Center and Left. On how to deal with this friction Martin raises a very good point:
I do believe that republicans must bring back their proud tradition of social moderation or liberalism but I believe that it would be best if this was done not at a party level but at the individual representative level. One of the biggest issues that have been brought up in our organization has been about how litmus tests have been wreaking havoc on our party’s electability throughout the nation; litmus tests put upon the party by a Religious Right backed fundamentalist social conservatism. One the biggest agreements is the view that these social litmus tests must be dropped in order to allow a candidate to run with the ability to put forth the important economic/governmental party stands but being free to mold their social beliefs to that regions or local area’s view. This is because throughout the nation there are very different beliefs on the entire social spectrum and by drawing a litmus test that would only work in rural parts of the South is a losing formula for sure.
Essentially what Martin is advocating is that the national GOP adopt a more streamlined platform that only deals with those issues that we can all basically agree on, leaving other issues to vary from region to region. As an example, it’s my anecdotal experience that even among the most right-leaning and left-leaning of Republicans there is a general consensus on things like gun policy and the need for fiscal discipline in the government. Throw social issues like abortion and gay marriage into the mix and the claws come out. Martin’s plan would reduce or eliminate this infighting , except for one key problem I think he misses, which is that we can’t control our opponents on the Left.
When we talk about ‘social issues’ within the GOP it’s basically two key points: abortion and gay marriage. I will discuss both here. On the topic of abortion I think Martin’s strategy could work in the longterm. Abortion laws could differ from state to state or even county to county, so that it could be banned outright in Mississippi and offered with no restrictions in places like California or NYC. Abortion opponents like myself would still be saddened that it is so readily available in some U.S. jurisditctions, but in a country this large, perhaps regional reductions are the most we can hope for. There is also the possibility that states which restrict abortion successfully and create programs to help with the increased births could serve as models for other states to follow suit. This would no doubt win supporters from an electorate which is already inclined to restrict abortion on some level.
I say a move in this direction on abortion could work in the longterm because as of now Roe v. Wade is still a major hurdle at the national level. So long as this remains in place, I don’t see how the GOP could demote abortion to a regional platform. This is a case of our opponents standing in the way of the kind of reform that Martin advocates.
Moving on the gay marriage, this is a tougher nut to crack. Liberals have stated over and over that their ultimate goal is a Supreme Court decision which would make gay marriage legal in all 50 states. This plan to do an end-run around state governments and legislate through judicial action has been a hallmark of the Left for quite some time. Even though conservatives were much more accepting of the decision by the Vermont legislature to alow gay marriage because it was enacted through the Democratic process, gay marriage proponents dislike this strategy because it won’t work in every state and it decreases the mobility of gay couples from state to state. Using concepts like Interstate Commerce liberals argue that allowing gay marriage in only some states is unfair. So again, we see a national strategy has been adopted by our opponents, which renders a regional response moot.
For quite some time I have argued that morality should only be legislated on the most local level possible. Strip clubs are often allowed or banned at the city level. Blue laws work much the same way. As much as I would love to see a national ban on most abortions, I could live with it moving towards a state-to-state model. So far I think taking gay marriage to the state level has been the best move as it allows for regional differences in opinion on the subject. I would even be okay with some kind of national legislation which guaranteed gay couples certain basic rights even in states that did not allow gay marriage. The problem is that in both cases, the opposition’s national agenda forces us to adopt a national strategy in response. Since the GOP remains a majority-conservative party, that means we stand against gay marriage and abortion at the national level, which in turn creates infighting between conservative and socially liberal Republicans. In this sense, Democrats have been successful in using these two issues as a wedge.
Social liberals like Martin have long bemoaned the ‘official’ move towards social conservatism within the party under Reagan as ill-advised. What they miss though is that this decision did not come out of thin air. It was a direct response to Roe v. Wade and the general breakdown of social order in the 60′s and 70′s. First came Nixon getting tough on crime, then Reagan and abortion and much later opposition to gay marriage under George W. Bush. In each case, liberal policies lead to conservative reaction which became internalized as part of the party platform. This remains the major obstacle to adopting the sort of hands-off-social policies that Martin advocates.
I’m curious to hear ideas for how to overcome this hurdle. Liberals will likely say, “Quit worrying about social issues and let people do what they want.” This is easy to say when doing so gives them exactly what they wants and contradicts conservative sensibilities.
I haven’t heard about this secret plan, but then again I’m not in the smoke-filled back rooms where the evil liberal conspiracy plots its sneaky agenda.
No seriously, I’m very curious to know who has been saying this over and over. I mean, I have no doubt that at some point, when like 40/50 states have lifted the ban on same-sex marriage and the holdouts look more clearly bigoted, a Supreme Court decision could happen that would finish things up. I don’t know how one would even go about making a particular Supreme Court decision happen; you could bring a case but I don’t see any viable (or ethical!) way to ensure a particular outcome. But I thought that liberal activists were in the process of encouraging state legislatures to change their own laws. The national efforts I’ve heard about (DOMA, and the Federal Marriage Amendment) were against same-sex marriage, not for it.
Hmm. About your final question. You may not care what I think, and that’s cool, but here’s my two cents. I think the Republican party ought to get together and decide what it means by “conservative.” Does it mean keeping things the way they are and making only incremental changes when absolutely necessary, or does it mean small government keeping out of people’s pockets and people’s lives as much as possible? These attitudes may come together from time to time, but they’re definitely not necessarily identical, even though they’re both referred to as “conservative.” It’s hard to sell the idea that the government should leave people alone in most arenas (lower taxes, fewer social programs, fewer regulations on parents or on schools, etc.) but should be banning things that are immoral at the same time.
I don’t think that the Democratic message on same-sex marriage is, at its core, about leaving people alone to do whatever they want — because that wouldn’t jive with Democratic attitudes about taxation and regulation. Liberals are generally okay with government intervention for a particular set of purposes, like helping the less fortunate, taking care of the disadvantaged and oppressed — and that’s the frame where rights for same-sex couples comes into play.
Z – check with Ames over at Submitted to a Candid World. He disagrees with you on a SC case.
Well, first I don’t think we can consider abortion a part of the general order. I don’t agree that there is a logical movement from Nixon’s crime policies to Reagan’s abortion stance and W. Bush’s general anti-gay stance. Remember, conservatism before Reagan was inherently pro-choice. Your analysis of there naturally existing poles on the issues of social issues such as abortion is correct. What is not good is for either party to have each party solely defined by social issues. The democrats should not be defined as the party of social liberals only and the republicans should not be defined as the party of social conservatives. This then ensures that competing ideas on the many other issues that the parties have become merely secondary when the average person thinks “oh a republican? must be against gays.”
I do believe very much that the parts of the country that are against any move against social liberal positions or movements of the nation towards that side to have representation on those issues. But they should be present in both parties to ensure that party identification is not merely reduced to one hot button issue. If an area that is socially conservative chooses a democrat, that democrat should be a socially conservative democrat or the same if they choose a republican. If a region chooses a republican but it is a socially liberal region, then that republican (or democrat for that matter) should be socially liberal.
I believe that in doing this both parties can have open stands on social issues but the social conservative bloc will nevertheless well represent its constituents even though its not enclosed in only one party but split amongst two. For a social conservative, that would not matter if that is their most important subject matter in politics since it doesn’t matter whether they are democrats or republicans, just so that on the issue of abortion or gay rights the representatives vote social conservative. This works the other way for social liberals by the way.
Again, representation of social liberals and social conservatives and their respective regions is important. I just don’t believe that either party should be defined by taking a singular stance on it which merely reduces each party to a specific stance leaving people without any ability to give the other party a chance at alternative governance in those respective regions (democrats in the south, republicans in the north and coasts).
By taking this route this would prevent that from happening. If the social liberals or conservatives wish to pass something specifically on a social issue, they can do as was done frequently in the early to mid/late 20th century and create a temporary coalition to do as they believe is right. This was the norm when it came to social issues for many more years than has been the norm of the parties taking a narrow minded specific stance on social issues that took away the ability for either parties to be competitive in any region of the nation.
Martin – it’s tough enough to move one party away from a single-position stance on social issues. Now you’re suggesting that in order to make that work BOTH parties would have to cooperate.
Now you see what a large obstacle it is.
Z – I think all you have to look at is the number of court cases on behalf of gay rights in various state courts to understand that the strategy is constant court challenges.
As for Republicans trying to define what conservatism is – the problem there is that we can’t even agree on what it means to be a Republican. There are many who lean so far Left that calling them Centrist is being generous. There are others that are near-libertarian. And all sorts in-between. I think we have to start there before we even begin to define conservatism.
Actually Mike, I don’t think that’s impossible. In fact, I believe it has already been done to a good degree within the democratic party. While it still may be a party of generally social liberalism, it has redeveloped (I use redeveloped since they used to be this way) their social conservative faction. There are now plenty of socially conservative democrats. So no I don’t think it is that difficult at all.
It is also not difficult for factions of both parties to cooperate when they share a common interest, again all you have to do is look back in history and you will find plenty of that. And if the parties drop their narrow stances on social issues, it would help end the extremes from controlling the respective parties allowing members from both sides to better work together. Again this is happening within the democratic party today with a weakened left base and a strengthened center. It could happen much easier than you think with the republican party.
Again Martin – your fondness for the notion of bi-partisan compromise makes it hard to understand why the (R) after your name?
The ‘weakened’ left base in the Democratic party is pushing hard for gay marriage in numerous states (see NY). I don’t see any type desire to include socially conservative Democrats in much of anything.
Whether or not the hard left is angry does not erase the fact that the socially conservative democrat is back. Therefore I see no reason for the socially liberal republican to not return as well. My idea of occasional bipartisonship is only in areas where a specific faction of the GOP and of the Democratic party may come together to push for a socially conservative agenda or fight against a socially liberal one. It would not simply do away with parties, but it would help free the parties from hinging their very principles and ideology on mere social issues and allow party labels to matter more on governance as a result. I just put forth the idea of social conservative dems and reps coming together not for my sake but to answer your argument that there is always an opposite reaction to a hard social liberal movement. I agree, but its not healthy, as I said before, for the parties to be merely defined by social issues, but by more important issues. And again, this was a model that existed before and lasted for a long time.