« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Those Annoying Social Issues

By: Breeanne Howe (Diary)  |  March 13th, 2013 at 02:49 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If you’re familiar with the presidential election of 2012, you’re aware that social conservatives are allegedly the reason we lost.  Yes, they just had to bring up abortion and gay marriage and spoil the whole thing.  Clearly if we had just stuck to policy, which the American people love to hear about, we’d be redesigning the Oval Office right now. Am I right?

I’m betting a portion of you agree strongly with that position.  As a matter of fact, throwing social issues and the conservatives that support them under the bus is not a new position.  What is new, however, is the growing realization that the aforementioned belief is the exact opposite of a winning strategy.  Think about it.  Do the Democrats really get into the details during campaigns?  Did Barack Obama’s reelection website have any actual data on it?  The answer is a resounding “no.”  What the Democrats do well and, frankly Republicans suck at, is connecting with people on the things the public really cares about.  Does that mean we have to change what we stand for?  No, but it does mean our messaging has to change and the culture could give a darn about your latest economic data points.

A popular Christian axiom that is often misunderstood says, “Be in the culture, not of the culture.”  Indeed, as this post explains, “We must be counter-cultural, not anti-cultural, if we want to be seen as authentic.”  Many Christians, in their misunderstanding, believe that they shouldn’t engage the culture because they may be tainted by it; you will hear them referred to in some churches as being in “a holy huddle”.  They believe if they just convey Jesus’ message, people will obviously understand how awesome it is and convert to Christianity.  I’m not sure how they get across the Truth that Jesus loves and accepts everyone without actually hanging out with those that aren’t Christian… Unfortunately, what often ends up happening is people like this on display, giving the world a very wrong impression of Christianity.

images

Note: There are pictures of children holding signs like the ones above, which hurts my heart to no end. What is wrong with people?!

Thankfully, many more Christians get it right.  They understand that, “Communication occurs when a message takes up residence within a listener’s life and heart.”  They don’t stand above the culture in condemnation, they engage the culture and form connections with actual people.  Only after true connection can the truth of Jesus be presented.

The Democrats, while often times not completely understanding the full message of the Bible, do understand the importance of being in the culture.  They connect person to person and speak the language that people understand.  The general public does not feel threatened by the Democrats and thus do not react defensively when Democrat ideas are presented to them.  Is it because their ideas are the best or is it because no other ideas are being brought to the table?

Republicans will continue to lose if they stay in their holy huddles and speak at people instead of speaking to them.  People want to be understood and while many say they get it, they obviously don’t.  Put your research down and talk to people; and after you’ve actually listened to them, tell their stories.  Earn the public’s trust by proving you hear them and maybe, if you’re really courageous, allow them to see you aren’t perfect.  You don’t have to dabble in elicit drugs like our Democrat presidents of late.  Take the lead from superstars like Marco Rubio.  People love Rubio because they connect with him.  He has a real story and he doesn’t try to hide it.  In fact, like so many of us, his story highlights why conservatism rocks.

The city I live outside of, Charlotte, North Carolina, is notorious for having a church on every corner.  If you want to attend church, you’ve little excuse for not being able to find one that fits you; yet it won’t fit you perfectly.  You could travel the city of Charlotte in search of a church that allows you to check off all the boxes on your list and you probably wouldn’t find it.  This one has a great message but the music stinks.  This one has great music but they wave their hands in the air and that’s just weird.  That one sounded good in both message and song but they meet in a school gym and I really want a sanctuary.  The list goes on… the truth is that we settle into the church that most fits us and we focus on the big things that matter the most.

As much as both sides would like to paint each other within narrow parameters, the left and the right are diverse.  Not everyone agrees with everything on either side and that is okay.  There are some key points that throw you in one camp or the other and you go from there.  Pointing to the left side of the isle and trying to define them does nothing for our message.  At least on the left the public knows what they stand for.  Conservatism is so misunderstood and has so much hostility against it (for what people think it stands for) that the majority of people believe they can’t fit in our itty bitty club.  While you’re working on getting across to people that you aren’t out to get them, you may want to work on accepting the people who are already on your side.  Republicans aren’t going to win without social conservatives so get over it already.  Stop allowing the other side to define us and show the public we aren’t all old, white guys in stodgy business suits (though we love our old, white, stodgy guys too).  Why are there so many people in the middle and on the fence?  Because they don’t know what we actually represent.  Stop with the public infighting for power over the party and get down to business.  Four years isn’t a long time to address what has been destroyed.

Once upon a time there was a great leader who united the country, not because they agreed with everything he said, but because they knew he understood them.  We can’t behave like bickering children while we wait for a leader to show us the way.  People trusted Reagan but they don’t trust today’s GOP.  Many in the GOP don’t trust today’s GOP and with good reason.  If you’ll throw out an entire leg of the party to win, which leg will be next?  Reagan already showed us the way.  Connect with people, listen to them and show them you are listening.  Then and only then can you begin to convey what this party really stands for.  The good news is that there is room for enough people and that, with hard work, the right can rise again.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ceili_dancer

    Roaring Lambs by Robert Briner is a good book for people to read and not get caught up in the Holy Huddle or living in a Christian Ghetto.

  • Bill S

    Unfortunately, conservatism is much like the Christian church. If you support the wrong leader, you are branded a heretic. If I happen to like Mark Driscoll, the hard-core Calvinists (of which I *am* one, by the way) often disown me because he tends to be occasionally edgy. If I listen to Rick Warren, I’m a squish. But both are Christians, after the same goal – evangelizing the lost.

    Same goes for the GOP/conservatives. Fact of the matter is that we’re all more or less going for the same thing. The challenge is to nudge those who tend to wander too far to the left back on the straight and narrow. It’s possible, both with Christians and politicians.

  • rennyangel4

    On the interminable why we lost, we lost because we did not get the total cons. and Rep. vote out (3,000,000 at least missing), and the Libertarians took a million votes. And if we cannot find ways to get them out to vote for a positive candidate like Romney and against a nation-killer like zero, we have no hope.

  • MiamiDave

    The idea that social conservatives are problem with our Party that needs curing is asinine for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the folks peddling the “social conservatives need to get out of the tent” narrative seem to think that social conservatives could simply “turn off” those pieces of their theological and political livelihood, as if these values were not long-standing and deeply held.

  • lineholder

    I run into a lot of people who don’t comprehend that, Miami Dave. They don’t realize that the beliefs, convictions, moral and ethical standards, etc. that we hold to are so much a part of who we are and what we strive for in life that we can’t simply separate ourselves from those things at a whim in the manner that they might desire to see for political reasons.

    I can’t do it. I’m firmly grounded in it and then some.

    (chuckle) I have friends who will send their friends to talk to me sometimes. And before we even get into the meat of the conversation I’ll let it be known exactly what my beliefs are. Then I’ll ask them if they’re thin-skinned. Then I’ll tell them that if they want me to say what they’re hoping to hear or to enable them to offer sop to their own conscience, then they should go talk to someone else. And only then do we move forward to discuss whatever situation or problem it is that they want to talk about.

    I want them to know up front where I’m coming from before I say anything else or offer any ideas or suggestions to them, but when it’s all said and done, they have to make their own choices and make up their own minds about it.

  • slicksleddog

    Your desire “to nudge those who tend to wander too far to the left back on the straight and narrow” seems a little at odds with one of the stated purposes of this site, “to clean house in the Republican party.” There is virtually no overlap today between the Republicans and the Democrats. As much as everyone would like ideological purity, perhaps greater success in the future lies in more nudging and less house cleaning.

  • midwestconservative

    Social Cons can’t let gay marriage break the bank like they did with prohibition
    after prohibition failed in the 30′s fundamentalists simply stopped giving political input and in many cases just stopped voting, this caused irreparable damage to this country
    If we lose on the same-sex marriage issue we can’t just say “well this country is lost might as well stay at home” because to do that is to allow conservatism to lose a significant portion of its base and drive, focus on the state capitols and continue to support the conservative movement in general and we can win

  • MiamiDave

    Yes, and I know my response was a bit off-issue, excepting the first little bit of this beautifully worded diary. I certainly didn’t ‘t want to hijack the discussion and if you’re feeling that my post is taking away from the authors points, and leading the conversation in the wrong direction, I’d happily agree that it needs to be removed. I am just constantly frustrated when folks on the left or in the “center” seem to think that evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews, and other GOPers who care about social issues could simply decide to no longer care about those issues if they so chose. I obviously don’t think that this is what the author was suggesting, and I know it wasn’t the point of the diary– the point of which (engagement and going outside the box, so to speak) is a grand one.

  • exitsfunnel

    I don’t want to further derail an interesting diary but that comment needs a response. The whole Romney got 3 million less votes than McCain meme was based on a small number of articles that we’re written before all of the votes had been counted. In fact, Romney won nearly a million more votes than McCain. Some ideas die hard on the internet.

  • kipling

    Prohibition was a Progressive reform back by many of the mainstream progressives as a means of controlling the populace for their own good. It was a very Bloomberg-esk type reform. The Progressives made an appeal to religion to attract more votes but it is wrong to characterize it as a purely fundamentalist crusade.

  • wgswst

    A winning strategy for Republicans?

    Insist that social/moral issues should be decided by state legislatures, NOT by anyone on the national level – courts especially.

    This way, the divisive issues are taken of the Repub’s plate, and they prove their commitment to downsizing the power and reach of Fedgov. Win/win.

  • midwestconservative

    All I’m saying is that historically Fundamentalists stopped coming out to vote after Prohibition of alcohol was labeled a failure, 9/10 Evangelicals vote against Big Government, their vote would have come in handy against guys like LBJ or Nelson Rockefeller, it took Roe v. Wade before Christians became politically motivated once again

  • runner12

    I think too often we allow others to define Christianity or what they think it is, instead of showing them what it is really about. We need to actively engage others and explain to them why we hold the moral positions we do. This will not always garner acceptance, if that is the goal then you will be sorely disappointed. There are those who will simply reject you for what you believe, sad to say. But you might change on heart or mind. At the very least, they will have nothing to reproach you with other than adhering to your faith.

  • kipling

    I have not seen any studies to confirm or dispute that so it would be an interest thing to research. I know the social liberals became very active during that time.

  • midwestconservative

    oh they’ve always been pretty active its just that they were pretty unopposed during the 60s and 70s, and the 30′s and 40′s only had the mainstream “modernist” churches in opposition to Social Liberalism, and when these people already allow Liberals to make the rules by accepting such dogma as Darwinism as indisputable fact, they are already behind on the score bord, fundamentalists were pretty insular during this time, while believing in a literal view of the bible they didn’t actively defend it with political activism, they mostly stayed at home, or atleast thats what my liberal professors tell me when they bemoan the continued influence of the religious right

  • kipling

    I am not doubting you. I had just never thought of that aspect.

    Nonetheless, I am agreed that we must stay in the fight. However, it makes it harder to encourage my fellow fundamentalists to do so when the GOP constantly complains about them, maligns them, and openly wishes they would go away.

  • midwestconservative

    these republicans ( e.g. Karl Rove) are slowing dieing out though, and the young people can be converted if you put it in terms they understand,

  • midwestconservative

    agreed Paul Ryan was probably the biggest reason why I voted for Romney, that and it was an anti-Obama vote

  • bobmark

    Can you accept that some people will never abide by the first three (or four depending on your persuasion) commandments in exchange for a society that lives by the last six (or seven)?

    I’ve murmured “in my mind, on my lips and in my heart” many times and I understand that your religion informs your worldview and the Bible provides examples and reasons for you, but as the diarist points out you must ” speak the language that people understand.” It seems to me that too often religious so-cons try to go for the two-fer and want to proselytize both their religion and their politics, to the detriment of both. There are plenty of “worldly” reasons against abortion, and gay marriage/special rights for homosexuals etc. We should use that information when talking about politics with people whose views aren’t known to us. This both removes the “religious nut-job” dismissal, and forces them to argue facts, which they can’t.

  • lineholder

    It depends on what is included in the phrase “speak the language people understand”. If speaking the language people understand involves conforming to a mentality that encourages amoral or immoral behaviors and/or enabling others to set such low goals for themselves in their lives…thanks but no thanks. I’m not interested. Neither am I the least bit likely to believe that I should accept so little from myself when it comes to how I interact with other human beings.

    No offense, but that’s downright insulting to even imply that we should all just conform to such low standards…sort of like what we accuse Liberals of in the presentation of “fairness”.

    Let’s all just sink into moral mediocrity together, shall we? After all, it’s the accepted thing these days. /sarc

    It’s very much so possible for a person to holds to their beliefs and convictions yet be of help to other people. Politics isn’t the higher priority for me. The human soul is.

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned it is that dissembling about my beliefs and convictions doesn’t earn me the respect of those around me. Honesty can earn that respect. Holding to those beliefs and convictions can earn that respect. And usually, people are more inclined to listen to those they respect than to those for whom they have no respect whatsoever.

    Bring on the “religious nut-job” label. I’ll take it over being a milquetoast weak-spine every day of the weak, bobmark.

  • lineholder

    I think SoCons have pulled back a bit, kipling. Some of them because they don’t like exposing themselves to being treated as a whipping post…they have more productive things to do with their time, etc.

    But most of the SoCons I personally know are in heavy defense mode these days. Protective of their families. Protective of their communities. Protective of traditional values. That’s where a greater percentage of their time and effort is being invested.

  • kipling

    I think you are right, lineholder. Many have lost faith in politics and have shifted the fight to other arenas – the home, the community, the church, etc. The nomination of McCain and Romney did not help. Nor does the constant demand for them to shut up by the very same people who want their votes. The irony is that many fiscal only conservatives claim that social issues need to be left out of politics. Then, when those who support social issues also leave politics, they complain about it.

  • Finrod

    If certain social conservatives learned to stop leading with their chin, then perhaps the rest of the party wouldn’t be tempted to marginalize them. Akin and Murdock managed to turn off large numbers of people in 2012 when all they had to do was not lead with their respective chins and they would have been Senators now.

  • bobmark

    First, I meant no disrespect so please accept my apology for my communications failure. I was trying to start a dialogue about the diary.

    Let me try again. I agree with your point about not conforming to moral mediocrity. Which is why I referenced the latter of the commandments. That is the personal moral code we must be attempting to get people to live up to. I don’t believe that people have to accept Christ, Buddha or whatever other deity to live a just and moral life. it helps, but isn’t necessary, and we shouldn’t try to make it be so. Inculcate The Golden Rule in pre-school/kindergarten and reinforce it through high school and this will be a very different, and better, country in 20 years. However, I do admit that the slippery slope to moral relativism must be guarded.

    As for “the language people understand”, what I was getting at was a communication strategy. i have had this conversation with atheists before and what it boils down to is that as soon as the rationale for a position is “because the Bible says so”, you lose them. To them that’s just a different way of saying “because”. Which is what a parent says to a child, not two adults hashing out a difference of opinion. To them that is insulting.

    I agree with the bulk of so-con principles or I wouldn’t be here, but I do perceive a religious litmus test sometimes, and I agree with what Breeanne is saying about the “holy huddles”. This is an observation, not a criticism, and certainly not of you personally, but look through some socially oriented diaries and see how many commenters are referencing scripture to justify their positions. How much weight do those arguments carry with non-believers?

    I just think that the tent needs to be big enough to allow non-believers to agree with the secular so-con goals without feeling they have to go to church to do so. These people are potential allies and should be welcomed as such.

  • lineholder

    Fair enough. Thanks for your response.

    Making the case for maintaining and sustaining a higher level moral code within a society without bringing religion into it…where would your moral code come from?

  • Brian Andersen

    Fantastic diary, Breeanne, thanks! I think your analogy is quite perfect.

    Frankly I am sick and tired of the friendly-fire among the right. We certainly need to start getting better with personal relationships and transmitting our ideas in that forum rather than from some intellectual high-ground.

    More to the point, as a party we need to focus on our vast areas of agreement rather than nitpicking ourselves into who is “most conservative”. Yes we have some RINOs, who frankly are just weak leaders and we need to replace them with new blood. There is a time for that. But the larger point is what do we do in the general election? We need to offer a better message about building ourselves up in the minds of the LIV, who votes their kitchen table economics rather than who wins the political purity game.