A lot of attention has recently been cast on a the so-called proposed truce on the social issues. In reality, this is a pipe dream for one very important reason- the opposition- the liberals and the Democrats and other liberals would never honor such a truce. If we kept the upcoming elections strictly to national security and fiscal issues, Democrats lose on the merits on both counts. In two very short years, I have witnessed the country weakened in the eyes of the international community and placed on a dangerous fiscal death spiral that endangers us not only now, bt also in the future. I have seen the government spend $800 billion of my hard-earned tax dollars to refurbish a train station roof and build some roads here and there. I have seen the President literally apologize to foreign leaders for imaginary sins. On national security issues, Republicans and conservatives have always held the high ground and been perceived as better equipped in principle and action. Increasingly, thanks to the liberal over-reach of Obama and company, who could not avoid that tendency "not to waste a crisis," Republicans have gained or are quickly gaining the high ground in fiscal matters. For those reasons, of which Democrats are fully aware, they are now playing two losing hands. Hence, failing on these grounds, theywill resort to the social issues- their de facto fall back to drive wedges in the electorate. It would be typical Democratic liberal strategy to begin class warfare. Because Republicans may be pro-life, they argue, they must be anti-woman. Because they support the rights of gun owners, they must be responsible somehow for some nut shooting a Congresswoman in Arizona. Because they don't support the notion of singling out "hate crimes," they must be racist. Because they demand that our southern border be secured, they must be anti-Hispanic. Because Republicans and conservatives don't agree that Jack and Joe should marry, they must be homophobes. And on it goes.
It would be nice to have a "truce on the social issues," but that would be an express wish for the ideal. Politics is not the ideal world we all, or some, may wish for. Losing everything else in their arsenal, liberals and Democrats would soon break the truce. That has been proven time and time again.
At times, I admit to having differences with the socially conservative wing of the Republican party. Although I may not disagree with them on fundamental principles, I sometimes disagree with their prioritization of things. Part of it is born of practicality in politics and in my personal life. Practically every poll consulted indicates that economic matters are at the top of the list of concerns of voters and the American people. The social issues, if they appear at all, are low on those lists. For those reasons, I feel the Republican Party should concentrate on the fiscal issues. On the personal level, the money taken from my paycheck in taxes affects me more than someone having access to abortion. Spending my tax dollars on bank and auto bail outs has a greater effect on me than submitting someone to a background check to purchase a gun. Spending trillions on an alleged health care overhaul has a greater effect on me and my children than whether Joe Smith marries John Public in California. I support the death penalty not because it is a deterent to crime, but because I do not want my tax dollars spent housing, feeding, protecting, and educating a convicted murderer rapist. I do not see the harm in allowing voluntary prayer in public school although my children did quite well in public schools without it.
Also, one of the most important things a President can do is make judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court. It is usually here that Presidential beliefs are translated into actions and where those actions intersect with the social issues. It is ludicrous to believe the statements that no litmus tests exist when nominees are considered. I long for the pre-Bork days when nominees could directly answer questions. I think a principled response would be that these issues are best left to the legislative branch of government to decide after open, vigorous democratic debate. But that is not the case and why? Because liberals, through their Democratic allies and mouthpieces on Capitol Hill have made the social issues a factor in this process.
Any candidate or potential candidate for high office can stand before the public and call for a truce on social issues. But, if they really believe that self-delusional utopia, they are politically naive. With the social issues on the table, as they invariably will at some point, allows the Republicans to revealliberalsand Democrats for the morally bankrupt lot that they are. Conversely, the conservative social interest groups should not hold a candidate in less regard because of a disagreement on a single issue or two. They need to look at the totality of the candidate's positions. It is possible to even disagree, but respect the argument in a civilized manner. Perhaps, that is what this alleged truce is all about. In the end, despite the differences on single or a few issues, one must look at the alternative to the ultimate choice and decide which is the lesser of their personal evil? Of course, we would like the perfectly ideal conservative- one who is socially and fiscally conservative in actions, if not words. They are rare indeed, but they do exist. Ironically, the one who has called for the truce is perhaps the closest one comes to that definition.