Despite the triumphant ascendancy of conservatism in our times, many Republicans are impetuously 'punting on first down' in the battle for social conservatism. Some prominent GOPers feel that not only is social conservatism not a priority, it is something that should be unconditionally and unilaterally surrendered to the left. There are elected Republicans supporting the repeal of DADT, radical homosexual organizations sponsoring CPAC, and party leaders supporting a pro-abortion woman for chairman of the party. Today, I came across a story of a local Republican leader advocating for gay civil unions in my home state of Maryland.
The Republicans are down to a pitiful 12 seat caucus in the Maryland Senate. Twelve! Yet, even the remaining holdouts won't stand up for conservatism. What's worse is that the minority leader, RINO Allan Kittleman, is planning to introduce a bill next week that will recognize civil unions in the state of Maryland. His proposal would give couples entering in a civil union the same rights given to married couples. The amazing thing is that Kittleman represents part of Carroll County, one of the most conservative jurisdictions in Maryland. The Columbia Flyer explains Kittleman's rationale:
“I believe that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage,” Kittleman said. “I think the government should be involved in civil unions.”
That belief, and his views on civil rights, are what prompted him to draft this legislation, Kittleman said.
“This is something I have felt strongly about for a long time,” he said, noting that with several new state senators elected in the November mid-term elections, it is “a good time to put in new ideas and to see where people stand.”
What exactly does he mean by recognizing government’s role in civil unions, but not in marriage? What planet is he living in?!? Also, he says that this is an issue that he feels strongly about. So let's get this straight. The Democrats control every facet of government in Maryland and the leader of the rag-tag Republican caucus feels strongly about supporting a Democrat cause! So why doesn’t he just become a Democrat? We already have a robust party that spits on our American values, infringes on our rights, and destroys our free markets. Now we are saddled with an Orwellian opposition leader who pushes left wing legislation even before the ruling party gets a chance. This is a question that we need to confront not just in Maryland, but across our nation. Do we really need two left hands in public policy?
There are ostensibly three facets to our nation's right hand (red America); fiscal, social, and national defense conservatism. Unfortunately, many within the Republican Party have increasingly taken an antagonistic posture towards the one facet that is the conscience of conservatism; social values. Much ink has been poured over Mitch Daniel's suggestion last year that we enact a truce on social issues. However, what has taken place within the Republican Party recently is anything but a truce. It is a complete surrender and capitulation to the nefarious efforts of the radical left to decay the core of the American culture from within.
After being utterly destroyed at the polls in November, the left was crowned with their prize jewel of open homosexuality within our military, the paradigm institution of American pride and patriotism. This victory was gratuitously granted to them by 8 Republican Senators, many of whom represented conservative states. At the time, Senator Richard Burr defended his betrayal of his supporters by asserting that DADT repeal was "outdated and inevitable". Really? Doesn't the left seek to portray every liberal policy change as inevitable and timely? If we retreat like cowards in the face of the leftist onslaught, won't every liberal fantasy become inevitable? In fact, Joe Biden is now using that same rationale of inevitability to push for recognition of gay marriage.
Some in the conservative movement are now trying to elevate the militant GoProud to a position of prominence at CPAC. We now have distinguished Republicans pushing for recognition of gay civil unions. Some are already supporting gay marriage. Even as a staunch social conservative, I understand that fiscal and national security issues might be more important at this point. However, that doesn't mean that we should unilaterally withdrawal our opposition to the rot-gut leftist social values, thus surrendering social conservatism completely. Also, if we abjure social conservatism because of the new and inevitable immoral climate that the liberals have created, what is to stop us from surrendering the rest of the battlefield? If we acquiesce to every liberal premise, then they are on the cutting edge of every issue.
Hey, with so many scientists predicting global warming, isn't it inevitable that we support appropriate legislation to deal with it? Isn't it indelible that we will need to shut down oil drilling and exploration? As more and more American youth become indoctrinated into socialism through the liberal educational system, isn't it inevitable that we acquiesce to a planned economy? As our nation is flooded with 1.2 million immigrants and about as many illegals every year, isn't it inevitable that we pander to their wishes in order to sustain our party? With the permanent reality of globalism and the rise of NGO's and IGO's, isn't it inevitable that we lay American exceptionalism to rest for the sake of global stability?
We must understand that the liberals play for keeps. They control media, academia, entertainment, non-profits, and all other major influences over the American culture. They are vociferously attempting to tear down our liberties, fiscal conservatism, and national defense with as much zeal as they are assailing our social values. If the social fabric of this nation becomes a casualty to the liberal cultural warriors, everything else that makes America exceptional will follow shortly. Our only plan of action is to fight the liberals on all three fronts with more fervor than they employ, before our demise indeed becomes inevitable.
The reality is that we still have strong support from the public in our battle against the "soc-libs". More than thirty states have supported ballot referendums to ban gay marriage, with many passing by wide margins. We have succeeded even in deep blue state like California despite being outspent and outgunned by machine politics. On the abortion front, Gallup reports that American support for life is at an all time high. Why surrender when conservatism is making such a momentous comeback? Why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? I guess we would have to understand the psychology of the lame duck Republican Senate to answer these questions.
As I watched the transition of power in the House last week, I couldn't help but marvel at the fighting spirit of Nancy Pelosi and the far left. Even as she was forced to hand over the gavel, Pelosi delivered an unprecedented partisan farewell speech in which she defended every aspect of her unpopular tenure. Even as her approval numbers dip into the single digits and liberals all over the country suffer humiliating defeat at the ballot box, the Democrats will not back down from their support of her or the ideals she represents. In fact, DCCC Chairman Steve Israel declared that his goal is to "make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House again".
If the left is able to stand by their leaders and ideals even when they are on the decline, why can't we stand by ours when they are on the ascendancy? The answer is that once we throw away our social values (DADT repeal), we will easily capitulate on the fiscal (unemployment welfare, FDA takeover bills) and national security issues (START) as well. As the venerable Jim DeMint said, "When you have a big government, you’re going to have a little God. You’re going to have fewer values and morals, and you’re going to have a culture that has to be controlled by the government."
We always hear Republicans preface their disdain for social conservatism by extolling their commitment to fiscal conservatism. However, we all know that you can count the number of social liberals who are red meat fiscal-cons on one hand. As Jim DeMint so aptly said at the Value Voters Summit, "the fact is, you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative."