« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Abortion and the 2010 Elections

By: lexington_concord (Diary)  |  November 18th, 2010 at 09:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It is a sincerely regrettable fact that less than three weeks after a monumental election for the GOP we have found it necessary to repeatedly engage in fratricide with some of our whilom coalition partners. However, some of some of our libertarian brethren have been feeling their oats since the election and have taken to throwing around wild and unsupported ipse dixits about how they won the election all by their lonesome and if the GOP wants to win in 2012 it better throw all the ugsome social conservatives under the bus where they belong. It is important to realize that they brought the fight to us; social conservatives did not stand up after the election and loudly proclaim 2010 as a referendum on abortion and declare that everyone who wants to talk about the flat tax or social security reform should sit down and shut up.

We have already addressed that this contention is completely unsupported by, you know, facts. Erick has also written a great piece about the folly of the argument as a philosophical matter. I think it is necessary to point out, however, that the suggestion that social issues did not play a role in the GOP’s victories this year is also completely untrue.

What libertarians conveniently forget is that abortion – particularly taxpayer funding of abortion – was a huge issue in the fight over Obamacare. In fact, it threatened to derail the entire legislation and a number of blue dogs insisted on language (which came to be known as the Stupak Amendment) to protect their backside in a number of districts where they knew taxpayer funding of abortion (which is broadly opposed nationwide) would not ultimately cost them their jobs. However, when the Stupak Amendment threatened to unravel the Democrats’ reconciliation end-run around the filibuster, the White House applied massive pressure to the Blue Dogs and they caved.

Pro-life organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony List and Americans United for Life pounced, attacking the Blue Dogs with multi-million dollar ad campaigns, billboards targeting vulnerable democrats for their vote in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion, grassroots tours, and radio ads. Ultimately, 15 of the 20 Democrats targeted by the Susan B. Anthony List lost and 11 of the 12 Democrats targeted by Americans United for Life lost (as a side note, I would encourage pro-life conservatives to consider either organization for donations if you want to donate to effective pro-life activism. The NRLC crapped the bed on the Obamacare bill, and SBA List and AUL got it right).

The point, however, is that to suggest that abortion played no role in GOP victories is deeply dishonest. It’s just as dishonest as viewing the elections as vindication of hardcore libertarianism. Politics is a complicated business and although everyone likes to pretend that elections went a certain way because voters across the nation suddenly believe in all their issues, it’s seldom true. Although abortion without a doubt was not the biggest issue on election day, there is no doubt that it made a measurable difference in a number of key races, and that social conservative activists played a key role – as they always do – in Republican victory.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://practicalgopvoter.blogspot.com/ texasproud

    there is zero doubt that government funded abortion was a huge issue during the Obamacare debate. It was the one thing that nearly derailed the entire bill. It also overwhelmingly united all Republicans too. It is also true that the no candidate made overturning Roe a central point to their campaign. The election was decided on fiscal issues and social issues that were tied into the fiscal policy debate. A good way to unite the party and maintain the fiscal mandate is to defund Planned Parenthood and NEA in the next budget

    • streiff

      http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40024

      For instance, exit polling indicates that by a margin of 39 to 52 percent, voters in November opposed extending all of the Bush tax cuts.

      • Finrod

        President John Kerry can tell you all about that.

        • edintexas

          Pay attention to which organization is doing/paying for the polling (whether exit on Election day, or normal polling). Any poll can be easily skewed by the way the questions are asked (e.g. the usual trick to line up a number of questions before the “important” one which lead the response in the direction desired), which polling places are selected (majority or strong representation of one party or another in the precinct/district), etc.

          The AP/GfK combination has tended to follow AP’s preferences, in my opinion. And they were all over the last elections, and are still pumping for Obamacare. The cited results sound very much like results AP/GfK would have reported. Unfortunately the article did not cite the source of the polling results.

    • westforwestwing2012

      Thank you, lexington_concord, for a great piece.

      The actual success rate of SBA List in knocking off the Blue Dogs who caved on healthcare is even greater than the 15/20 ratio indicated–because a number of Blue Dogs who caved on ObamaCare were so broadly and intensely excoriated at the time that they decided to retire and not even run for re-election. (This was the case with Bart Stupak).

      The overall win percentage of SBA List-endorsed candidates in the last election was a whopping 78 percent. As you may know, this kind of success rate is almost unheard of among political advocacy groups.
      http://www.sba-list.org/scoreboard

      I stepped up my giving to SBA List during and after the whole health-care debacle–because I was seeing that SBA List was one of the most powerful, respected, effective actors behind the scenes. The Blue Dogs ultimately caved last March, but it was not for lack of trying on the part of SBA List. SBA List head Marjorie Dannenfelser personally lost several years off her lifespan, I am convinced, because she gave everything she had–and more–to the effort to defeat the bill.

      If it hadn’t been for the SBA List, the Stupak Amendment never would have passed in November 2009.

      They are an impressively effective advocacy group. I consider every dollar I give them to be money very, very well spent.

  • jeffreywturner

    Why is it always the pro-abortion Republicans telling the pro-lifers that we need to capitulate in order to appeal to the sexual permissiveness of the upper-middle class white surburbanite New Englanders?

    Why is it never pro-life Republicans telling the pro-abortionists that they need to capitulate on fiscal issues in order to appeal to poor inner-city folks who agree with us on social issues?

    The truth is that the conservative positions are simply better, both on social issues AND fiscal ones. Instead of one faction telling the other that the issues they care most deeply about are losing issues, what we need to do is come together and decide how best to explain to folks why we are right.

    • Finrod

      The poor inner city folks are so firmly brainwashed to vote Democrat that a strategy like what you describe would go down in flames horribly. And anyways when it comes to fiscal issues, we’ve proven in the past that when we try to out-pork the Democrats, we fail horribly at that, so that strategy is double-doomed– which is why it’s never suggested, much less tried.

      • jeffreywturner

        For instance, George W. Bush made significant strides in certain Latino communities during his re-election bid in 2004, mainly by focusing on “values” issues on which they largely agree with Republicans. For instance, he actually won Loretta Sanchez’s Southern California district that is majority Hispanic. Unfortunately that progress was lost in 2006 and 2008 when we let Democrats cast us as racists for being in favor of a secure border.

        But for the most part, I realize and understand what you are saying. I think however, we would be a bit more successful if we were not afraid to tell inner-city folks the truth, which is that the entitlement culture they believe to be their salvation is nothing more than a scheme designed by white liberals to keep people in poverty by making them comfortable there, in order to ensure blind voting allegiance to the Democratic party.

        • Scope

          I was doing some research on Tom Perriello, who was just voted out in VA, thank goodness. He was one of the co-founders of Catholics in Alliance for the common good. In reading info from that site, and hearing Perriello speak, it is their goal to convince as many as they can, that the high incidence of abortion is because of poverty. They preach that if wealth was redistributed, and each was made equal, the incidence of abortion would automatically decrease. I know that their stupid speak is because of a) promoting the redistributive process of the socialists, and b) it gives Catholics that adopt that philosophy, an excuse to vote for democrats, and c) they are forgiven for supporting pro-choice democrats because they make up in goodness in supporting open borders, and taking care of all of God’s children, including every illegal. Unfortunately, there are some, that are so very uninformed, that have adopted their propaganda.

        • Finrod

          I don’t think it’s something we can hang our hats on for immediate electoral success; it’s more of a long-term project to erode the foundations of the Democratic party.

          • davesinsanantonio

            a project to educate the voters, and elevate the principles the Founders expected to be the foundation of this great land. The Dems will erode themselves because they violate those proven principles.
            I know the old saw about omelets and eggs, but just dropping eggs on the floor does not make any omelets. Our purpose in not to destroy the Dems, it is the “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity”. If we do our proper role in educating, the Dems will either learn the truth or crash and burn against the truth.

    • bassethound

      I am a staunch social conservative, and I’m sick and tired of being told that WE have to “reach out”…that WE have to “tone down our ‘rhetoric’” and that WE have to “moderate our views” lest we “scare off voters”. What crap.

      To put it simply, when we put forth sound principled apologetics that a life in the womb has dignity and respect, and should be protected we win. When we put forth policies that protect human life and promote personal responsibility, we win.

      When we treat the social conservatives like crazy relatives and tell them, “thanks for your financial support, now shut up and go sit in your corner”, we lose.

      • nwick

        Boy, if that ain’t the truth!!

    • rascott

      you have an entire generation of younger voters that support gay marriage. And unlike the fiscal philosophical changes that people often go through as they grow older, issues like that typcially do not change.

      • realvoice2010

        Hey rascott……
        Your theory about an “entire generation supporting gay marriage” is garbage. As they get into good jobs and careers(Obama hasn’t entirely killed that yet) they will see the fallacy of letting your special interest group and agenda have any say in anything. Reform of education, of which you are a product or a part of, will remove the “risk” that many students feel exists if they don’t write papers supporting your perverted social and fiscal agendas, for fear of not passing the course or getting a low grade.

      • jeffreywturner

        First, it isn’t as if every young person is in favor of same-sex marriage. It is just a higher percentage than amongst older folks. Second, opinions on such matters do change with age. For instance, many of those people who were into the sexual permissiveness of the 1960′s grew out of it as they matured. Not all of them of course, but many of them.

        Secondly, just think about who the people are that are having children. Upper-middle class secular liberals aren’t exactly cranking out kids at a high rate. Given that you get a lot of your values from the people who raise you, think about the effect that will have over time.

        • realvoice2010

          “Upper middle class secular liberals aren’t exactly cranking……” doesn’t help much because many of them are in education and can get a far larger audience than just their kids (if they had them) by spewing their secular liberalism to the masses of college students (mostly liberal arts, but it’s being extended indirectly by the college policies). Once we can get conservative teachers and colleges going as quickly as possible, we can put all of the secular liberals away (not for good – we have to keep at it since like cockroaches, they will keep coming back, if we don’t keep the area clean).

  • jokemachine

    The war on Jim Demint is already in full force at Hot Air. Here you have one of the true leaders of the conservative movement and some want to throw him under the bus because he happens to be a social conservative. I’m starting to wonder if some of these bloggers have connections to GOP leaders, who feel their power threatened. I really don’t know how else to explain it.

    • trpeacocke

      …Log Cabin Republican central. There’s an interesting alliance between GOP’s K-street influence peddlers and its social liberals. Big, corrupt government and social radicalism go hand in hand. We’ve seen this alliance at work in the Democratic party, and there’s a version of it in the GOP as well. Of course, there are big government social conservatives, like Huckabee and Bush, but they’re not much of a factor these days.

      • smagar
        • powertothepeople

          libertarians feel very welcome here and in fact, there are quite a few here. It is the Capitol L libertarians who buy into the Ron Paul nonsense, spew his tardism, and regurgitate it on every site they can find that usually end up not feeling very welcome her.

          There is a difference and this site is full of conservative libertarians, it is the nuts that get run off eventually.

          • smagar

            I’m not so sure that a libertarian who’s concerned mostly, if not exclusively, with fiscal conservative issues would feel totally at home at Redstate.

            I mean no offense, and I’ll admit I’ve missed much of the discussions on these boards in recent months. I’ve been busy trying to stir up GOP votes in southern Arizona.

            But, when I see a Redstate commenter insult Hotair.com by calling it “Log Cabin Republican central” (see upthread), I imagine myself being a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, or GOProud, or an independent who’s open to the idea of gay marraige and repeal of DADT, or an independent whose vote is animated more by fiscal than social conservative issues—and I think that it’s best to watch my six when I comment on Redstate.

            What concerns me as a longtime Redstate commenter is—IMO, many of the votes that gave the GOP the margins it needed to take the House and many, many state legislature seats earlier this month came from the groups I listed above—especially those independents.

          • trpeacocke

            Gay marriage supporters who claim to be libertarians are closet statists.

            What is gay marriage but the expansion of government power?

            It gives the state the power to interfere with more human relationships. It’s voluntary, you say? So what? A true libertarian would oppose even voluntary expansion of state power.

            Want to be a libertarian? Then argue that the state should be denied the power to enforce traditional marital vows.

            But there

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            You just called a site moderator – me – a ‘closet statist.’ Do not do it again.

          • notalibertarian

            (not that that changes your life or anything — I’m new here) because you clearly aren’t.

            But I do get the feeling that most conservative gay marriage supporters/neutralists haven’t looked into the issue all that much. I get the feeling that they have passively accepted two decades of Hollywood propaganda that has successfully transfered the “ick factor” from gays to Christians who believe homosexuality is not normal — just enough to make them think it is their moral obligation to support gay rights.

            Greg Gutfield had some guests on to discuss a group who’s complaining about gay TSA agents. From what I could see, the panel was made up of libertarians and gay men. They sat there and made fun of a perfectly legitimate point: that TSA’s accomodation of having same-sex pat-downs means nothing if it hires gays to do the pat downs. No actual discussion. Just mocking the concern.

            Is it possible that constantly being inundated with those kinds of images has impacted this tendency to be indifferent? I’m just saying it is frustrating to see the indifference toward DADT and marriage coming from the same people who believe we need to fight creeping sharia. Are you aware that in my state, because of this push for equal rights, men who consider themselves transvestites now have the legal right to use women’s restrooms? What kind of problems is that going to hand us down the road?

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/capitalism-and-the-family/

            Um. Or maybe not so much.

          • trpeacocke

            …is a discussion of the economic basis of the family that looks like it was written from a Marxist perspective, according to which all social structures and values are fundamentally about economics. Like any theory that attempts to explain all human behavior in terms of one principle, it’s simplistic and tendentious at best.

            However, even if we were to accept the article’s premises and conclusions, it has no relevance to the very simple fact that support for gay marriage is support for the expansion of state power. The anti-statist libertarian view is that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
          • notalibertarian

            Any person that claims that

            “Two things began to happen in the twentieth century that would eventually undo what looked to be a fairly stable family form”

            . . . and lists off only economic considerations, ignoring the sexual revolution (promiscuity, birth control, abortion) of the last century is not looking at the big picture. They are conveniently casting today’s culture as the natural response of economics, rather than an astroturfed social movement.

            His portrayal of the 1950s is even more convenient, not to mention unsupported. He sets up the June Cleaver standard to imply that the perceived decline does not exist. (See: Skyrocketing crime rates of the 1970s.) I would like to see the longitudinal study he has tucked away somewhere showing that women are somehow happier now than they were in 1955. And, for the record, gays and lesbians — in very liberal countries — have higher rates of depression. How does that fit into his thesis of Now Everyone is Prosperous Enough To Finally Be Happy, Which Traditional Marriage Hinders?

            I’m not saying that economics do not play a role. But to say this is a thoughtful, informed explanation supporting gay marriage is strange. He casts marriage as being an unhappy lifestyle choice that prosperity allowed straights to escape, and then explains that gays want the same chance to be married (to be unhappy?) that straight people have.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            That’s a debate that’s well worth having. Simply asserting that individuals are uninformed, statists, or both, because they advocate for gay marriage is another, and both assertions miss the mark pretty widely, I think.

            Members of the Libertarian Party are opposed to any state role in marriage, which isn’t very realistic. Then again, many official Libertarian positions aren’t very realistic, which is why most real-world (small l) libertarians aren’t affiliated with the LP (another topic for another day).

            One of the roles of the state in a civil society is defining marriage, or something very close to it (e.g. civil unions). Recognizing this as a legitimate role of government is not statism, and real-world libertarians who favor legally-recognized gay marriage simply want to extend the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to romantically-involved individuals who are willing to enter into a marriage contract, whether they are members of the same sex or opposite sexes.

            As far as the Freeman article goes, I do think that it misses the mark in some ways because it oversimplifies things. It is an incomplete picture, but it is informed by economics (specifically a free market view that is idealized to the point of being practically utopian). Like most libertarian arguments, it is not informed by Hollywood or anything so shallow. Greg Gutfield is a comedian, and hopefully those who watch his program understand that it’s largely satirical (I don’t have cable and am not a member of his audience).

            The Freeman is a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education. If I remember my history correctly, they once ran a disclaimer on a Milton Friedman piece because it wasn’t free-market enough (Ayn Rand, who was a bit crazy, called Friedman a red too), so while they be a bit utopian, they are most definitely not Marxist.

          • notalibertarian

            You say,
            “real-world libertarians who favor legally-recognized gay marriage simply want to extend the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to romantically-involved individuals who are willing to enter into a marriage contract, whether they are members of the same sex or opposite sexes.”

            A tiny but vocal & powerful minority of the population (a percentage of 1-3% of everyone) demand the right for us to remove the hetero aspect of marriage. You may agree that it is reasonable. (Are you willing to discuss potential consequences of this change?) But why is that any more reasonable than “simply” taking the “romantically-involved” aspect out of marriage?

            If gender is made irrelevant, why not make sex irrelevant? Because the gay community is okay with keeping the sexual aspect of marriage in marriage? Why are they allowed to dictate this? Why can’t two brothers marry without the stigma of society assuming they sleep together?

            Do you see how this kind of “equality” is really about destroying Normal? There is only so much social chaos our Constitution can absorb.

          • notalibertarian

            I need to proofread.

          • trpeacocke

            …seems to be nothing more than a compromise with statism on this particular issue, because you want to use the state to impose on society a change that you’d like to see happen.

            Remember, we’re not just talking about a voluntary contract between two individuals but the legal definition of what consitutes a “marriage.” In other words, the state is defining a social relationship and using its coercive power to impose this definition on society.

            In California any gay couples had the right to enter a domestic partnership contract. This right had been granted by the California legislature. Therefore, gay couples already had the same contractual rights as married couples.

            The California Supreme Court decision that prompted Prop 8 was about the term “marriage.” The court declared that a gay couple in a domestic partnership was also “married.” It declared, in other words, that this customary social relationship also extended to homosexuals.

            Now that sounds like it’s not really a big deal. If the CSC decision did not grant gay couples any additional rights, why the fuss? Well the problem is that this re-definition of marriage enables gay activists to use the powers of the state to restrict the rights of people who do not accept the re-definition.

            The clearest example of this is the one that I cited above: the disappearance of Catholic adoption agencies in states where gay marriage is the law. Massachusetts is an example. (Thank you, Mitt Romney!)

            Remember, Catholic adoption agencies were established by Catholics for Catholics. They were established so that a Catholic woman who wants her baby to end up in a Catholic household can make that happen. It was precisely the sort of non-state association that libertarians are supposed to love.

            Well, such a private non-state association can no longer exist in Mass. and it’s a direct result of gay marriage. That’s because a Catholic adoption agency favors heterosexual married couples–they are, after all, putting kids in Catholic households–and since gay couples are just as “married” as hetero couples in Mass., the adoption agency is guilty of discrimination and cannot be granted a license by the state.

            So, instead of setting up their own, gay-friendly adoption agencies, activists decided to use the courts to destroy Catholic adoption agencies. That’s the most obnoxious form of statism: using the power of the state to impose on society a radical social agenda. It’s incomprehensible to me that so many self-declared libertarians would be in favor of such a thing.

          • trpeacocke

            …and, in this case, is a respectful, neutral statement of fact.

            It’s a fact that support for gay marriage is support for the expansion of state power, and, therefore, is a statist position.

            I have no idea who you are and I was certainly not directing my comment at you.

          • trpeacocke

            How can support for gay marriage be a political winner if it’s rejected so consistently by voters?

            The problem with groups like GOProud is that they bring gay activist militancy to conservative gatherings and use it to attempt to silence opponents. Remember who shouted whom down at CPAC?

            I don’t think it’s an insult to call Hotair what I did, but a statement of fact. Hotair is quite consitent in its socially liberal (not libertarian) political orientation, and they approve of things like gay marriage opponents being shouted down at CPAC.

            It’s Hotair’s right to be a voice for GOProud, and I don’t see why anyone should be offended if they’re described as such.

            I belive in freedom of expression. I certainly would never go to a GOProud meeting and try to silence people by screaming and making a spectacle of myself, nor would I expect Hotair to approve of my action if I did.

          • smagar
  • Robert Allen Leeper

    But defunding leftist groups is also important.

    Overturning Roe v. Wade requires Senators committed to constitutional government who will block any leftist judicial appointment.

    • jeffreywturner

      A President committed to appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution the way it is written rather than they way they wish it had been written.

      • Scope

        in fact was committed to nominating those that interpreted the Constitution as it was written, rather than those that ruled according to their beliefs of pushing social justice theories. That guy’s name was Robert Bork, and because of his strict interpretations, and his views on natural law, the left, and unfortunately some Republicans Borked him, because he was too “radical.” Thank you God their game didn’t work with Justice Clarence Thomas.

        • jeffreywturner

          You and I know that Bork was not “radical”. Unfortunately, in the television age, appearances matter, and Judge Bork was not a “warm”, “inviting”, “likable” character in his confirmation hearings, which made it easier for the liberals to demagogue him and make him into a devil.

          As a result of Bork, those hearings have become a dog and pony show with no real information coming out. Its all about the nominee trying to be as vague as possible and the opposition party Senators trying to force the candidate to say something that will justify their predetermined opposition.

        • JSobieski

          Neither does Scalia. Thomas is the only person on the Supreme Court who subscribes to natural law.

          Scalia and Bork are both legal posivitists. I believe that the same is true for Alito and Roberts, but I am less sure about that. They believe in enforcing the laws and Constitution as written . . . period. In deciding a case, neither Scalia nor Bork would for example say that the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with constitutional or civil rights. Subscribing to the idea of natural rights in the context of determining legal rights (rather than the moral or philosophical motivations for certain rights) is a step away from strict constructionism in many ways. Of course, the Founders were shaped by a concept of Natural Law (see John Locke).

          Its interesting how Scalia and Thomas often vote similarly, and yet have a dramatically different underlying view of the basis of law. Of course, one does not get so deep into the foundations of basic rights very often.

          • JSobieski

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/42142

            Jeffrey: There are a number of essays in the book where you have this debate about the role of natural law in the law itself and then in judging. You write at one point, this is in a 1992 essay,

      • Finrod

        Once we have a Republican President again, THEN abortion can become a serious issue again. I roll my eyes every time a social conservative, when presented with the clear facts that the present is a sub-optimal time to push the abortion issue, gets all “you’re trying to push us to the back of the bus!” indignant. No, no, and no. If you’re the running back on a football team and there’s a wide hole in the line on one side (fiscal issues, repealing Obamacare) but there’s a pileup on the other side (abortion), it’s obvious where you’re going to get the yardage. If we focus on abortion now, we’re going to get a 3-and-out and the Democrats will have the momentum again, which doesn’t help any of us.

        • jeffreywturner

          But I think we still need to stand our ground on issues where we feel that we are right.

          You could say it is not the right time to pass a repeal of Obamacare in the House because it will die in the Senate, or if not, Obama will veto it. However, it is still important to pass a repeal in the House so that the public can see a stark contrast and have a clear indication that Republicans mean business and are serious about a repeal, so that this can be fresh in their minds when they decide on whether to replace Obama.

          In general, you are correct though. Even if you have Barry Sanders in the backfield, 4th and long is not a running play.

          • Finrod

            Abortion is not an issue where we can be on the offense, but certainly we can defend it without pushing it to the forefront.

            While we’re unlikely to get ObamaCare overturned in this Congress, we can defund it and force the Democrats to defend it by making them vote against eliminating it, which is a very weak position for them. They’ll keep us from eliminating it entirely in this Congress (their only other option is to accede and lose all support from their base), but it will destroy their electoral base going into the 2012 elections.

        • Scope

          to a degree. As I have said elsewhere, I am unaware of anyone pushing the abortion issue, meaning trying to pass any kind of legislation to ban abortions, or to overthrow the Roe v Wade decision. From the candidates campaigns that I looked into, they may have said that they were pro-life on their websites, or acknowledged that fact if asked a question by a possible supporter. I don’t remember any Republican candidates getting up and making any kind of speeches pushing for abortion bans, or making the false promise that they would single handidly outlaw abortions, of course I am not familiar with 435 House campaigns. Anyone with any political knowledge knows that nothing can be done with the current abortion laws until/if the conservatives have super majorities in both houses, and a conservative strongly pro-life president. If I am not mistaken, the latest polling has shown that more people support pro-life positions than not.

          It seems to me that social issues come up every election cycle, and some of the social moderates/liberals shout at the social conservatives to pipe down, and avoid talking about abortion, gay marriage etc. They claim that if the social conservatives talk out, it will ruin our chances to gain the independent and/or libertarian vote. Forget the Democrats, our positions against abortion are the least of the Republican’s faults.

          I think the current heated debate about social issues may have begun when Mitch Daniels called for a social issue truce, and, some of the groups such as GOProud and the Tea Party Patriots brought those issues up, while asking that everyone shut up about those issues. It seems only natural that those in opposition would not just sit in the corner and be quiet.

        • smagar

          For any voters who really cared about the life issue, it was painfully obvious in 2008 that Barack Obama was the most anti-life candidate who’d ever run for the Presidency. Neverthless, Obama was elected in a landslide.

          At the same time, voters should have known that empowering the most anti-life president in US history by electing lots of D Senators would have been horrible for the pro-life cause. Obama + a huge D majority in the Senate = lots of pro-choice federal and circuit court justices, on the bench for life.

          Result: NINE Senate seats flip from the GOP to the Dems. In strongly pro-life states like Arkansas (Pryor) and Louisiana (Landrieu), the D walted to victory.

          The majority of the Catholic vote in 2008 went for Obama.

          I’m sorry, but when the American public was presented with the option to vote on the issue of abortion, they weren’t animiated to vote pro-life. Yes, it’s quite likely that many GOP candidates were flawed in 2008…but apparently, voters weren’t animated enough by the pro-life issue to overlook those flaws and vote R.

          In 2010, the issue was the economy, and economic policy. We all saw what happened.

          I wish the American public was more willing to show its support for pro-life issues at the ballot box. They’re obviously not. Even if they elected Obama to the presidency, how could a populace that cares about the life issue then turn around and give that same anti-life president a veto-proof majority?

          I wished the general public cares more about the pro-life issue. Apparently they don’t. And it’s the general public that votes, not just us.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            Can we concede this – that both elections hinged far more on other issues than abortion and not try to rewrite history on one or the other election.

            2008 was dominated by a charismatic Manchurian candidate, a Republican administration incapable of defending its record (and/or unwilling to), a Republican nominee who threw in the towel somewhere in late September, and voters determined to punish Republicans (and Republican blunders in key races such as Minnesota and Alaska Senate) – but mostly a wave election intensified by a press that abandoned its public responsibilities in whoring after Obama.

            2010, as you noted, was dominated by economic issues and voters pushing back against an overly aggressive push to the left and arrogance from the Democratic leadership that scared folks, and a Republican candidates willing to push back – an energized base and flips among the independents, etc.

            In the end, issues don’t run for office, people do, and we get to choose candidates in the primaries who best represent our interests and hope the winner can prevail in the general election. And the importance of pro-life issues will depend on the electorate in any particular race, the candidate’s positions, and what is going on the world that helps set priorities.

          • JSobieski

            Is 40% enough to win? No. But try winning without them, particularly all the folks manning the phones, putting out signs, etc.

            Before the tea party came into being, annecdotal evidence suggests that pro-lifers made up the vast majority of center-right activism.

            The free trade/lower taxes crowd tended not (until recently) to get involved in actual grass roots political activities.

          • smagar

            With them, we appear to be winning elections. Without them, we don’t.

          • JSobieski

            I said no center-right group should try to tell any other center-right group what NOT to focus on.

            I called for a truce on truces. People should argue for what they want instead of telling other people not to argue for what they want.

          • smagar

            …then doesn’t that confirm that many (if not most) voters weren’t animated to vote by pro-life issues.

            The warnings about Barack Obama’s anti-life agenda in 2008 were legion. Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Cardinal Rigazzi (sp?) of Philadelphia were very vocal on the issue…and more than half of all voting Catholics voted for Obama.

            Are you saying that voters were so mad at Dubya and Jack Abramoff that they were willing to so empower the Democrats that they could pack the federal courts with anti-choice jurists? (Obama + huge Dem Senate majority = lots of anti-choice judges).

            If the life issue really animated a majority of American voters, I’d think they’d overlook the poor quality of individual candidates in individual races and vote based on the imperatives of the larger issue. They didn’t in 2008. They knew what the stakes were for life, and they didn’t vote for it. To be sure, many voters did vote for life…but not nearly enough.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            Punish Republicans – and elect Messiah Obama, encouraged by the whoring media who assured gullible voters that electing the first black President would atone for our their sins and the nation’s sins.

      • eburke

        I’m normally a ‘states rights’ guy.

        But, unfortunately, the Federal Judiciary ripped this issue out of their hands and until we can get enough SCOTUS justices and Appeals Courts justices to take the federal government *out* of the picture, it *will*, unfortunately,have to be a federal issue.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    So if you start with a set of principals which undergird ones basic philosophy (that is conservative philosophy) it is not hard to extrapolate that respect for life is one of them. Even the Catholic Church has changed its US leadership largely because of this issue as it relates to ObamaCare. The Blue Dogs are obviously another casualty of war.

    But it was not this issue, and this issue alone that was responsible for the historic Republican wins. It was the fact that our economy is a proverbial Titanic being steered by Democrats and people want Republicans to take the helm before the whole thing sinks. That fate means everyone goes down with the ship, even those in Steerage.

    So as someone who is profoundly against abortion, I would simply say social issues are part of the portfolio but not the most pressing issues at the moment. If we make that our focus and do not effectively handle the economy; we are done as a party. That does not mean we abandon it or listen to those in our coalition using this as an opportunity to diminish or change these beliefs. It just means we handle the most pressing priorities first while holding the line and taking action when the opportunity presents itself (e.g. ObamaCare/abortion).

    You would think the last two years (or perhaps for Republicans a few more years) would provide salient, real-life examples which teach that if the peoples most important priorities are not addressed first, you become irrelevant.

    • Scope

      it isn’t social conservatives, or even the majority of conservatives that have brought the social issues loudly out into the open debate. It seemingly has been a few groups that have tried to make it a front and center issue, all while saying forget about the social issues.

      It appears that GOProud, the gay conservative group, wrote a letter to the Republican leadership, asking them to not go down the rabbit hole of social issues, and not to bend to special interests, all while they themselves are a special interest. I am unaware of the Republican leadership shouting about any social issues, other than DeMint answering a question and saying that social and fiscal issues are tied to one another. He answered a question, he did not go out of his way to make that statement. The same goes for the Tea Party Patriots with their remarks as well.

      It is incongruous to ask some to shut up, when they are the ones doing the shouting to begin with. I believe some have an agenda.

      • Finrod

        Just after the election, this letter went around:

        http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/tea-party-letter-to-republican-leadership-calls-for-unified-vision/

        http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/04/letter.to.gop.leaders.10-2-10-2.pdf

        One of the four items in it was:

        A commitment to restoring traditional moral values by passing laws that recognize the sanctity of life, promote rather than penalize traditional marriage and the family, and respect freedom of religion.

        To be blunt, we’ve tried ‘passing laws that recognize the sanctity of life’; the ones that actually did something were declared unconstitutional. Which is why we’re not going to make any progress in that field until we can change the Supreme Court, which is not going to happen in our favor until we get a Republican President again.

        GOProud understands that, a lot of folks don’t. GOProud didn’t start this shouting match, they responded. No one is asking anyone to shut up, rather, they’re asking that we order our current priorities by where we can do the most good.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          The letter cited appears to be a fairly brief, yet accurate reflection of conservative principals. However, I would also say the part about “passing laws that recognize the sanctity of life” is a bit ethereal and poorly articulated.

          Furthermore, I am not certain the order presented is actually one based on priority. That of course leads to other questions about intent but taken at face value reinforces my point.

          What I will say is the GOPProud, whoever the heck they are, do not speak for a very large majority of the GOP base. Their approach is not only divisive, but, intentionally or unintentionally will Balkanize the party into factions. We seek to be inclusive, but not at the expense of diluting our principals. We have tried that and it was a miserable failure. Conversely, we will also not yield to inflexible, hard core social issue kamikazes who will not yield to practical policy and perspicacious, majority driven solutions. We don’t accept that from Democrats, why should we do so from our “brethren?

          Certainly a sagacious person would be able to surmise that social positions, such as opposition to so-called :gay-marriage, abortion, etc. emanate from the core set of principals we hold as conservatives. And while I understand that in today’s environment those principled positions are certainly not the most pressing issues to be tackled, they are nonetheless still part of our objective, that is, measured, practical, constitutionally grounded government.

          • Scope

            posted in your first link. I do think you are a bit to willing to give GOProud a pass from any “guilt” in the current debate about social issues. In their letter they asked the Republican leadership to “not go down the rabbit hole of social issues, and to not be influenced by special interests.” I have pointed out, more than once, the fact that they beg leadership to not adopt the issues of special interests, while they have their special interests in mind. According to an article I’ve read, they sent their letter to the Republican leadership on November 17, 2010, which seemed to be a warning to the Republicans to back their support of DADT, that may be a part of legislation in the current lame-duck congress.

            http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/129503-pat-down-techniques-would-have-caught-christmas-bomber-tsa-head-claims

            My question to the gay community, who wish to serve in the US military, would be- What is your purpose in wanting to serve? We have had married military members serve in locations, far from their homes. They do not have their spouses to provide them with their sexual needs, they deal with it. What exactly do the gay military members want, a playground of the predominantly male military members in their foxholes, or in their tents? That very well may be very harsh, but, I cannot figure out what they want or expect.

            I actually do agree with the first letter linked. If we don’t have any moral underpinnings in this country, and we ackwasis (have no clue how to spell that word) then we are lost in the land of anything goes, just as the depraved Marxists want it to be. Dumb down the populace, feed them cake once in a while, and, take every dime they earn. There is no such thing as a progressive utopia, and there sure is less than a chance for a society that has no firm moral belief system, based in tradition, that supports less than the family as the nucleus of an ongoing, and yes, I will use this word, “sustainable” free and prolific society.

          • Finrod

            First of all, your link doesn’t seem to have anything to do with GOProud, it has to do with the TSA and that whole kerfuffle.

            Second, GOProud is a very new group, and already people like you are attacking them, a group of fellow conservatives, just because you don’t like the fact that they’re gay. And even if they are supporting DADT, don’t you realize that the choice being debated now is between DADT and letting gays serve openly? DADT is the MORE restrictive option regarding gays in the military right now.

            You seem to have fallen into the leftist lie that all gays are liberal and support liberal causes. That’s just plainly not true, 30 percent of gays voted for Republicans in this last election, twice the rate of previous elections. GOProud’s mission statement is to support conservatives that are gay– and from reactions like yours, they’re desperately needed, because you don’t seem to comprehend or acknowledge their existence.

          • JSobieski

            It is obviously an inconsistent position.

            Piece of advice to all out there—if you want to focus on something over another (GOProud, governors declaring truces, etc), just focus on what you want to focus on and stop telling other people what NOT to focus on.

            Advocate for your position if you want, but I think by now everyone can tell what causes needless civil wars on our side and what does not.

            Don’t think of pink elephants.
            Don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

            Learn enough about human psychology or just STFU yourselves for gosh sakes.

            Neither conservatives nor libertarians is going to tolerate being told to sit down and shut up, so how about a little golden rule hear?

  • sertelt

    Never mind the fact that exit polling data clearly showed the abortion issue helped pro-life candidates, as it always does.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/04/nat-6827/

    • Scope

      that won their race that claimed to be pro-choice. I could be wrong though.

      • Old_Dominion

        I’m assuming you’re only referring to challengers, but there were some pro-choice GOP incumbents who won as well.

      • Finrod

        .

        • Scope

          as an anomaly. He won a special election, with a race that was the only one in focus at the time, and, in the heated debate of Obamacare. He gained national attention, as he promised to be the 41st vote against Obamacare. He later, did in fact, vote for the Financial Reform bill. I have serious doubts that Scott Brown will win re-election in 2012, in Mass. They let that one get away from them, with a really bad Dem. candidate in Coakley. Mass. will absolutely find a better Dem. to challenge Brown, and, because Mass. is so very liberal, the Dem. will regain Ted Kennedy’s seat. I really believe that Brown knows that he is a short timer in DC. So much goes for a pro-choice Republican. They are a dying breed.

  • rsjt

    Conservatism must be applied to all issues. People need to know that economic policies seperated from social conservatism are destined to fail. So while most people might think just dealing with economic policies is the key to fixing our problems. the truth is, it means nothing if we do not address social issues such as abortion.

    Pure Libetarianism is impossible and those that want to use the Tea Party movement, the Conservative ascendency or the Republican party as a “host” for a failing philosophy really need to be more honest with themselves.

    • cej

      Has statism ever made people better off? I suggest it is you who needs to be more honest with himself. Here, have a look at the development stories of any of these places (or, indeed, any place in the world):

      Hong Kong
      Singapore
      North Korea
      The USSR
      The United States
      Cuba
      The Dominican Republic

      In every case more statism, which is the opposite of libertarianism, brought more human misery. In every case more freedom (libertarianism) brought more human happiness.

      Doesn’t sound much like a failing philosophy me. Sounds like the most successful philosophy ever actually.

      • Aaron Gardner
        • Finrod

          ..

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Finrod

            Personally I consider myself as much of a libertarian as one can be while still being a conservative, but first and foremost I want to see the Constitution followed. How can you reconcile wanting to make abortion illegal in all 50 states with the Tenth Amendment, which puts that issue in the states’ domain?

          • Finrod

            …

          • Aaron Gardner

            That’s what the commenter was suggesting. How you managed to get to me being fine with statism is nothing more than you attributing beliefs to me that I don’t hold.

            You seem to be doing that a lot lately. In fact, I am still waiting for a direct quote where I called you a name, as you said I did in that other thread.

    • Scope

      Conservatism must apply to all issues. If I am not mistaken, one of the most important parts of conservatism is the belief in life from conception to natural death. Those that deny that are looking for excuses to assuage their guilt over their less than stellar traditional moral behaviors.

      It seems to me that the Ron Paul supporters, and the Campaign4Liberty became very quiet through this election cycle. At one time they were everywhere like flies on horse manure. I wonder if they didn’t just change their MO, and try to meld into the Republican party in order to take it over. It was their stated goal at one time. I wonder if it isn’t the Paulbots that have been traveling this site, and many others, fighting for their Libertarian social beliefs.

      • rsjt

        Just to clarify my point a bit…

        I agree they are looking for a home and since they can not organize on their own they need to takeover an existing infrastructure. It is a real danger to the conservative movement to be tempted by their agenda. When Glenn Beck refers to progressives on the right I think these are the types he is refering to. Although, I do not know enough about Rand Paul to know if he fits into this category. To me a right wing progressive (you know the ones that say they are fiscal conservatives but social libertarians) could much more clearly be described as nihilists. I have been unfortunate enough to work with a few of these folks. If the republican party means to expand the tent by accepting them with open arms, I will be the first one out the door.

        We are a nation of laws. Conservatives are NOT anti-government. We are anti inefficient and ineffectual government that only serves to destroy freedom and productivity. Conservativism is not statism and the poster above that tries to make that comparisson is not being intellectually honest. We have to get beyond these self deceptions and in some cases purposeful lies if we are to heal our society.

        jt

        • Scope

          and will gladly accept that door slam following you.

  • tracycoyle

    everyone that voted in this past election that feels strongly about social issues should demand the new House put up one of the two abortion amendments that have floated around for years, even if people believe it can not pass the Senate or would be signed by Obama.

    Now that the GOP has some Congressional standing, it should be used. I think an outpouring of support for any new or existing House member that states they will put forward such an bill would go a long way towards minimizing the hairline fracture between the fiscal and social sides of the Conservative movement.

    (and I think popular support will crash with a groan – but apparently I am a pseudo-conservative libertarian with no clue so ignore my little missive)

    • Aaron Gardner
      • congressworksforus

        Really, shame on you!

        • Aaron Gardner
  • jamo

    Although some of the libertarian positins have merit, when it comes to less government regulation, for example, I cannot believe that the ‘shellacking’ the Democrats received was attributable to the desire of the American people for unregulated drug use, more freedom in seeking abortions, or more indiscriminate pornography.

    THese guys better get their act straight. I promise, I will not vote again for a Republican if there is not some progress made against abortion and pornography, if there is not some progress made against the slaughter of Christians by Moslems.

    THis last election was not motivatyed by libertarianism. It was motivated by primarily social and political conservativism and if it doesn’t do the job, I won’t buy the product again.

    • Scope

      isn’t a Libertarian position, it is widely desired by conservatives as well. The difference is that conservatives understand that some regulation is necessary, such as the original role the FDA played in insuring that deadly or debilitating prescription drugs didn’t make it to the market. The Libertarians seem to want no, or almost no government regulation.

      • congressworksforus

        Some libertarians think that way. The rest of us think most of these issues need to be handled by the States.

        And I am tired of the SoCons who just say “Federalism is Dead”. Maybe if we resurrected it, we’d actually be able to fix some of these problems.

        • Scope

          That was the example I gave, yet you declare that everything should be taken back to the states. How would each individual state deal with prescription drug testing, before drugs get to market?

          If I am not mistaken, the majority of individual states have in fact passed their own state laws against gay marriage. I’ve read opinions that the government needs to get out of the marriage business. So, if you support federalism, and the states have voted against gay marriage, doesn’t that answer the question? Is it that we need to keep voting, as individual states until we meet the goals of some? Isn’t that what the Liberals do?

    • Old_Dominion

      against pornography? It’s one of the few true art forms left.

  • jerry39

    In my opionion, but the central theme is 100% accurate and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

    The problem I have with the premise is that “libertarian” conservatives are opposed to a strong pro-life position. The only way to use a libertarian ideology as an excuse to be pro-abortion is if you are actually not libertarian, but an anarchist.

    Libertarians dont believe that individual freedom extends to the freedom to kill another. I am sure there are many pro-abortion liberarians out there just as there are many pro-abortion republicans who use the “divisivenes” of social issues as an excuse to do nothing about abortion. But it is their pro-abortion nature and fundamental misunderstadning about when life begins that causes this, not their libertarian bent.

    I certainly agree that as to other social issues: gay marriage, legalization of certain drugs, protecting pornagraphers, etc the libertarian ideology might put them at odds with social conservatives, but if they use that ideology to justify abortion they are simply wrong.

    • congressworksforus

      And I personally don’t know any Social Libertarians who actually thing that abortion is a “good thing”. That’s usually a label applied by SoCons who seem to believe that anyone who isn’t willing to legislate pro-life, must therefore automatically without-a-doubt be pro-choice.

      We’re not.

      • Scope

        just as you can’t be a little pregnant, you can’t sit on the fence, and, not be for either position. That’s a pretty bad cop-out, or if you prefer, opt-out. You agree with abortion or you don’t. If you adopt the so-called libertarian philosophy of neutralness, you have no room to talk, as it is taking no position at all, which is for all intents “apathy.”

        • jerry39

          To be pro-abortion or pro-choice if you prefer really is a political statement as to where you stand on legalized abortion. You can’t really be pro-life and also for legalized abortion. Abortions should be “safe and rare” has always been the left’s mantra to appear they are personally opposed but support someone else’s right to do so.

          That neutraility is really not possible with some things. You can reasonably say, I would never personally burn a flag, but I support your right to do so. But you cant apply that to the deprivation of human rights. Like “I am personally against slavery, but I support your right to own a slave,” or “I personally wouldnt exterminate the Jews, but I support Germany’s right to do what it pleases in its own country.” As stated above the “neutrality” argument is nothing more than another disguise of the “I dont really think this is a person” argument which all pro-aborts ultimately must face as their rationale.

  • Kevin Allen

    Not sure why you think NRLC didn’t fight hard against abortion in Obamacare. They strongly went after Nelson and Stupak after they sold us out and supported pro-life challengers against the Dems who used to pro-life but supported Obamacare.

  • runner12

    at the broader picture here. Look, there are issues that we will never agree on and that is okay. But problems arise when people start pointing fingers and telling social conservatives to shut-up and go home. This is going on whether some want to admit it or not.
    Listen, I agree that we need to be strategic about this. But we can fight the war on two fronts. I think those of you who are not social conservatives need to remember that the reason social conservatives have not been successful int the past is because most of them largely ignored the fiscal issues and the overgrowth of government. They foolishly thought they could control the massive government and do good with it. But that has ALL changed. You are living in the past. The new wave, the Tea Party wave, is both socially AND fiscally conservative and they are equally passionate about both. No more passes because you are pro-life, whether Repub or Dem. Trust us, we have learned.
    I would also state that you need to be wary of any candidate who is pro-choice and does not support traditional marriage. Those who believe in judicial activism (which is how these two issues came to the forefront) cannot in the same breath be a true libertarian. The two are incompatible.
    We do not have the luxury of splitting hairs right now. We have to come together and respect our differences and not contemplate them till our heads explode. We know they are there. We know that neither will back down. So lets fight together on what we can agree on. Because we have a lot more in common with each other than we do with the Leftists/Socialists which is your alternative. And if they win, we all lose.

    • davesinsanantonio

      is just stooopid!!!!

      • JSobieski

        If you think X is more important than Y, by all means talk about X.

        Telling people explicitly that you think they should focus on X over Y if they don’t agree is pretty pointess and counterproductive as we can all see.

        I call for a truce on calling for others to change their priorities. Lead by example, persuade, but presume not to tell people what is more important over other issues.

        • JSobieski

          nt

  • Read Chesterton

    Yeah… I guess that explains the big Libertarian victory in California taking the legalization of pot over the top.

  • rascott

    read since the election. To somehow think peoples thoughts on abortion had even the slightest impact on the election shows just how out of touch with reality this writer is.

    Its, FISCAL CONSERVATISM that won….nothing more, nothing less.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      Does it come with the non sequitur accessory kit?

  • gunsrus

    How did “conservative” get divided into Social and Fiscal? Conservative positions are those that fund through fair taxation, government for the COMMON good. The purchase of special interest votes through targeted legislation is what libertarians oppose.
    The RINO’s must become extinct if the Republican party wants to thrive again as it did under Reagan. The noise we are hearing from the wounded RINO should help locate them and finish them off!!

    Obama Must Go :-) OMG

  • bleusmon

    For the purpose of this issue, there is no need to argue the detailed points offered above because we can boil this down to a simple choice. This struggle is as old as the hills.

    Social conservatives have worked in an informal coalition with fiscal conservatives (not ALL of whom are libertarian about it) for decades. During the Reagan/Bush years we experienced a forerunner to this current strife, when social conservatives felt abandoned at the altar by their fiscally conservative partners after having poured money, people, and resources into several political campaigns.

    At that time there was much written and said by social conservatives, aka the religious right (see Cal Thomas), who held that if the fiscal crowd was going to divorce the social crowd at the altar then they could expect the coalition would experience reduced turnout in subsequent elections. I’m not a historian and didn’t bring my stats with me, but I do recall there indeed was a drop in participation by the religious right that cost the GOP sorely needed votes.

    That can happen again and worse, with much more at stake for all of us. Be aware there is a cautious, skeptical vein throughout many Christian groups and communities that political activity is choosing to be