Betsy Woodruff writes:
Last
October, Reince Priebus gave a speech with a conspicuous omission.
Just 33 days before the midterm elections, the Republican National Committee Chairman headed to George Washington University to give a speech on the issues that bring Republicans together.
Priebus ticked off a lengthy list of policy proposals that all the party’s candidates could highlight, noting that they could work for anyone, “whether you’re running for governor in New England or Congress in the South or statehouse in the West.”
Just 33 days before the midterm elections, the Republican National Committee Chairman headed to George Washington University to give a speech on the issues that bring Republicans together.
Priebus ticked off a lengthy list of policy proposals that all the party’s candidates could highlight, noting that they could work for anyone, “whether you’re running for governor in New England or Congress in the South or statehouse in the West.”
The speech
was highly detailed.
The chairman praised specific pieces of legislation and touted the construction of the Keystone Pipeline and the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment as issues that could unite GOP politicians.
On these points and many others, Priebus was clear as glass. But on one enormous issue, the chairman was oddly opaque.
The chairman praised specific pieces of legislation and touted the construction of the Keystone Pipeline and the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment as issues that could unite GOP politicians.
On these points and many others, Priebus was clear as glass. But on one enormous issue, the chairman was oddly opaque.
“As
Republicans we’re pro-family; and we’re also pro-life,” he said, according to the transcript of his prepared remarks.
“So when a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, society should offer our support and compassion. She should know that adoption is possible. Our laws should be improved to make adoption an easier path for families who want to open their homes to children.”
“So when a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, society should offer our support and compassion. She should know that adoption is possible. Our laws should be improved to make adoption an easier path for families who want to open their homes to children.”
And that
was it.
The GOP is pro-life, the chairman said, so the GOP supports making adoption easier. Priebus didn’t add anything beyond that.
He couldn’t have, given the reference to the party’s New England gubernatorial candidates, almost all of whom are pro-choice. As the last 24 hours have shown, anti-abortion votes are a dicey prospect for some Hill Republicans.
And the Keystone Pipeline just might have broader support among Washington Republicans than the pro-life movement.
The GOP is pro-life, the chairman said, so the GOP supports making adoption easier. Priebus didn’t add anything beyond that.
He couldn’t have, given the reference to the party’s New England gubernatorial candidates, almost all of whom are pro-choice. As the last 24 hours have shown, anti-abortion votes are a dicey prospect for some Hill Republicans.
And the Keystone Pipeline just might have broader support among Washington Republicans than the pro-life movement.
That’s not
to suggest that GOP is about to become pro-choice. (That would be ludicrous.)
When it comes to American politicking, the GOP is unquestionably the best hope
of the pro-life movement.
Priebus wrote an op-ed for LifeSiteNews that appeared on Thursday—the same day as the March for Life—that celebrated the GOP’s support for legislation restricting abortion.
“We must do everything we can to protect life and defend the rights of those who can’t yet defend themselves,” he wrote. And he described himself as “a pro-life chairman of a pro-life party.” That’s true. But it’s also complicated.
Priebus wrote an op-ed for LifeSiteNews that appeared on Thursday—the same day as the March for Life—that celebrated the GOP’s support for legislation restricting abortion.
“We must do everything we can to protect life and defend the rights of those who can’t yet defend themselves,” he wrote. And he described himself as “a pro-life chairman of a pro-life party.” That’s true. But it’s also complicated.
When it
comes to abortion, the party’s platform is unequivocal. “We support a human
life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that
the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children,” it reads.
But here’s the thing: Plenty of prominent, powerful Republicans don’t buy that.
A few weeks after Priebus’s George Washington University speech, pro-choice Republicans had a strong showing in the midterm elections. Charlie Baker, for example, won the governor’s race in royal blue Massachusetts by two points.
And Bruce Rauner, a pro-choice, Romney-esque gubernatorial candidate, walloped Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn by nearly 5 percentage points in Illinois.
In Nevada, pro-choice Gov. Brian Sandoval sailed to re-election and would likely win warm backing from national Republicans if he challenged Sen. Harry Reid.
In the Senate, two Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois—have the same score of 40 percent on the National Right to Life scorecard as Reid. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, is just 10 points ahead of them.
But here’s the thing: Plenty of prominent, powerful Republicans don’t buy that.
A few weeks after Priebus’s George Washington University speech, pro-choice Republicans had a strong showing in the midterm elections. Charlie Baker, for example, won the governor’s race in royal blue Massachusetts by two points.
And Bruce Rauner, a pro-choice, Romney-esque gubernatorial candidate, walloped Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn by nearly 5 percentage points in Illinois.
In Nevada, pro-choice Gov. Brian Sandoval sailed to re-election and would likely win warm backing from national Republicans if he challenged Sen. Harry Reid.
In the Senate, two Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois—have the same score of 40 percent on the National Right to Life scorecard as Reid. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, is just 10 points ahead of them.
It’s
instructive to contrast the Republican Party’s inclusivity on the issue with
the Democrats’.
There’s a steady trickle of Democratic state legislators joining the GOP because of the issue—see Washington state Sen. Mark Miloscia and Missouri state Rep. Linda Black—while national Republicans went out of their way to make pro-choice midterm candidates like Massachusetts’ Richard Tisei and Oregon’s Monica Wehby feel welcome in the party.
There’s a steady trickle of Democratic state legislators joining the GOP because of the issue—see Washington state Sen. Mark Miloscia and Missouri state Rep. Linda Black—while national Republicans went out of their way to make pro-choice midterm candidates like Massachusetts’ Richard Tisei and Oregon’s Monica Wehby feel welcome in the party.
It is
almost as if Republicans are taking the advice that Sen. John McCain dished out
shortly after the party got spanked in the 2012 elections.
The Arizona Republican went on Fox News Sunday and said that the party should “leave the issue alone” because it hurts them with young voters and women.
His basic point was that Republicans should talk about how they’re pro-life, but avoid actually doing anything about it.
The Arizona Republican went on Fox News Sunday and said that the party should “leave the issue alone” because it hurts them with young voters and women.
His basic point was that Republicans should talk about how they’re pro-life, but avoid actually doing anything about it.
At the
moment, this seems to be the House Republican leadership’s strategy.National Journal reported that Rep. Renee Ellmers told her
colleagues that voting for the 20-week ban could hurt them with millennials.
They proceeded to pull the bill at the last minute, and House leadership is currently scrambling to rewrite the language of the 20-week ban in a way more amenable to some members.
They proceeded to pull the bill at the last minute, and House leadership is currently scrambling to rewrite the language of the 20-week ban in a way more amenable to some members.
Some Hill
Democrats praised the decision to scuttle the bill. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a
California Democrat, said she thinks the move is a sign the party is changing.
“I believe
that they’re coming to a realization that America is a pro-choice country, that
the majority of Americans realize that Roe
v. Wade should stand,” she
said. “So I think they’re having a conflict within their own Republican
conference.”
“There are
two parties within the GOP,” she added.
Rep. Trent
Franks, the Arizona Republican who sponsored the bill, sounded chagrined. “There’s
no animosity or anger on my part, whatsoever, toward anyone,” he said.
“I only hope now that all of us, especially on the pro-life side, will come together and do what’s necessary to move forward to affect this critically important goal of protecting pain-capable babies and their mothers from this atrocity of very late-term abortion on demand.”
He added that he was sure the bill would have passed overwhelmingly if it had gotten a vote. That’s probably true, but it never got that far.
“I only hope now that all of us, especially on the pro-life side, will come together and do what’s necessary to move forward to affect this critically important goal of protecting pain-capable babies and their mothers from this atrocity of very late-term abortion on demand.”
He added that he was sure the bill would have passed overwhelmingly if it had gotten a vote. That’s probably true, but it never got that far.
While W. James Antle III has seen the writing on the wall:
Imagine no social conservatives in the Republican Party. It’s easy if you try.
You may say North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers, one of the lawmakers who caused Republicans to cave on late-term abortion legislation the day before the March for Life, is a dreamer. But she’s not the only one.
Lots of Republican consultants and donors feel the same way.
They all come into regular contact with people who say some version of the following: “I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I’d like to vote Republican, but those religious right crazies scare the hell out of me.”
In the Beltway and the business class, there are plenty of people who fit that description. Anecdotally, however, I find that when you press such putative would-be Republicans, they’re not very conservative on non-social issues either.
They won’t back spending cuts of any consequence or divisive legislation of any kind. They just are uncomfortable self-identifying as liberals or partisan Democrats.
Nevertheless, it’s the pipe dream of many a Republican to build a fiscally conservative party that isn’t distracted by social issues.
And while few GOP strategists who feel this way would say so out loud, some of them see it as a way to cope with a diversifying electorate by unifying white voters.
After all, if you are interested in minority outreach, the plain fact is minority voters tend to be at least somewhat more socially conservative than fiscally conservative (though minority social conservatism can be exaggerated and Asian-Americans might be an exception).
Percentage-wise, Latinos are more likely to be pro-life than to be for Medicare vouchers.
States where white voters agree on values questions can remain Republican even with a large minority population (think Mississippi, which is 37 percent black).
States where white voters disagree on values questions and barely vote Republican while having a large minority population are Democratic strongholds (think California, which is 38 percent Hispanic).
New York City in the 1990s is the model. With social issues off the table — or more precisely, crime and welfare being the main social issues instead of gay marriage and abortion — Rudy Giuliani was able to win in a diverse, historically liberal place.
But the United States isn’t New York City, at least not yet. At the national level, Republicans are making their major inroads with downscale or working-class whites.
Aside from supporting the Keystone pipeline and opposing environmental regulations that kill blue-collar jobs, the Republican economic message doesn’t really speak to them. That’s why they didn’t turn out for Mitt Romney.
The party’s social conservatism does.
That happens to be the last presidential election Republicans won and the only one of the last five where they prevailed in the popular vote.
If you abandon social conservatism, who are you going to replace those voters with?
But he’s indisputably right that there are more evangelicals and conservative base voters than there are truly persuadable swing voters. Karl Rove got that right too.
The notion that there are legions of fiscally conservative, socially liberal independents willing to vote GOP is largely a myth.
When the Republican Party actually looked more like the socially liberal GOPers envision, it won more House seats in places like Massachusetts.
But it also held far fewer congressional seats overall and was in the minority in the House for forty years. They only won the presidency when they could nominate a general who won World War II and the man who was his vice president.
Social conservatives were an indispensable part of the coalition that won the Senate in 1980, all of Congress in 1994, the presidency three times and today’s congressional majorities.
Imagine no social conservatives in the Republican Party. It’s easy if you try.
You may say North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers, one of the lawmakers who caused Republicans to cave on late-term abortion legislation the day before the March for Life, is a dreamer. But she’s not the only one.
Lots of Republican consultants and donors feel the same way.
They all come into regular contact with people who say some version of the following: “I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I’d like to vote Republican, but those religious right crazies scare the hell out of me.”
In the Beltway and the business class, there are plenty of people who fit that description. Anecdotally, however, I find that when you press such putative would-be Republicans, they’re not very conservative on non-social issues either.
They won’t back spending cuts of any consequence or divisive legislation of any kind. They just are uncomfortable self-identifying as liberals or partisan Democrats.
Nevertheless, it’s the pipe dream of many a Republican to build a fiscally conservative party that isn’t distracted by social issues.
And while few GOP strategists who feel this way would say so out loud, some of them see it as a way to cope with a diversifying electorate by unifying white voters.
After all, if you are interested in minority outreach, the plain fact is minority voters tend to be at least somewhat more socially conservative than fiscally conservative (though minority social conservatism can be exaggerated and Asian-Americans might be an exception).
Percentage-wise, Latinos are more likely to be pro-life than to be for Medicare vouchers.
States where white voters agree on values questions can remain Republican even with a large minority population (think Mississippi, which is 37 percent black).
States where white voters disagree on values questions and barely vote Republican while having a large minority population are Democratic strongholds (think California, which is 38 percent Hispanic).
New York City in the 1990s is the model. With social issues off the table — or more precisely, crime and welfare being the main social issues instead of gay marriage and abortion — Rudy Giuliani was able to win in a diverse, historically liberal place.
But the United States isn’t New York City, at least not yet. At the national level, Republicans are making their major inroads with downscale or working-class whites.
Aside from supporting the Keystone pipeline and opposing environmental regulations that kill blue-collar jobs, the Republican economic message doesn’t really speak to them. That’s why they didn’t turn out for Mitt Romney.
The party’s social conservatism does.
That happens to be the last presidential election Republicans won and the only one of the last five where they prevailed in the popular vote.
If you abandon social conservatism, who are you going to replace those voters with?
But he’s indisputably right that there are more evangelicals and conservative base voters than there are truly persuadable swing voters. Karl Rove got that right too.
The notion that there are legions of fiscally conservative, socially liberal independents willing to vote GOP is largely a myth.
When the Republican Party actually looked more like the socially liberal GOPers envision, it won more House seats in places like Massachusetts.
But it also held far fewer congressional seats overall and was in the minority in the House for forty years. They only won the presidency when they could nominate a general who won World War II and the man who was his vice president.
Social conservatives were an indispensable part of the coalition that won the Senate in 1980, all of Congress in 1994, the presidency three times and today’s congressional majorities.
Even a lot of economic and fiscal conservatism is really
social conservatism. The tea party is more animated by the Protestant
work ethic than Ayn
Rand.
Even Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama tip their hats to the
values of people who work hard and play by the rules.
That doesn’t mean that social conservatives, as distinct
from social conservatism, can’t be preachy and off-putting.
It’s probably not
helpful to have candidates who seem overly critical of voters’ lifestyle
choices, unless said choices cost taxpayers money, or obsessed with Beyonce’s
bare derriere.
Right now you have a Republican leadership awkwardly
trying to communicate conservative social values they don’t really believe in,
like parents trying to bond with their teenaged children by using dated slang,
and more principled but politically ineffective social conservatives like Todd
Akin trying to overcompensate for them.
But a Republican Party without social conservatives would
wake up like George Bailey in “It’s A Wonderful Life.” (A pro-life movie, by
the way.) Its majorities would never be born.
No comments:
Post a Comment