I just got done doing a radio interview for some station in Florida. For some reason, this talk show host really likes CRI (the organization I work for) even though we’re based out of California. Most of the questions centered around Schwarzenegger’s recent comments that the GOP party should move to the left and that, if it did so, it wouldn’t lose its base and would pick up 5%. My question: Was Arnold sleeping through the entire Nov. ’04 victory where people went to the polls en masse to vote their consciences on moral issues? I have a question for YOU readers out there: Presuming you’re a Republican, would you stay loyal to the GOP party based on a conservative fiscal platform alone?
I have a very bold friend who once said these words at a state GOP platform committee meeting: “My political party is not like my football team. I’m loyal to my party because it upholds my ideology. If my party ceases to reflect my principles and moral convictions, then not only will I leave my party, I will seek to destroy it.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It depends on which way it moved on social issues. If it moved in favor of greater freedom (i.e. became more libertarian in theory), I'd be delighted. Unfortunately, that never seems to be what people mean by becoming more liberal on social issues.
The reality with the way our system is set up is there's only room for two parties and neither of them can be that far off from where the mass of the people are. So I don't see myself ever becoming a third-party afficionado--and I think a lot would have to change before I found the Democrats more congenial than the Republicans. It's an evil world, so we're always stuck with the lesser of two evils.
I think QoC expressed pretty much what I would say, although she and I would probably disagree over the legitimate role of government in social areas (I tend to be much less libertarian than she, as far as I can tell from her posts).
I think that there might be room for a third party in the United States, but it would be tough to figure out what voter blocs it would pull from. For instance, I could see at least these possibilities that some Christians might like:
1) A stronger Libertarian party. I think the libertarian ideals appeal to many people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, no one knows about the party because it takes a significant amount of money to buy exposure, and they don't have that. Also, many Christians who might consider voting for a Libertarian due to their views on limited government won't do it due to their stance on abortion and gay rights.
2) A Conservative party. This has actually been tried up in Canada; the main problem is that it would probably be viewed as a regional or sectarian party, and as soon as it tried to reach out and expand, the base would desert, screaming "Compromise!" Also, some wonderful moral conservatives tend to be in favor of more government action to deal with social issues (e.g., poverty) than many fiscal conservatives are comfortable with, so I'm not sure a Conservative party would really work any better than the current Republican one. And how many Democrats outside of the Deep South would ever even consider joining a "Conservative" anything?
3) A Catholic party. This one, actually, I could see as working. Post-WWII Europe put together a couple of these, mostly to fight rampant Communist political infiltration in Italy and Germany. This party could be strong in reaching out to Hispanics, a vital part of any third-party effort. Some problems: anti-Catholicism is still a major factor, especially if the Catholicism tends to be conservative, and I'm not sure if the South would go for a Catholic (except Louisiana, of course). I could be wrong there.
So those are my $.02. Right now, I think the best tack for me is to stay in the Republican party, as long as it does at least something to protect the unborn. On Election Day '04, as much as I don't like President Bush's increase in government spending, and as many serious questions as I have about whether Iraq actually met the historic Christian requirements for being a just war, in the end I simply couldn't vote for a man who will uphold abortion to the extent that Sen. Kerry has proved he will.
--DJ
"It depends on which way it moved on social issues. If it moved in favor of greater freedom (i.e. became more libertarian in theory), I'd be delighted."
---
Given our nation's current moral state, it would merely collapse if we move towards greater freedom at this point in time. Freedom works only when morality flourishes. John Adams recognized this when he said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Until we can be a "moral and religious people," we can't handle greater freedom.
If the Republican party failed to represent those of us who believe that life is to be protected I believe I would find myself incredibly discouraged and apathetic and would find less reasons to participate in the political process. However, recent cultural trends fail to support that Arnold has a clue about the country outside of Hollywood. The facts are that even many Democrats are becoming more and more uncomfortable with abortion-on-demand and the culture of death. I don't believe Arnold has a political future outside of California other than being used as the Hollywood man in a few stump speeches. - RLR
On a pure political scale, Arnold's right. On application, he's on dangerous ground. If you follow election results, you find that the moderates are the most likely to vote outside of party lines when confronted with a candidate not to their liking (conservative).
Conservatives almost always stay with the Republican Party Candidate even if they are more moderate. What's the alternative? Complete liberalism or ideologically pure, practically challenged, third party candidates.
Conversely, if there was a significance turn to the left, the conservative voting turnout would be depressed by apathy. Additionally, it would be harder to mobilize the Christian volunteer base.
There's a significant solution to all of this. Through mass media, focus on the fiscal issues. Through grassroots (and not the measly yawns that are called "grassroots campaigning" in conservative circles) focus on social issues. It makes sense not only on a surface level, but also because conservatives are less likely to be influenced by media advertising and the like than their more moderate counterparts. Media campaigns are largely lost on them.
MJB
Post a Comment