Whitman: Free the GOP from social conservatism

Posted by on 11/14/2008

For your debating pleasure: The Party Won’t Win Back the Middle as Long As It’s Hostage to Social Fundamentalists

In the wake of the Democrats’ landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn’t support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don’t find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It’s long past time for the GOP to do the same.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, , Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linked with:

Elections, National News, ,

18 Comments.

  1. The Pink Flamingo - trackback on 11/14/2008 at November 14, 2008 - 12:01 PM
  2. The World According To Carl - pingback on 11/14/2008 at November 14, 2008 - 01:10 PM
  3. steveegg 11/14/2008 at November 14, 2008 - 01:39 PM

    Oh really?  My co-blogger Shoebox ran through the exit polls of the last 8 elections, and found the only time the Republicans took the “moderate” vote was with Ronald Reagan.  Funny thing is, Reagan was the most-conservative of the bunch.

  4. Democrat=Socialist - trackback on 11/14/2008 at November 14, 2008 - 06:30 PM
  5. Rosemary 11/14/2008 at November 14, 2008 - 09:40 PM

    I have to agree with Steveegg. Please tell me what the philosophy was defining our party this election cycle (I mean consistently from day one). What were the defining issues aside from the global war? While I agree that the global war should have been enough, I voted for Sarah, not John MexiCain. See? When you’re fighting AGAINST yourself and your own record, it ain’t easy.
    Finance reform. Amnesty. No school choice. Global warming. Embryonic stem cell research. HE is the reason why the tax cuts were not made permanent. He voted against them. THESE THINGS MATTER to us. Some things are more important to us than money.

  6. Pam 11/14/2008 at November 14, 2008 - 10:11 PM

    Rosemary, 

    Please re-read what the issues were to you, because that is key to part of the discussion..Note how you didn’t automatically limit yourself to the abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research platform.. Far too many within the party limit the scope of the platform to those three issues, and anyone that doesn’t agree with that thought, is a RINO.  I was in a discussion today that said we should kick out those that don’t agree with that, and another said we should not try to bring in new people to the party.  They are important, no doubt, but not the most important…We have no leader to the party and we definitely have no clear message.  We shouldn’t be kicking anyone out.

    Back in 1977 Reagan gave a speech titled: The New Republican Party

    Let me share some key portions of that with you:

    Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.

    A Harris poll released September 7, 1975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.”

    Would you agree that 31 years hasn’t really changed much?  Here is the key portion for me:

    Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.

    You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues—law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems—are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues—inflation, deficit spending and big government—are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

    Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism—or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

    In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?

    I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.

    Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.

    This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.

     

  8. The Pink Flamingo - trackback on 11/15/2008 at November 15, 2008 - 01:16 AM
  9. Democrat=Socialist - trackback on 11/15/2008 at November 15, 2008 - 02:43 PM
  10. The Pink Flamingo - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 01:31 AM
  11. The World According To Carl - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 03:30 AM
  12. Diary of the Mad Pigeon - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 02:44 PM
  13. Blog @ MoreWhat.com - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 06:19 PM
  14. Woman Honor Thyself - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 08:59 PM
  15. Democrat=Socialist - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 09:10 PM
  16. What Would You Think Of “Ted”? | Democrat=Socialist - pingback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 11:14 PM
  17. Conservative Cat - trackback on 11/16/2008 at November 16, 2008 - 11:45 PM
  18. FrmrArtyOffcr 11/17/2008 at November 17, 2008 - 11:11 PM

    There was no Conservative message in this year’s election. McCain may vote with the Republicans on minor issues and on spending, but the really big important issues, he doesn’t “reach across the aisle” he jumps over with both feet. He was on the WRONG side of Immigration Reform (Hey John, how do you have homelande security without BORDER SECURITY?), wrong side of Campaign finance reform, the wrong side of Global warming (CAP AND TRADE WILL BE A DISASTER for this country and McCain will almost certainly jump across the aisle to break a filibuster of it when it comes up next year) and the Gang of fourteen that left dozens of federal judge appointments open for Obama to fill with radical leftists instead of being filled by solid Constitutional jurists by President Bush. I can foresee Judges legislating from the bench overturning state laws on anything that goes against the leftist agenda. It won’t matter if the decision is based on law, only if it feels right.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: