Q&A Friday #112: Should The GOP Give Up On Social Issues?
Question: It seems pretty obvious that Romney avoiding social issues only allowed to the Obama campaign to define him in the eyes of the electorate(and Akin, Murdoch, etc. didn’t exactly help). Going forward do you feel like the Republican party should switch their positions on social issues and take the ideological stance of limited government protecting individual rights as they do with economic issues, or do you feel that Republicans should stay the course, and strongly define their position on social issues for the next election? — Daytrip
The GOP’s last two candidates for President have been establishment-approved, moderate, “electable” candidates who’ve barely talked about social issues.
Both of them lost.
Then, what do we hear? We need to choose an establishment-approved, moderate, “electable” candidate who barely talks about social issues.
The Republican Party is a three legged stool: fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and a muscular foreign policy. It’s not time to abandon one of those legs; it’s time to run a candidate who does a better job of representing all three parts of the GOP coalition — and social conservatives are not a small block of voters. Keep in mind that just over 78% of Americans are Christians and that number swells to roughly 85% of black and Hispanic voters. If you’re looking to do minority outreach, social conservatism is a good place to start.
That doesn’t mean that we have to be preachy, extreme, rub it in anybody’s face or make social issues the center of the GOP’s agenda, but Christians should feel like the GOP is the party of traditional marriage, life, and Christianity.
Scott Shane, writing for the Fish Wrap, makes a darned good point, part of one that I’ve been making in
On a lot of issues in DC, conservatives don’t have a party that represents their views — except when there’s
If nothing else has proven that Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele is not in tune with the GOP today,