Could the GOP Win Converts with a New, Pro-Family, Anti-Divorce Agenda?
I'd like to continue the conversation begun in my previous post "How the GOP Could (and Should) Come Back". In that post, I argued that:
There's no reason the GOP couldn't win by taking policy stands more or less the same as those that won elections for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but by offering an approach that rhetorically emphasizes precisely the opposite values. In short, Republicans might offer a style of governing that emphasis different priorities than the Democrats while offering essentially the same program.
It seems that most of the comments focused on a different issue than that raised by the post: whether or not the Republican party is likely to adopt a post-ideological, post-partisan, pragmatic approach. And few think that the GOP in its current incarnation will do so, and I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. It's right that the GOP is in a wilderness; but it remains to be seen just how dark and deep the forest is, and when they will find a clearing or exit.
One commenter expressed the sentiment:
What you are saying is this: GOP could be basically Democrats but pretend that they are republicans. Nice dream but fat chance.
That's part of it (hey it worked for Bill Clinton, didn't it?), but it's not quite right because it takes a shortsighted view of politics. I'm not merely suggesting GOPs become "stealth Democrats"; I'm saying that if they become more pragmatic and less rigid, then they can see how their core principles (not ideology, but core values) can be applied in fresh ways that lead to new policy opportunities and priorities.
Let's look at an issue that's dear to my heart as a staunchyly pro-same-sex marriage Democrat and an author of two books on gay culture, politics, and philosophy. Same-sex marriage could be a winning issue for both political parties; however, both parties would be attracted to different values that the policy embodies.
Progressives embrace same-sex marriage primarily as a civil rights issues and freedom of choice, a position that puts them in the position of being seen as taking an "anything goes", relativistic stand. Conservatives embrace same-sex marriage because it's pro-family, and it expands who's included in the definition of family by recognizing gay and lesbians are part of families and need to be included in society's traditional institutions.
Therefore, Republicans could strongly embrace same-sex marriage as a pro-family issue, and simultaneously oppose laws that weaken traditional marriage (e.g., domestic partnership legislation). They could become advocates of same-sex marriage because of its conservative virtues, essentially encouraging responsibility and an end to non-marital sexual activity across the board.
So, the GOP could couple their pro-family agenda with fresh ideas about using government to discourage divorce, and make an anti-divorce campaign central to their politics. For example, the GOP could promote voluntary "covenant marriage laws" (laws that give soon-to-be-married couples the option of selecting a form of marriage that makes divorce much more difficult). Taking a firm stand against DIVORCE could be the hot new issue with which they rally their Religious Right base.
An anti-divorce politics would probably resonate with their base, perhaps even more so than an anti-gay agenda in the long-term, while perhaps winning converts from culturally conservative Democrats. I don't know that there's any polling on the younger generation's attitudes towards divorce, but it's quite possible that youth raised in an age where Brittney Spears and other celebrities have trivialized marriage could be attraced to a pro-family policy agenda that isn't just a mask for homophobia.
Over the long-term there will be a viable opposition party to the Democrats whether it's the GOP or an up-and-coming new party, and this will be a healthy development for democracy. The question, I think, is whether they can move from clinging to old, out-of-touch issues to new both-and approaches that emphasize conservative values without prejudice.
As long as they continue to play the in-the-close-holier-than-thou-game, the G.O.P. is a lost party. I mean, if they can't be honest with themselves how can they be honest with the American public?
May 8, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy with the gop the way they are now. They don't need to change a thing for me.*:o)
May 8, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all fine and good when the Democrats are being led by a president who offers the sort of post-partisan leadership that I advocate. But sooner or later, the Democrats will disappoint, and political leaders of any party who have the right vision and right message will get my vote.
May 8, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the sort of post-partisan leadership that I advocate"
- like taking the time off economy in a prime time press conference to attack Rush Limbaugh? A President himself attacking some radio host from the party of no?
Please.....this post-partisan leadership is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard.
May 9, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservatives embrace same-sex marriage because it's pro-family, and it expands who's included in the definition of family by recognizing gay and lesbians are part of families and need to be included in society's traditional institutions."
I'd agree that conservatives could and should "embrace same-sex marriage" for the reasons you've given.
Problem is, what you're imagining to be the case now for actual living breathing conservatives runs aground on the empirics: forget about Obama's and Warren's God being "in the mix" ... if Republicans weren't in the mix, this issue would've been settled years ago, but they are, so it isn't.
In any case, here's to hoping that what you've written holds true at some point. But we're not at that point yet.
That said, if you're Republican, you might do well to spend a little time getting to know Gov. Huntsman. Admittedly, I like the guy mostly because liking him means it's OK for me to write Romney off as the Mormon has-been that he is.
May 8, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm... I think I've conceded the point that most GOPs are not at the post-partisan point, and that far too many are motivated by small mindededness and prejudice.
I'm not a Republican, though I would vote for one if she or he had a better vision or could provide stronger leadership than the Democrat in a particular race. I do see the conversion of Gov. Huntsman to the pro-gay rights agenda as an important step in the GOP's evolution on family issues, and welcome more conversions in the future.
The thing is, when it comes to gay rights, as someone concerned more with the advancement of the cause rather than the advancement of a specific party, I'm concerned about the tendency among progressives to "write off" the GOP. It will be far more helpful to try to win converts rather than bask in a sense of moral superiority. And how can progressives win converts if they constantly assail Republicans as bigots as this makes it difficult for Republican politicians to have a change of heart on the issue?
Republicans (and conservative or fence-sitting Democrats) currently tied to the anti-gay agendy of the right-wing extreme on their base need to be able to publicly reverse themselves and save face. We need to make it respectable to change your mind on gay marriage. After all, even Barack Obama speaks out against gay marriage, and I for one am holding out hope that eventually he will announce that he's changed his mind.
May 8, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reasons why this might not be a good idea:
(the short list)
Ronald Reagan - divorced
Bob Dole - divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced
Dick Armey - divorced
Phil Gramm - divorced
George Will - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - multiple divorces
Alfonse D'Amato - divorced
John Warner - divorced
George Allen - divorced
Henry Kissinger - divorced
John McCain - divorced
May 8, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course! And you left off Rudy Giuliani. But the fact that the GOP establishment is not in a position to support a definitively conservative pro-marriage agenda without risking being painted as total hypocrites does not mean that the agenda is "not a good idea". It means that GOP could use a new generation of leaders who could take up the cause of a more conservative pro-family (and pro-same-sex marriage) agenda WITHOUT being seen as hypocrites.
May 8, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For example, the GOP could promote voluntary "covenant marriage laws" (laws that give soon-to-be-married couples the option of selecting a form of marriage that makes divorce much more difficult)."
As that's about the creepiest idea I've seen in a long time, no doubt they'll soon be all over it.
May 8, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are good arguments for and against covenant marriage laws, for sure, and honestly I don't support them either way. As a gay man, my concern is first and foremost with reforming marriage laws in a certain other direction.
However, covenant marriage laws are typically voluntary. Soon-to-be married couples volunteer to enter a form of legal civil marriage that essentially makes divorce as difficult as it was to get 30 or 40 years ago. Since covenant marriages are OPTIONAL and aren't forced down anyone's throat, I don't see anything "creepy" or disturbing in the slightest.
Would you care to explain why you find it creepy if some married couples choose to give themselves the option of making divorce difficult to come by?
May 8, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean to say "honestly I don't support or not support them either way".
May 8, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the sort of optional that isn't really optional... "Don't you love me enough to get married-plus-covenant?"
And where does it leave marriage? It's already supposed to be a lifelong commitment, so what would it be then? It'd become just one more step between moving in together and getting married-plus-covenant. You know, for real this time.
May 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MARRIAGE IS FOR LIFE!
MARRIAGE = A COVENANT BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN…UNTIL DEATH
Divorce + Remarriage = Adultery
Why I Repented Of A Marriage That God Called Adulterous!
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdreform2.htm
May 9, 2009 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Joe, another winner. The GOP should be paying you for this advice. It is exactly the sort of point I have been making.
Take health care as another example. The national need is for universal health care. Single payer is clearly the most efficient way to do that. Republicans could embrace the goal (universal health care) and then offer implementation ideas that will make such a system self-sustaining. Maybe rather than a straight-up government program we turn the health insurance industry into a non-profit industry as we treat many other social services.
I suggested we combine health care and pension funds into a national trust that we all pay into in various ways, both personal and via our employers. It would offer more opportunity for both control and transparency. Think of the percentages to be made with a trust of that size. It could easily pay for health care and a more robust retirement later in life. The republican mantra should be "Why Settle for a Safety Net?" rather than seeking to weaken and/or end programs that are critical to millions of Americans.
At the end of the day, I think what you are suggesting is the republicans stop with the ideologically-driven agenda by switching to a strategy focused on methodology and outcomes instead. I think all "liberals" who have such an open mind about politics should join the GOP and start changing it from within. That was my chosen tactic this past election season. I even voted for my first progressive republican here in DC, but that is more of an aberration than anything else.
The GOP is still in the forest, as you say, and it is unclear how long that journey will last. The only thing the democratic party can do now is slow the transition down by paying too much attention to the attention whores on TV rather than understanding the grassroots of the republican party aren't nearly so monolithic, despite their voting habits.
May 9, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe: I'm honored to be quoted, but I still think your premise is incorrect.
You are suggesting (as you did in the oriinal post) that GOP could come back (and consequently be more successful electorally) if they moved or aligned on issues closer to Democrats.
You say, for example, that they need to become more pragmatic or less rigid, but you don't point out the rigidity of the liberal positions on the same issues. The result is a one-dimensional "you bend while we don't" kind of attitude.
Bottom line, you want GOP to become a version of Democrats, with the difference being that while they adopt most of the Democratic policies, they simply rationalize and explain them differently.
In a two-party system, the parties are naturally forced by the electoral process to sharpen and artificially amplify there differences. Just like Coke/Pepsi wars, the brand that stands in the sharpest relief will be most successful - as long as this contrast attracts the largest amount of sympathetic voters.
As it happens, social conservatives, who used to avoid elections, became politically active in reaction to what they saw as excess of the 1960s civil rights movement. Social conservatives represent a very big voting block in this country, so they quickly became a large consitituency of the republican party and changed its policy orientation.
What will happen if Republicans embrace gay marriage as a matter of policy? They will alienate and loose social conservatives, their largest voting block, in exchange for a position that indistinguishable to Democrats. This change in position will come at a huge cost and provide little to no electoral gain.
And what happens to those who believe in gay marriage, right to choose AND less government intrusion, consfiscatory tax policy and one-size-fits-all education policy?
Just like there is no consensus on social policies among ordinary Americans, there isn't a consensus among political parties.
May 9, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP has one agenda and one constituancy. They exist to promote the acumulation of wealth and power by the already wealthy and powerful. All other issues are just a ruse to fool suckers into voting for them until such time as they manage to dispense with that inconvienience.
They have promised less government, ballanced budgets, outlawed abortions... for decades. They have had unfettered control of all branches of government for most of a decade and on and off before that. What they delivered was the worst of all possible outcomes. The GOP doesn't even pretend to try to give the suckers what they promise.
But of course suckers being suckers the GOP will no doubt come up with another pack of appealing, simplistic lies that the rubes will swallow and give their votes to the shills of the robber barons.
I keep reading here about the importance of two healty parties. Strikes me that the GOP are the historic inherators of the Tories in the revolution. Would anyone argue that it was important to have a party supporting King George III so as to ballance things out? I say we won the revolution and these damn Tories have been stinking the place up long enough.
May 9, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be philosophically consistent but would never be embraced by the Republican base. Here in the South, spousal abuse and divorce are cherished traditions.
May 9, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and an important conversation. Recommended.
May 9, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe you miss the core principle of the Bush/Republican Base, which is making rules for other people to follow, and intruding into their lives, but allowing no rules or accountability for themselves.
Making stricter divorce laws would be up there with a federal registry for guns in Republican party popularity. They get divorced more than any other segment of the population and they aren't going to change. They want to run your life even if they can't run their own.
Republicans don't even believe they should be held accountable for following highway speed limits.
-an example - link
May 9, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think some commenters underestimate the degree of support that the Religious Right would have towards an anti-divorce platform and campaign. Those who have divorced are familiar with its downsides and could become effective spokespersons for the anti-divorce campaign; but a new drop of never-divorced politicians who could practice what they preach might even be drawn into politics by the issue.
I do think that a major reason why the GOP has been able to run so far with the gay marriage football is that its campaign against "sin" picked a "sin" that isn't practiced by 95% of Americans, so they could do so at relatively low cost in offending "sinners". By picking an actual, bone fide "sin" (according to the scriptures of Christianity and many other religions) to campaign against, one that actually impacts those 95% of heterosexual Americans plus those in same-sex marriages, they take on an electoral burden but they also benefit by seeming to take on some genuine risk by standing up for their beliefs and challenging those who need to hear the message.
May 11, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink