The rise of the Tea Party coalition which includes Log Cabin republicans and the "Homo-Cons" has led many to wonder if the Republicans should give up on social issues and focus only on fiscal issues. I believe Republicans will always need social issues because during good economic times and relative peace, Republicans have no message for the voters other than social issues. Republicans have three main messages for the American people: small government/reduced spending, national security and conservative social policy. Of the three above, the message of social policy resonates regardless of the economy and international political situations whereas Republican messages are weak during economic prosperity and relative international peace.
During economic prosperity, Democrats can woo the voters with social programs based on spending whatever surplus is available. Americans are susceptible to this because they are very generous and want to help others. When a politician points out any economic disparity, and Democrats are very good at this, Americans want to fix the problems and help the underprivileged. Democrats will have a solution to the problems, always in the form of more government spending and bureaucracies. When Americans are secure in their jobs and are optimistic about the future they are more susceptible to the Democratic message of adding programs or additional benefits for the underprivileged.
What can Republicans offer in the way of solutions for economic disparities? Conservative, small government Republicans should say the problem does not need a new government program or additional spending because in a country of 300 million people, the very small number of people affected does not warrant the expense or the decrease in liberty that any government spending and bureaucracy causes. Or Republicans say that we should keep increasing freedom by putting more money in the hands of individuals to grow the economy. Either way, we look unfeeling or inactive. In a nation of optimistic radicals, both of these are weak messages to get Americans to the polls.
Republicans need social issues to bring voters to the polls. George W. Bush did this exceeding well during his first run for the Presidency when he brought together the southern christian coalition. He had to talk about social issues because the country was at peace and the economy was going well. The social issues Bush ran on were the Education policy of No Child Left Behind, reduced dependency on foreign oil, tax breaks for families with the Earned Income Tax Credit. All of these issues were heavily promoted as social values that affected the family and the ability of the working class to succeed and keep their families together. Later he became identified with the Defense of Marriage Act and the elimination of Federal Funding for abortion and fetal stem cell research; clearly social values issues.
The 2004 presidential election was another example of how Republicans benefited from a social values agenda. In 2004, 14 states passed constitutional amendments banning, in some form, gay marriage. Many of these states are normally considered swing states. The following states had a marriage amendment, were swing states and also went for George Bush in 2004: Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, and Montana. The electoral college total for these 4 states was 49 with George Bush winning the election by 35 electoral college votes: 286 to 251. Many conservatives believed the constitutional amendments in these states, and others caused conservatives to come to the polls and therefore give George W. Bush another term during a time of an unpopular war and fairly stagnant GDP growth during most of his first term.
Many of the social conservative issues are not things the Federal Government should be involved with or can change. Clearly, the anti-abortion agenda does not change the Supreme court ruling on Roe Vs. Wade and banning Federal funding of fetal stem cell research does not stop private fetal stem cell research. This position may be cynical and overly pragmatic to hard line fiscal conservatives who hope to increase the Republican "tent" to bring in voters who are interested in fiscal issues but generally repulsed by the social agenda.
The social conservative voters may not be pretty as they cling to their guns and bibles. Likewise, the social conservative agenda may seem like a small tent idea, but to win we need some type of active message for voters, even if there is nothing the Federal government can or should do to move the agenda forwar
No comments:
Post a Comment