Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele was elected today new chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele won the post after six rounds of ballots were cast, defeating his closest opponent, S.C. GOP chair Katon Dawson in the last ballot by 14 votes (91 to 77). Steele's election represents a victory for centrist and moderate conservative Republicans and a blow to the radical social wing of the party, who opposed Steele's candidacy because of his past association with the moderate Republican Leaderhsip Council and his comments in favor of inclusion and a return to a big-tent philosophy.
George W. Bush gave his last interview as president to FNS yesterday:
The “United States Justice Foundation,” a far-right organization focused on promoting far-right causes is emailing conservatives and declaring Barack Obama as ineligible to be president because of his “refusal” to proof that he is a U.S. citizen qualified to be president, even when every legal expert has said that the President-Elect is indeed qualified.
This is an excerpt of the U.S.J.F.’s email:
"What if... you woke up one morning and found out that
the President of the United States was a USURPER...
a FRAUD... a PHONY?
What if... the leader of the free world was constitutionally
ineligible to be President of the United States, but was simply
allowed to take and hold office anyway?
It's happening RIGHT NOW!
The sad truth of the matter is that President-elect Barack
Obama has REFUSED to provide proof that he is
constitutionally qualified to hold the office!"
This is shameful and dishonorable. What are these people trying to do? Do they really believe that they will prevent Obama from taking office? Do they really think that the American people will pay attention to their nonsense?
The reality is that the U.S.J.F. is just another example of what ails the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Negative and dishonorable campaigns like this only repel mainstream America. Although the GOP does not explicitly support this nonsense, the fact that many movement conservatives really believe in this nonsense is simply staggering.
The GOP has a choice to make, either it continues to make the policies of these far-right fanatics its own, or it reclaims its foundational message of freedom, moderation and justice –real conservative and Republican tenets, by the way.
A month has passed since the election, and the far right continues in a state of denial. They keep saying that the GOP can’t abandon “traditional values,” but needs to push them even in a stronger tone. Candidates for the RNC post don’t seem to see reality either. All the current candidates (Michael Steele, Katon Dawson, Saul Anuzis and Chip Saltsman) are pandering to the far-right element of the party. It’s not surprising, that element is the one that controls the Republican Party and the conservative movement, thus, in order to have a chance at winning, they need to gain support among the rigid ideologues.
Social fundamentalists, along with the other wings of the far right, keep thinking that they can win elections dividing society and pandering to the “base.” They keep talking about the success of the marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and, especially, California. Well, let’s analyze how big these victories were.
-Florida presented the biggest margin in favor of traditional marriage: 24% (62% to 38%).
-Arizona, which had rejected an amendment to the state constitution in 2006, passed it this time by 12 points (56% to 44%).
-And California, where “gay marriage” had been legalized in May by the State Supreme Court, passed the amendment by 4 points (52% to 48%).
What Tony Perkins and others don’t want to see is the fact that younger voters –the future of the American electorate– soundly rejected the amendment in California by 22 points (61% to 39%), and were split in Arizona and Florida (rejecting it in AZ and passing it in FL).
What about the other amendments pushed by the social far right? Well, we are not hearing much about them because they were soundly rejected by voters.
-In South Dakota, not precisely the land of liberalism, an amendment to ban abortion (except in the cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger) was rejected by voters by 10 points (55% to 45%) for the second time. Moreover, voters 18 to 29 rejected the amendment by 20 points (60% to 40%).
-In Colorado, an amendment to define life as beginning at the moment of fertilization was rejected by 46 points (73% to 27%). The opposition was equal among all group ages (3/4 of voters).
Finally, on stem cell research, Michiganders voted in favor of an amendment to allow embryonic stem cell research by 6 points (young voters supported it by 20 points).
Therefore, more than talking about triumph, the social far right should start to look at the numbers of where people stand on these issues and, particularly, where young voters stand. By continuing with the approach of divisive politics, the far right is guaranteeing a smaller and increasingly isolated Republican Party.
It’s time for moderate conservatives to take the party and conservatism back.
BTW, I write this as a proud pro-lifer, but one that doesn’t want to use division as a political tactic.
Since the electoral defeat on Election Day, many commentators have argued that a division is taking place within the conservative movement and the Republican coalition. This division, they argue, is taking place among the three components of the coalition Ronald Reagan put together: fiscal conservatives/libertarians, social/cultural conservatives and national-security/defense conservatives. According to this view, these three elements are fighting against each other to take control of the Republican Party.
They are right on the notion of a division taking place within the GOP and the conservative movement. However, the nature of the division taking place is not the one they argue is going on. The real division is the one between the center-right, solutions-oriented pragmatists and the far-right, ideological purists.
The first group, the center right, is formed by pragmatic and solutions-oriented conservatives who want to put the tactics of divisive politics aside and begin a new era of bipartisanship, while, at the same time, keeping the basic principles of conservatism. They are pushing for a two-way approach to rebuild the GOP and conservatism. First, they want to go back to the traditional conservative and Republican principles of fiscal restraint, limited government, free enterprise, strong defense, personal liberty and tolerance. They believe the GOP and the current leaders of the conservative movement have abandoned the real principles that have always defined conservatism and Republicanism. Second, they want to reform the party and adapt its message to the current era. They want to start talking about the issues that people really care about: the economy, the environment, renewable energy, health care reform, education reform. They believe in a welcoming, inclusive conservatism and a big-tent GOP. Representatives of this camp include conservatives like Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Lamar Alexander, Mitch Daniels, Christine Todd Whitman, John Danforth, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, and moderates like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Colin Powell, among others.
The second group, the far right, is led by rigid ideological conservatives and populists who want to move the movement and the party far to the right and exclude anyone that does not agree with them one hundred per cent of the time. They are willing to continue with the tactics of division and hate that have expelled moderates, independents and even conservatives, and refuse to consider any change in the policy proposals they pursue. Their narrow-minded vision is characterized by litmus tests on every single issue for everybody who wants to run for office as a Republican: from abortion to amendments to the Constitution to preserve “traditional values,” from immigrant-bashing rhetoric to climate change denial. They think of themselves as the true inheritors of the Reagan Revolution and the only true conservative Republicans (no wonder not even Reagan nor Goldwater would be able to pass all their litmus tests). Representatives of this camp include conservatives like James Inhofe, Jim DeMint, David Keene; social fundamentalists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer; the talk-radio populist crowd (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham); and neo-populist stars Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.
Now, since when did conservatism become the ideology of “traditional values” (whatever that means) instead of the philosophy of liberty? How was it possible for a group of rigid ideologues, populists and social fundamentalists to distort our ideology and take over our party? Would Abraham Lincoln have supported the narrow-minded approach followed by this minority of far-right demagogues? Would Barry Goldwater have tried to legislate morality and abandon any notion of personal liberty? Would Ronald Reagan have called for the expulsion of moderates from the GOP? If you know something about these Republican icons, your answer will be no.
The truth is that the ones who think of themselves as the true inheritors of the conservative tradition are precisely the ones that have abandoned the core beliefs behind it. Anglo-Saxon conservatism is anchored on the principles of the classical liberal tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith: freedom, moderation and tolerance. Unfortunately, many self-described conservatives have forgotten this fact.
If the Republican Party is to emerge from the electoral debacle it suffered on November 4th, it should follow the center-right approach, the one that truly represents the principles of conservatism and Republicanism. As many of the members of the far-right group are saying these days, America is still a center-right nation. The problem is that they forgot the center and went all the way to the right.
By Alejandro Honeker
It is difficult to understand the conclusions to which many conservative leaders have arrived after the Republican electoral defeat on November 4th, denying the real causes of such a defeat throughout the country with such simplistic statements as “we lost because we were not conservative enough” or “we lost because we nominated a moderate.” It is even more striking to hear what they believe was the major asset of the campaign: the emergence of Sarah Palin to the national spotlight. Let me put this in the clearest possible way: THIS IS NON-SENSE. You cannot arrive to these conclusions unless you are in a state of denial. They are denying the facts. You just need to look at the numbers in the exit polls.
It is clear that John McCain was the only Republican who had a chance (before the economic crisis exploded) to retain the White House. It is also clear that the McCain Campaign’s pick of Sarah Palin as the VP nominee was a flawed decision. Sarah Palin was not an asset to the ticket. She cost us independent voters, moderate voters, upper-middle-class voters and suburbanites (a traditional Republican constituency), and those making more than $200,000 a year (a once GOP stronghold). Did she make inroads among the “working class”? No. Oh… She energized the base… which base? Evangelical Christians? You can’t just win elections if you are strong only among a single group.
It is also striking to hear these people say that “we need to kick moderates out” of the GOP. What are they thinking? Didn’t they look at the congressional map? Republicans have been officially wiped out of New England. They only have three congressional seats in New York State. The southwest is becoming a Democratic stronghold. The west coast was lost a long time ago. The Midwest is going away. To sum up: after Tuesday, November 4th, the Republican Party has officially become a regional party, a southern party. More than half of GOP congressional members come from the South. And, what about the Senate? Not much different. Who would have thought, just some years ago, that both senate seats in Colorado and Virginia would be in Democratic hands? A party that has litmus tests on every single issue in order to become a member cannot and will not survive.
And what about the so common statement “we lost because we abandoned conservative principles”? Well, in this case I would have to agree. The problem is that what these “leaders” see as conservatism is totally at odds with what real conservatism is all about. Social “conservatives” are already saying “we lost because we didn’t stress abortion and gay marriage enough.” Cultural “conservatives” are saying we lost because we didn’t bash immigrants enough. Others are directing their anger to the typical targets: “the liberal media,” “RINOs,” “moderates.” They are even saying in these days (prepare to read this!): “We need to move to the right” (!).
As someone who considers himself a proud conservative, I simply can’t understand the way these people think. Moreover, as a proud Reagan conservative, I can’t help but think that these people have no clue to what Ronald Reagan stood for. Even when many of them were foot soldiers during the Reagan Revolution, they seem to have forgotten (I don’t want to think they are distorting Reagan’s real record) what Reagan’s conservatism was all about. Well, in case they forgot, let me remember them:
-Reagan conservatism stood up for freedom above all, not populism.
-Reagan conservatism believed in individual liberty, not in imposing certain religious beliefs.
-Reagan conservatism was inclusive and welcoming, not a promoter of hate and division.
-Reagan conservatism was pragmatic, not dangerously dogmatic.
-And, above all, Reagan conservatism inspired optimism and opportunity, not fear and chauvinism.
Unfortunately, the latter describes better the current state of “conservative” politics. What used to be a movement of hope has turned into a machine that delivers populism and prejudice. The good news is, we, center-right conservatives, are still the majority, and we will not let the movement Ronald Reagan built to be destroyed by a group of self-proclaimed conservatives who could be best described as far-right populists. We believe in the true tenets of conservatism: the belief in the power of the individual, the belief in free enterprise and free markets, the belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility, the belief in a strong (and wisely used) defense, and the belief in inclusiveness and tolerance.
These are the true tenets of conservatism. These are the principles Ronald Reagan believed in. These are the principles we are fighting for. We are not going anywhere, we are staying here to bring our movement and our party back (and all those who believe in freedom are welcome to join!).
Alejandro Honeker
Since Proposition 8 was passed by California voters on November 4th, hundreds of demonstrations, many of them with a violent nature, have taken place throughout the Golden State. We understand the divisive nature of this issue and the passions it generates among both sides of the aisle, but nothing justifies the kind of intimidation and, in some cases, persecution that many pro-gay marriage advocates are carrying out right now. Make no mistake, we would say the exact same thing if this kind of intimidation would come from the other side. We totally support the right of anybody, whether fighting for gay marriage or against it, to peacefully demonstrate. However, to persecute individuals that supported Proposition 8, to create black lists with the names of individuals, organizations and businesses that supported the proposition, to be fired just because of being a supporter of traditional marriage, to attack people and churches, has nothing to do with the right to demonstrate. It is nothing more than a form of persecution against those who have a different idea.
We are not saying here that all those demonstrating against the passage of Proposition 8 are acting in this way. In fact, there have been numerous peaceful demonstrations in many places that we totally support (even when we do not agree with the motive). Living in a democratic society means respecting the decisions of the majority, whether we agree with them or not. For instance, when the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last May, people on the other side did not start intimidating the judges who decided in favor of gay marriage nor did they demonstrate in a violent way like we are seeing in the last days. Again, we are not saying that the other side hasn’t behaved in a violent way in the past. It has, and we do not agree with that kind of behavior. Also, we are not seeing pro-life advocates doing the same thing in South Dakota or Colorado after the defeat of the propositions which intended to make abortion illegal. They respected the will of voters. And that’s what everybody should do, whether it’s something we support or something we oppose.
Tolerance is one of the most important aspects of liberal democracy, if not the most important, and everyone should abide by it. If supporters of gay marriage do not agree with what the majority of Californians decided on the polls, they should start right now a campaign to get a new ballot measure in the next election. That’s their right in a democratic society. But they shouldn’t intimidate those who just have a different view of how marriage should be defined.
We must always practice tolerance, not just when we win. That’s what democracy is all about, to respect the will of voters.
Kathleen Parker has a great article in a Slate dialogue about the future of the Republican Party. According to Parker, The P (P = Palin) Factor, and the unwillingness of many conservatives and Republicans to recognize the poor intellectual preparation of Sarah Palin is among the main reasons why Republicans lost and will continue to lose if they don't change this "we-are-right" attitude (even when everybody knows Palin was not qualified to be commander in chief).
We share Ms. Parker's opinion and congratulate her for her intellectual honesty, as a conservative, in saying what many conservatives don't want to see.
You can read Ms. Parker's article here.
This is our projection for the Electoral College, based on polling data and historical trends
|
RSS Feed