Wed, Nov. 21, 2012 Posted:
04:32 PM EDT
Leading evangelicals are pushing back hard
against charges that social issues are
weakening the GOP brand, asserting that the
nation is rejecting the rich GOP "country
club" image more than retreating on moral
issues.
Over the past several decades, the Republican
Party has primarily been formed along two
major philosophical lines. The first are
conservatives who not only want government to
live within its means, but care deeply about
social issues such as abortion and traditional
marriage. The second group is more moderate in
its views. Often referred to as "country-club"
Republicans, they are mainly business types
who care more about fiscal issues and try to
avoid social issues at all costs.
Of course there are many that fall in between
the two groups, and the distance between the
two seems to grow farther by the day.
Bob Vander Plaats heads up The Family Leader,
a pro-family group in Iowa that plays a key
role in screening presidential wannabes when
they come calling on the Hawkeye State.
"The moderates have had their candidate in
2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And
they got crushed in both elections," Vander
Plaats told The Washington Post. "Now they
tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do
that, we will win?"
Yet somehow the moderates look to their
socially conscious brethren and blame them for
the abortion gaffes of Senate candidates Rep.
Todd Akin of Missouri and Indiana's Richard
Mourdock.
"We've got to move away from the divisive
issues like abortion and gay marriage," said
Bill Watkins, a businessman in Tennessee.
"We're getting nowhere with the majority of
Americans and besides, this fiscal mess we
have found ourselves mired in is going to be
our downfall if we don't address it soon."
And lest we forget, the Tea Party members
fall into both camps but may tend to take an
even harder stance on fiscal issues.
Pam Wohlschlegel is the Florida State
Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots and
describes herself as a fiscally conservative
socially moderate. She is a Christian and
Hispanic.
"Most tea partiers do not want to touch
social issues," Wohlschlegel told The
Christian Post. "It's not a topic we embrace
because that is not what brought us together.
When we get on social issues we allow liberals
to define us. They turn a religious freedom
issue into an issue by saying Republicans
don't like contraceptives. We should have been
more forthright by saying that contraceptives
weren't the issue. Instead, it was about
chemical abortions."
What is often described as the other
"elephant in the room" is the question of why
Republicans lost so much of the Hispanic vote
and how they must adjust their strategy by
confronting the issue of immigration.
The "gather them up and ship them back home,
build a thirty-foot fence and keep them away"
contingency may find themselves on the losing
end of national elections if they maintain
such a hardline approach. Eagle Forum founder
Phyllis Schlafly is one example of a
conservative leader who subscribes to this
strategy.
But Wohlschlegel thinks Republicans are off
base on that issue as well.
"Immigration is not something the Tea Party
is focused on addressing," she said.
"Personally, I feel there must be some element
of compromise if we want to move forward.
First, we have to close the borders before we
look at some elements of amnesty. Rubio had
good ideas but may have gone a bit far. "
"But more importantly, we need to go to the
Latino with our understanding of what it takes
to get this economy on track. We need to
explain that Obama policies have hurt them and
not help them. Romney did not point out that
Obama never delivered on promises to Blacks
and Hispanics. Other than giving them free
cell phone and holding barbecues for them, he
did nothing to help them."
Nonetheless, evangelicals are sending a
strong warning shot over the GOP bow that if
social issues are abandoned in the party
platform and in stump speeches, millions of
voters will look elsewhere.
Penny Nance leads the conservative group
Concerned Women for America and argues that
social issues are fiscal issues. She sends a
strong message in a recent column for The
Christian Post titled "Caution to Republican
Party: Drop Our Plank, Lose Our Vote."
"Little of the messaging from the Left
centered on the national argument of whether
or not people of faith should be forced to pay
for other women's abortions. And it certainly
didn't examine whether or not an unborn baby
is a life and deserves legal rights. No,
instead, Sandra Fluke was trotted out as the
ideal American woman, who can afford $40K per
year for Georgetown Law but can't afford $9
per month at Wal-Mart to pay for her own birth
control pills. Especially painful was the
boundless attention Democrats gave abortion
advocates at their convention. It was telling,
given the scant attention at the Republican
convention to pro-life advocates. I am not
sure the word 'abortion' was even uttered in
Tampa, except at the platform meetings."
As if she wasn't clear enough in what
conservative women were looking for in a party
and a national campaign, she summed up her
column my pulling no punches.
"And finally, we will leave you if you betray
us. Yes, I said it – and I mean it. Life is
not negotiable. The unborn are not political
pawns. Abortion is a human rights issue, and
we will stand down no more than the
abolitionist would have conceded his just
cause. If the establishment works to favor
pro-abortion candidates, then about 51 percent
of their voters who identify as either
Catholic or Evangelical will simply stay home
or find another party."
