Avoiding the Issue
I wrote the following editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle in response to an article written by George Neumayr in San Francisco Faith.
Avoiding the Issue
Is abortion aborting hope for GOP in California?
Denial is a scary human trait. Human beings can rationalize almost anything to deny reality.
The social-conservative wing of the California Republican Party is going through its own denial: believing that the Republicans’ huge losses in California in recent elections have nothing to do with the party’s stance on abortion. But as the evidence against them mounts, the far right practices mental gymnastics to assert that the pro-life stance is not hurting the party and its candidates.
You would think that Bill Simon’s loss last month to Gov. Gray Davis would put an end to the debate. Or George W. Bush’s 1.3 million vote loss to Al Gore in California in 2000. Or Dan Lungren’s loss to Davis in 1998. Or Bob Dole’s loss to Bill Clinton in California in 1996.
You would hope that after all this evidence, the social conservatives would finally accept the fact that the pro-life position is destroying our chances of winning. But denial is a powerful thing.
The social conservatives will still argue that their candidates have a better chance in the general election than do the moderate candidates. Four arguments support their reasoning:
– ‘Distinguishing’ marks: First, they say that moderates do not distinguish themselves enough from the Democrats to convince the independents and Democrats to vote for them. In other words, the right wing argues that many Democratic and independent voters do not want to vote for the Democrats, but that because the moderate candidates do not distinguish themselves enough from the Democratic candidates, people stick with the candidates they really do not like.
This position is not reasonable, because it assumes Democratic voters and independent voters really do not care about issues. Have people ever been known to say that they don’t like the Democratic nominee and, moreover, they actually prefer the Republican nominee, but since the Republican nominee did not distinguish himself or herself enough they are going to stick with the Democratic nominee? In other words, if a candidate agrees with them on five issues and another agrees with them on 13, they will still vote for the one that agrees with them on only five issues “because the other one did not distinguish themselves enough.”? This argument assumes that “distinguishing oneself” is more important than issues for Democrats and independents — an indefensible position.
What the social conservatives do not want to accept is that independent voters and Democratic voters vote for Democratic candidates because the Democratic candidates take positions that the voters prefer to the Republican candidates’ positions. In other words, they usually prefer the Democratic positions on choice and other social issues such as separation of church and state. Polls show that the majority of voters in California agree with the Republicans on the majority of issues (crime, national defense, free enterprise, etc.), but our positions on the social issues block sufficient voter acceptance.
– The ‘resolve’ factor: The second argument social conservatives make is that standing up for principles attracts Democrats and independents. Even those who disagree with us will respect our resolve. Of course, this again assumes that Democrats and independents really do not care about issues.
Again, think of the position in reverse. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone was a Democrat who honestly believed in all his liberal convictions and stood up for them proudly, but did that make the majority of Republicans want to vote for him? Absolutely not. Many Democrats know that Pat Buchanan truly believes what he asserts, but only 45,000 Californians voted for him for president and they weren’t Democrats.
– Abortion not an issue: The third argument they make is the voters really do not care about abortion. While it is true that there are issues the voters consider more important, almost everyone has a strong position on abortion. When you bring up the issue of abortion, most people will either think of killing babies or a scared teenage girl going into a dirty alley and getting killed by a botched abortion.
Some social conservatives argue that the majority of California voters are anti-abortion. But Gov. Gray Davis proudly proclaims in all his commercials and up and down the state that he is pro-choice. Do you really think that Davis would do this if his handlers had not definitely determined that the overwhelming majority of Californians were pro-choice? Davis announces to the world that he is pro-choice because the majority of California voters are pro-choice.
Look at Bill Simon during the last election. He said he was “pro-life,” but then he backpedaled by saying he would enforce the laws and not do anything to reverse the current situation. Why didn’t he continue with the anti-abortion rhetoric? Because he knew that most of the voters are pro-choice and his anti-abortion position was a political liability.
Why do all Republicans in swing districts and statewide shy away from their anti-abortion positions? Because they know that it is a handicap. So why do we still have candidates who run with this handicap?
A statewide survey for the Public Policy Institute of California (as reported in the California Journal, April 2002) found that 71 percent of Californians identify themselves as pro-choice. But 62 percent of Californians support the death penalty, and yet the Democrats never run an anti-death penalty candidate statewide or in a swing district, because they know the anti-death penalty position is too much of a liability. When will Republicans learn to treat the abortion issue as the Democrats treat the death penalty issue?
– “No talk” zone: The final argument the conservatives make is that on the social issues, “We just won’t talk about it.” This is a very naive and unrealistic position to take. It is not up to us whether issue will be discussed in the campaign. Simon didn’t want to talk about abortion, but Davis did. It became an issue.
Who has a better record of winning in swing districts or Democratic majority jurisdictions? Pro-choice Republicans or anti-abortion Republicans? There are many pro-choice Republicans who win in majority Democratic areas: Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani in New York City; Gov. George Pataki in New York state. Former Gov. Christie Whitman in New Jersey. In Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine, Democrats have huge majorities, but all their governors and many of their senators are Republican. And as you probably guessed, all of these Republicans are pro-choice.
For the first time in its history, Hawaii just elected a Republican governor. And what kind of Republican candidate did it take to win in this overwhelming Democratic state: a pro-choice woman. Can you name a strongly anti-abortion Republican candidate who has recently won in a strong Democratic district?
California is clearly a majority Democratic state. Our registration is 35 percent Republican, 44 percent Democrat. So clearly, in statewide races, we need to attract independent voters and Democrats or we cannot win. Whom do we look to? In California’s Democratic majority districts we have had Pete Wilson,
state Sen. Bruce McPherson, Assemblyman Jim Cunneen, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and many more. And of course they are all pro-choice.
When moderates upset a Democrat, the social conservatives think their candidates can win, too. But when anti-abortion Dan Lungren tried to replace Wilson, he got crushed. Those who argue that all Republican candidates should be anti-abortion, regardless of the consequences, are condemning the Republican Party to a perpetual minority status in this state. By staying in the minority, we are losing the chance to promote all the other issues that the electorate in California agrees with us on: strict standards in education, low taxes, minimal regulation and being tough on crime.
California voters may be pro-choice, but they are fiscally conservative. They will vote for our candidates if we just give them ones more in line with the philosophy of the average voter.
If we continue with our dogmatic position on abortion, the Democratic Party will run California. Is that the kind of future we really want for this state?
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Renewal Letter 2008
Dear CRL Member:
It’s that time of year again. Over the past year the CRL has helped elect many moderate Republicans across the state. We also have been involved in trying to change the membership of the California Republican Party. Our former executive director, Keith Proctor, spent much of the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2008 recruiting hundreds of candidates from up and down the state to run for county central committees.
I have heard from many moderates that trying to change or influence the CRP is a waste of time. They seem to believe that the CRP’s extremism has made the party irrelevant. I think this is a dangerous assumption. The CRP is not irrelevant or benign and it continues to be a negative influence on California politics. This year the CRP was a major supporter of Proposition 4, as they had supported 85 and 73. Three times in a row our state party has spent our resources on these fruitless campaigns when candidates up and down the state needed money.
However, believe it or not, things are beginning to change. Some of the social conservatives are seeing the light. There is a huge groundswell of former staunch pro-life conservatives backing pro-choice Steve Poizner for Governor. From Jim Brulte to John McGraw, former pro-life stalwarts have gotten the message that pro-life candidates can’t win statewide, and they realize that Steve Poizner is our best chance for retaining the Governor’s office. However, now that things are changing it is critical that we take advantage of this opening and press our position; only moderate Republicans can win statewide or in competitive districts.
The state party is neither irrelevant nor benign, and there is hope for change. Therefore, we need to stay engaged and stop the CRP from being a spawning ground for propositions and instead focus its vast resources on supporting electable Republicans. We at the CRL have stayed engaged, but our continued involvement and efforts are not cheap. We need your financial support more than ever. To help us continue our efforts in electing moderate Republicans, and in moderating the CRP, please renew your member ship for 2008 (that way you will also continue to get the Progressive Republican). If you have already renewed your membership, then you should think about giving more. Believe me, we can use every penny.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Herrick
State President
No Comments
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My views on a political spectrum
The Political Spectrum Quiz
According to this quiz I am right social libertarian. I am also a neo-con and somewhat culturally liberal.
scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues:+7.02 right
Social issues:+5.43 libertarian
Foreign policy:+5.15 neo-con
Cultural identification:+3.35 liberal
No Comments »
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
