Once again, nobody except Race42012’s resident Ron Paul fanatic Josiah had a problem with the principles outlined in yesterday’s post. Now comes the part where I have to do some serious reaching out. Where can the resident social libertarian reach a consensus with Evangelical Christians? Today’s principles will try to find common ground. This is where Alex Knepper has to do some fist-clenching and compromise — that’s what party-building is about. Problems can be noted in the comments section, and if they’re legitimate and mainstream, I may revise the points.
Cultural Traditionalism
- America is a nation built upon not only its government and individual citizens, but also by unifying values which we hold dear. In a modern Republican Party, these values will be affirmed and promoted. No matter who the president is, no matter who is running Congress, and no matter what problems we may be facing, we are proud to be Americans, and that patriotism is one of the highest virtues that the Republican Party can accentuate. Our children should be taught about the wondrous nation that is ours and be encouraged to cherish, protect, and support it through active, engaged citizenship and a commitment to individual betterment.
- The party must affirm its commitment to pro-life principles. The partial-birth abortion ban is a good start, but the battle is nowhere near over. All can agree that abortion is a terrible tragedy and should never be looked at casually, or as merely a form of birth control. Decreasing abortions can be most effectively done right now through (1) combating poverty through sound economic policies and (2) providing effective public education to teenagers about the risks of pregnancy and information about how to obtain contraceptives (with an option for parents to pull a child out of the program).*
- The ultimate political goal of the pro-life faction of the party must be the overturn of Roe v. Wade, due to its being bad law, and the subsequent de-federalization of abortion law, so that battles can be fought at a state level, as the Constitution dictates. Both those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice should be able to agree upon this.
- Multiculturalism and cultural relativism should be emphatically rejected. America is a nation of sound values and morals, and it should not be considered “hateful” or “discriminatory” to assert that we are culturally superior to, say, Syria, China, or Paraguay. Political equality, reason, the democratic method, and traditional Enlightenment values are good things, and the next generation should learn that unequivocally.
- The traditional family, due to the consensus of the American people, must be given top priority without denigrating other family models, including single-parent homes and those fronted by same-sex couples. It should not legally be considered discrimination for adoption agencies to give preference to heterosexual couples. Most importantly, in the end, promoting family values must be about creating a climate that is suitable for children to grow up happily and safely in, so that they may chart their own individual courses with a sound emotional and moral foundation.
- Marriage, being fully ingrained as a legal issue (that is to say: taking the government out of marriage is a pipe dream), is an issue that should, as the Constitution dictates, be taken on a state-by-state basis. The attitudes of Americans toward marriage will manifest themselves in statewide referendums.
Next: Respect for Religious Freedom
—
* This is perhaps the most contentious of the statements, but all of the raw data — and the polling data — show that it is an objectively positive measure in combating teen pregnancy that is supported by most Americans.
—
THE PRINCIPLES:
Global Leadership - Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility – Cultural Traditionalism – Respect for Religious Freedom – Political Realism – Objectivity – Optimism – Inclusion – Constructive Dialogue – Smart Governance
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Well, I applaud your recognition of the importance of social conservatism.
However, as I’ve said many times, I don’t think abortion can be solved with a federalism issue.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“…the subsequent de-federalization of abortion law, so that battles can be fought at a state level, as the Constitution dictates. Both those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice should be able to agree upon this.”
The issue is not between federal or state power as determinative on the matter of abortion. The issue is between government (as you would have it – state government) vs. individual power.
Roe v. Wade did not take the power over abortion away from states and give it to the federal government – it took power away from the states and gave it to individual women. That the Supreme Court is a national court, and makes decisions that are valid throughout the country does not make it a “federal” issue. The SC merely recognized an INDIVIDUAL right, and determined that that INDIVIDUAL right adheres to all indiviuals around the country.
To overturn Roe is to take a giant ANTI-FEDERALIST step. So long as you understand federalism to be the principle that power should reside at the lowest possible level. Overturning Roe would (in many cases) take the power over abortion decisions away from INDIVIDUALS and grant it to the (state) GOVERNMENT.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Sounds good to me. Although we spar some on cultural issues, I’d guess we’re fairly close on broad principles. I’m most concerned, culturally, with fighting against relativism, promoting civic and personal virtues (patriotism, industry, thrift, etc), and of course, ending abortion. We only differ substantially on the final point, but I’m willing to accept a focus on overturning Roe, returning the issue to the states, and passing broadly popular anti-abortion legislation at the federal level (the partial birth ban, as you mention). For now anyway. And although I’m not in favor of gay marriage, I’ve never supported a federal constitutional amendment.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
This avoids both extremes of the issue and I believe I could support each of the parts you’ve outlined so far.
I’m not entirely comfortable with your paragraph on multiculturalism though. While I believe our country is a better place to live and work and call home, even Syria is rich in culture. Asserting our own cultural superiority is less “hateful” than it is ignorant. Those who come here do not need to reject their past culture. Instead, they can take the good parts of their own culture and add to our own. I have been able to travel a bit and I have found lots to appreciate in other cultures.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
#2, your perspective on this issue is irrelevant.
You aren’t a Republican. This is about principles Republicans can unify around.
Not far-left academics in socialist college towns like Ann Arbor, Michigan.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I must applaud you, Alex. A well-written piece, a well-written series, in fact. You’ve matured quite a bit in your time here; glad you’re still on board.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
#2,
Unfortunately for your position, we actually like the constitution as is. And there is no ‘right’ to have an abortion in the constitution. To overturn Roe is to reject activist judges, which most Republicans agree on.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I appreciate the effort to reach out, but I’m going to disagree.
To quote Lincoln, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe that is true. I believe our party should be the party of Abraham Lincoln, not the party of Stephen Douglas on this issue of abortion. Senator Douglas, if you’ll recall said that he didn’t care whether slavery was voted up or down as long as the states decided it. “I care not…” is not the stance for the GOP or any other party that doesn’t what go down the Whig road of moral ambiguity.
Nor, can I agree with your analysis of why women get abortion. It’s not a poverty of money, but a poverty of values. It’s a lack of the presence of fatherhood in the home, the breakdown of the family, a culture of death that treats children as a disease unless they are wanted. The Majority of women who had abortions were using contraception. So, arguing that wide availability of contraception is the solution to abortion is counterintuitive.
Nor can I countenance the notion that the traditional family is to be promoted because the American people think it’s good. The Traditional family is to be promoted because it’s a matter of Social Science that it produces better citizens with less problems, who are less likely to be criminals and uneducated. As you have no qualms with saying American culture is superior to Syrian culture, I say without reservation that children, as a rule are better off being raised by a husband and a wife rather than a single parent or two lesbians or two homosexuals. While I respect that many single parents do fine jobs, the ideal for society and for children is a stable traditional family.
Finally, I would not be averse to marriage being a state’s issue IF radical homosexualist lobby will cease and desist their attempts to federalize the issue. I’d be willing to call a truce if they were willing to commit to the follow principles:
1) all decisions regarding gay marriage will be made through Democratically elected bodies and not through courts. The legitimacy of decisions obtained otherwise is cheapened anyway. When CT passed Civil Unions hardly made a fuss.
2) all decisions regarding gay marriage will be made by the states.
3) There will be no attempt to force jurisdictions to accept same sex marriage licenses.
When these terms are agreed to, I’m more than happy to abandon the federal option. Until that point, though, if it’s a federal fight the Homosexualists want, it’s a federal fight they shall get.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Adam – Europeans have far, far, far lower rates of teenage pregnancy than we do. Surely you cannot argue that it’s secularism that causes teen pregnancy?
I’m fine with your three points on marriage as a states’ issue — all of those are corollaries of it, if we accept originalism, which I do — but I’m not going to say that it’s because it’s a matter of social science. What methodology is being used? What factors did the researchers use to judge success? Etc, etc. It’s good enough to say that it’s because the American people have come to agree. This is about building a Big Tent. You’re getting an appropriate share in these points, but there’s a bit there to reach out to the center and the agreeable, intellectually honest left.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I have to agree with Alex on this one. I also wholeheartedly support the points regarding gay marriage and states.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
#9, Europeans have far lower rates of pregnancy.
If you account for abortions (not reported as pregnancies) the European teen pregnancy rate is on par with our own.
Depending on how the teenage pregnancy stats are collected there are other wrinkles (since Europe has fewer teenagers and a large minority are actually Muslim).
December 18th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
That’s logically unconnected, though. Europeans’ low rates of pregnancy are due to the decline of the traditional family. That has no bearing on whether some horny teenager gets knocked up. European teens aren’t any less horny than American teens.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
#9
Regarding social science, I’d refer you to a great site from the Heritage foundation, familyfacts.org:
http://www.familyfacts.org/findingdetail.cfm?finding=8650
Here is one such fact:
In 1998, 8.2 percent of married couples, 16 percent of cohabiting couples, 24.2 percent of single-parent households with more than one adult, and 38.1 percent of single-parent households with no other adults lived in poverty. Differences in the poverty rate between married-couple households and other households were more pronounced among African-American and Hispanic households than among white households.
This is one of their top findings, but I’d urge further reading through FamilyFacts.org
I find your stance that these things are “good enough” to be somewhat dictatorial. You’re proferring something here, Alex, and as a Social Conservative, I’m saying, “No sale.” You’re saying, “Tough noogies.” Not necessarily how you effectively reach out.
Clearly, as asocial conservative, I don’t believe it’s good enough. It’s squishy and abandons logic and reason and makes the whole case for the traditional marriage on an argument from popularity, which itself is a logical fallacy. I think the more you study this, the more you see it’s not a point of doctrine or dogma, it’s a point of fact.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
You’re mixing up correlation and causation.
No wing of the party can be demanding that their full agenda be on the menu if we’re to be a Big Tent Party rather than a Secret Club. I know that you’ve probably been spoiled by living in Idaho, a ruby-red state, but over here in Maryland, where we have two Democratic senators, a Democratic governor, a Democratic state delegation, a Democratic state senate, and every House member is a Democrat (except for one — mine!), well, we learn to make a few compromises.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Oops. I pressed Submit before finishing my first thought.
Poorer families are more likely to produce single parents, who in turn are more likely to produce single parents — it’s the culture that they inherit. There’s nothing inherent about single-parenthood that encourages poverty.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I think there is something inherent, because you have one person trying to do the job of two people, and also trying to get ahead in life. Those who do it are an exception, not the rule. The argument that poorer families are more likely to produce single parents doesn’t really have any scientific proof from you, other than your own opinion.
I’ve known lots of people from middle class families, or even well-to-do families that have become single parents. But children need the influence of both a mother and a father in their lives for the best outcome. When that doesn’t happen, there’s a handicap.
I have to say that I take the view that Ronald Reagan was right that a political party can’t be everything to everyone. The party should be full bore and offer a menu of options. You may not like Social Conservatism, but you don’t care about those issue and you like the economic conservatism or vice versa. What you’re trying to do is to turn the GOP into a party that’s mealy mouthed in support for values in hopes of attracting the wishy washy while turning off the people who are the real workers and soul of this party. And I have to respectfully disagree.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
#5
Its not a question of my “perspective”. I laid out some factual points about federalism and how the abortion issue interfaces with it.
You would be far better off dealing with the facts of the matter, perhaps to build better arguments for your position, rather than to try to dismiss these facts and to fall back into your hostility and name-calling shtick.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
#7
“there is no ‘right’ to have an abortion in the constitution.”
If you know anything about the conservative perspective on the Constitution, you would know that it is a document that describes the limited powers that a government shall have over a nation of free people – it does not list those rights that the people are to be granted by their government.
The issue is never whether there is an explicit grant of a right in the Constitution – there is no explicit right to lots of things, like a right to travel – that we all understand to be within the purview of free people. Read your ninth amendment.
The issue is always whether the Constitution grants the government the power to take away some liberty from the individual. There are few issues more personal than pregnancy. By what right does the government seize the power to decide these issues away from the individual woman? Find that in the Constitution. It isnt there.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:13 am
[...] Leadership - Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility – Cultural Traditionalism – Respect for Religious Freedom – Political Realism – Objectivity – Optimism – Inclusion – [...]
December 19th, 2008 at 12:15 am
“it should not be considered …“discriminatory” to assert that we are culturally superior…”
“It should not legally be considered discrimination for adoption agencies to give preference to heterosexual couples.”
You’ve got a real fondness for blatently asserting that discrimination should not be considered discrimination. And thinking that you are therefore making it so….
December 19th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I’m obviously referring to the former in its connotative sense, not a literal sense. Of course it’s discriminatory; the act of differentiating between two things is discrimination, in a literal sense.
The latter should not legally be considered so. It’s obviously discriminatory, in both the literal sense of the word and, in my personal judgment, the negative connotation.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Let me get this straight. Discriminating against gay couples is discrimination – both literally and in the negative connotation, but we should pass a law saying that it isn’t? And then go ahead and do it?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Yeah, pretty much. Privately-run adoption agencies should be free to do as they choose, within reasonable boundaries.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am
guess it depends on what you consider reasonable.
To me, discrimination rooted in anti-gay bigotry isn’t reasonable, but hey, I’m a liberal, what do you expect?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Well, as you know, I’m gay. I support the right to private discrimination as a property rights matter, so whatever. I don’t think it’s reasonable, from a moral perspective, but that’s something that should be fought on a cultural level. Gays are winning, thankfully.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:47 am
So Alex, do you support discrimination against blacks based on your notion of property rights? I thought we settled those kind of questions back in the sixties. Lunch counters and all that.
Or do you draw the lines some other way? Antigay discrimination is ok, but antiblack not?
What principles are you following here?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:41 am
I personally support the right of any private business to discriminate in any way that they want.
The principle I’m following is that of property rights.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:08 am
I think you did a good job Alex of trying to reach some common ground. However, on the ‘gay marriage’ or ‘civil union’ subject I have some concerns. I think it will be a fiasco if every state is left to its own as to whether or not they permit their own marriages/civil unions to take place. If by moving from state to state the situation changes, I think that’s no longer the ‘United’ states part of the USA. My thinking is that there should not be marriages or civil unions PERIOD. There seems to be several legitimate issues that gay couples have that need to be addressed if they have not already been so. Things like hospital visits, inheritance rights, etc. should be (if they have not been already) legislatively addressed to further the rights of these couples. Each state can decide how those issues are handled, and hopefully the difference from state to state will be minimal.
One problem with the each state deciding on the ‘marriage/civil unions’ thing is that it leaves the federal government in a very messy situation involving things like Social Security benefits. Are they ‘married’ because Massachusetts says they are? Are they then not married when they move to another state? See the mess?
The same for companies when addressing spousal insurance etc. If I work for a company in Mass. and have all these benefits etc., then move to another state that doesn’t allow recognition of this status, we have total chaos. I say no marriages or civil unions, but definitely encourage states to ensure that the people can decide in each state about which issues such as hospital visitation, etc. works for them.
I’m also concerned about the religious autonomy that this issue brings up. If this leads to churches being forced to perform, or recognize ‘marriages’ of same sex couples, we have a very big problem on our hands that defies our Constitution.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
28 – Fair point. Assuming that DOMA stays in place and is not found unconstitutional (as I believe it is), it’s less of a problem, but honestly, I have no immediate solution that would satisfy most.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
27
What do you mean “private business”? Is a lunch counter a private business? Can the owner of a lunch counter refuse to serve black people, because, dammit, its the business is his private property and he can do as he dam well pleases?
That was one of the issues back in the sixties. Can the owner of a lunch counter refuse to serve gays?
Is there a difference between those two questions?
And how do you see a private adoption agency as in any way different?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
28
“If this leads to churches being forced to perform, or recognize ‘marriages’ of same sex couples, we have a very big problem on our hands that defies our Constitution.”
It is completely absurd to claim that if the state allows gay marriage that any church would be forced to perform such ceremonies. Where do you get that notion?
It is legal for Jewish people to marry eachother – does that mean that any Jewish couple could walk into any CHristian church and demand to be married? Are you just making up strawmen as a scare tactic?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Your position is that of a property rights absolutist – the government shouldn’t set standards for any private business to operate how it wants, and the free market will sort things out. With that in mind, how do you feel about other, less controversial intrusions of government into businesses’ operating practices, such as health codes for restaurants, etc.?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
#31
Better example: the Catholic Church has yet to be forced to marry a divorcee. It does not fit the church’s definitions of holy matrimony to do so, and the courts won’t touch it even if somebody were to actually try to sue them for it. Civil divorce and the Catholic Church coexist in our society. Gay marriage and the right of churches to define their own beliefs and practice them without interference will as well.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Your position is that of a property rights absolutist – the government shouldn’t set standards for any private business to operate how it wants, and the free market will sort things out. With that in mind, how do you feel about other, less controversial intrusions of government into businesses’ operating practices, such as health codes for restaurants, etc.?
I think that health codes are a matter of informed consent. If a person walks into a restaurant, there’s an understanding that the place is in a healthy condition. If the owner is trying to sweep something under the rug, then it’s deception, and therefore not in the realm of informed consent.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
What do you mean “private business”? Is a lunch counter a private business? Can the owner of a lunch counter refuse to serve black people, because, dammit, its the business is his private property and he can do as he dam well pleases? That was one of the issues back in the sixties. Can the owner of a lunch counter refuse to serve gays? Is there a difference between those two questions?
And how do you see a private adoption agency as in any way different?
Well, it depends on who’s running the lunch counter, obviously. But yes, the owner of a private lunch counter should be able to refuse to serve black people, but he wouldn’t do that anyway in this day and age. Is there a difference? Not really. And I don’t treat them any differently: both are abhorrent, both should be permitted.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
There’s a case to be made that discrimination falls into the same category. The best argument against that case is to question whether the government should be defining what’s “healthy” or not – which brings us back to square one. Once you’ve consented to letting the government regulate which food can go on which shelves in the restaurant’s pantry, it’s not very convincing to argue that it shouldn’t be able to regulate who a restaurant can refuse service to.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“Well, it depends on who’s running the lunch counter, obviously.”
No Alex, it certainly does not depend on who is running the lunch counter.
“But yes, the owner of a private lunch counter should be able to refuse to serve black people”
“…both should be permitted.”
So perhaps you should be more upfront about this. Make is a separate post in your series.
The Republican Party should stand for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Because that is the upshot of your position.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“I think that health codes are a matter of informed consent.”
But they aren’t. They are a matter of protecting public health.
Maybe you think they SHOULD be about informed consent, but they are not.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
There’s a case to be made that discrimination falls into the same category. The best argument against that case is to question whether the government should be defining what’s “healthy” or not – which brings us back to square one. Once you’ve consented to letting the government regulate which food can go on which shelves in the restaurant’s pantry, it’s not very convincing to argue that it shouldn’t be able to regulate who a restaurant can refuse service to.
We’re obviously dealing in hypothetical situations here, since the thought of a business actually denying service to blacks nowadays is utterly preposterous, but if one has a sign up that says “WHITES ONLY,” then I’m not sure how much clearer one can be.
Should the government be defining what’s healthy? Well, someone’s got to do it. Alternately, we could always have “EAT AT YOUR OWN RISK” signs.
Perhaps you’re right, though. After all, what if there were no public health codes? Well, if the government didn’t do it, I imagine that company officials would do it themselves, so as not to mess up their business. I’d rather the businesses monitor themselves than allow the government to do it. Interesting debate; I can see both sides.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
No Alex, it certainly does not depend on who is running the lunch counter.
Yes it does. If the government is running it — the representatives of all of the people — then no discrimination should allowed. If an individual is privately running one, well, why not? It’s his.
So perhaps you should be more upfront about this. Make is a separate post in your series. The Republican Party should stand for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Because that is the upshot of your position.
Maybe you’re forgetting about the other planks of being a majority party: political realism, prioritization, etc. I’m talking about what I support in hypothetical terms. As a matter of policy, of course not; the debate is over.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Oh c’mon Alex – have the courage of your convictions.
If you think the Civil Rights Act was wrong, why not go out and try to persuade the country of that?
Heck, the two great heroes of your movement – Golwater and Reagan, were opposed back when it counted. You could frame this as one of the great planks in the movement to repeal the 1960s – a victory of true conservatism.
Why indeed should free people be prevented from acting on their bigotry? Who is the government to try to prevent them?
December 19th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Alex,
Despite the fact that I didn’t say I had any problems with your “Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility” post, though I did ask you to elaborate on some points, I pretty much agree with this post.
I assume, because of your statement that you support “de-federalization of abortion law” that when you say we should “provide public education about…pregnancy,” you don’t mean that the federal government should be using tax dollars to do so.
I take issue with Point 4, only linguistically, in that it’s illogical to say that it shouldn’t be considered “discriminatory” to assert our cultural superiority. Asserting our cultural superiority is inherently discriminatory. To assert our cultural superiority is to differentiate–to make or constitute a distinction in or between multiple things. Perhaps you should say that it should not be considered hateful to discriminate, seeing as “discriminate” is an amoral word.
Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
December 20th, 2008 at 12:20 am
I was using discrimination in its connotative sense.
The traditional family should be given top priority over other any family model by the GOP, I meant. It’s not something that I personally agree with, but it’s something that sexual liberals (like myself) in the party should be able to concede in the sake of majority-party-building.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:57 am
[...] New Republican Party,” I discussed cultural traditionalism and respect for religious freedom. Here is what I wrote: – America is a nation built upon not only its government and individual citizens, [...]