I’m a Republican — and “social conservatism” must be stopped

[DonViejo]

For a Republican like me, the current agenda of many on the right is politically stupid and counter-productive

MATT BARNUM

Rep. Randy Forbes is not happy. The Republican Party is not actively discriminating against gay congressional candidates as much as he’d like, and social conservatives like Forbes are fed up. He’s lashing out because he fears his brand of social conservatism is dying, and has no idea what to do about it. I’m a Republican, so I think Forbes’ crusade is not only politically stupid, it’s also undermining the very social conservative values that he purports to champion.

Today, “social conservatism” has come to mean fighting the demographically lost battle against same-sex marriage, and the legally lost battle against abortion. No ideology has narrowed in such a startling way. The culprit? Social conservatism. As a Republican who supports things like fewer abortions, I think it’s unfortunate that socially conservative means aren’t in line with socially conservative ends.

The best example is marriage equality, which conservatives have been battling now for over a decade. What’s odd about this fight is the extent to which gay rights activists have donned the trapping of family values (sometimes to criticism from those on the left). Go to the Human Rights Campaign website, and you’ll see talk of religion and faith, adoption and foster care, commitment, parenting, and of course marriage. These are often considered fundamentally conservative values — so why aren’t conservatives celebrating rather than fighting them? The answer, of course, is the historical and religious opposition to homosexuality. For better or worse (I think worse), this religious-based view is undermining the simple conservative belief in the importance of marriage and family.

That’s not the only instance where social conservatism undercuts itself. Take abortion. Social conservatives believe that the number of abortions should be reduced or eliminated (I agree). Yet, social conservatives support a host of policies — such as abstinence-only education and limiting access to contraception — that will actually increase abortion.

full article:
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/im_a_republican_%E2%80%94_and_social_conservatism_must_be_stopped/

[pinto]

1. Interesting take from with in the RW civil war.

Dems! GOTV 2014.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. GOP: "Repeal the 20th Century"

[Kablooie]

3. The anti-abortion people never approach the problem realistically.

They have a right to disapprove of abortion and to do what they can legally to decrease the frequency but inventing prohibitive laws is a ridiculous and evil way to do it.

If I were them I'd work on a publicity campaign that educates women who have unwanted pregnancies about alternative options available to them such as adoption and I'd work to increase public support for them if they decide to keep their child.

The way to decrease abortions is create an environment that encourages women to make the decision themselves not to have an abortion.

To cram an unwanted baby down their throat doesn't help anyone.

[Maw Kettle]

4. This^^^ (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

5. Most of them aren't serious. Otherwise they'd would at least tolerate support and provisions made to

support for the children that are born so that folks can rationally make such a choice.

[Kablooie]

6. Republicans never seem to address the issues that arise from their decrees.

They seem to think they can order YES or NO decrees about life and that is the end of the discussion.
Each of those decisions can create a myriad of problems that must be addressed but they refuse to acknowledge this.
That's why their philosophy is to decrepit.
They want things their way without taking any of the responsibility for the consequences.

[Jamaal510]

7. If it weren't for

Republicans enraging women, gays, minorities, etc. with their social conservatism and their rhetoric, then they'd be doing alright in national elections. I'm not one to give the GOP advice, but if they would shy away from that stuff and maybe just stick to their message of low taxes, then they might become more competitive nationally again. They really don't have much to lose in stepping into the 21st century with social policy because who else is there for the RWnuts to vote for besides the Republicans? They sure as Hell won't vote for any Democrat, and even with the Libertarian Party, not many people on the Right are fans of their non-interventionist foreign policy and their lax drug policy.

[TheKentuckian]

8. I think they can't afford for them to stay home and no one else is going to provide energy

This shit is where the excitement comes from.

I don't think they'd do too well on voodoo economics for long either, some Democrats would be forced to give some opposition to have something to run on and the people are thirsty for that alternative to the "common wisdom".