Thursday, January 7, 2016

Re: Things the GOP has to get to win the elections

Recently a twitter follower of mine by the name of Tomás Allende Conte sent me his article, "Things the GOP has to get to win the elections." So I thought what's the best way to address his suggestion was with an article in response.

Conte's first suggestion for the grand old party, or as most know them, Republicans is to (1) steal the gays, assuming most like himself don't care whether or not a business sells him a wedding cake, caters his wedding, etc. "The GOP must get over the gay issue, it’s gone, you may as well tell gay people they are welcomed into your party." I find that there are two problems with this suggestion.

My first issue is more of a clarification: one does not have to be a conservative (traditionalist) to be in the Republican party. Therefore it is possible for anyone of any race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, to be a Republican as long as they subscribe to the goals of the party, some of which include believing that the United States is an exceptional country, families should be strong and free from government intrusion, and the Constitution should be treasured and upheld. Regardless I understand why there is a confusion between conservative traditional values and the Republican party, considering within today's recent shift within both parties where those on the far left and far right have demanded larger representation within their own respective parties. A great example of this is the new GOP platform where they cite traditional marriage as the cornerstone of America, something most parties wouldn't even bother citing in the early 2000s. It would have just been a given. How do I know this to be the case? Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage in 2004, and more recently while running for President of the United States, she changed her mind on the subject. It is important to remember a Democrat can be a conservative (or a traditionalist) and a Republican can be a liberal (or a non-traditionalist). Technically gays were always welcome to the party.

Second problem, under the backdrop of this recent overwhelming cultural shift, is it best for the Republican to "pander" to certain groups that commonly beg the Federal government (and the Democratic party) for recognition? Would it be best for a party that has bluntly stated "we want the Federal government out of our lives" to pander to a group mostly comprised of people who want the Federal government in their lives? It may be the case that you (whether part of the LGBT or an ally) will say "I don't care if a restaurant, photographer, or bakery does not wish to provide their services at my wedding," however the case isn't yours to decide, it's now left up to the courts. (Which was my issue with the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage last year, for more clarification check out my video here.) More to the point, the Republican party values individualism while the Democratic party values collectivism. Would it be appropriate for a party that has historically valued individualism and resistance to Federal government overreach to then promote the actions of LGBT groups like the expansion of gay marriage by way of the Supreme Court? No. It's no secret, the Republican party does not pander to "oppressed" minorities including the LGBT and even though some within the party (usually establishment Republicans) see this as a flaw, I find it refreshing to know that the party overall doesn't care that I'm a woman or Hispanic in the same way the Democrat party would. Regardless, this anti-pandering mindset does not stop LGBT Republican grassroots groups like Log Cabin Republicans from actually getting there message and ideas across. A message, when looked at objectively does not only contradict with the token "traditionalism" within the party, but with the idea of smaller government in which people within the state decide the laws governing that state (10th Amendment).

Small note: Let's say the Republican party actually decides to "steal to the gays," do we really think there will be a massive migration of LGBT members moving into the Republican party? Sorry but I don't believe that would happen, neither does the party, which may be another reason why the establishment won't even consider it. It is also why they don't consider reaching out to other voters like women, minorities, and young people from the Democrats. It's not enough to say "well you should try to reach out to gays," you have to explain why they should and how this would benefit the party, other than saying "well it will make the party more diverse." Remember, in most Republican and conservative circles diversity is not a virtue.

My understanding of the GOP (or even the Democrat party) accepting the concept of gay marriage is that its a recent phenomena that most people were not prepared to have an opinion on. It has blindsided many politicians and citizens who would have never thought of the concept just ten years ago and now have decided to address gay marriage in the same way they address everything else that is a social issue. In the Democrat's case they have a preconceived moral standards founded on a utopian equality for collective human happiness, while Republicans have moral standards of traditionalism mixed with individualism as a means of human happiness.

As for how some Republicans and most conservatives feel about gay marriage, to paraphrase conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro, "gay people originally said we don't want the government to prosecute us for being gay, and everybody went OK makes sense. Afterward they said don't worry we won't want government benefits. Within ten years they wanted civil unions, and everybody went I guess that's OK. The homosexual community then said well don't worry we won't want same sex marriage. Then within ten years they wanted same-sex marriage and everyone went OK. Now within two years they were trying to throw bakers in jail from not catering same-sex weddings." This is exactly why most Republicans address this social issue and to be honest some homosexuals within the Republican party do as well. In fact most of the members in my college Republican group were gay, and didn't really care about being "married," rather they say their lifestyle as extremely opposed to the idea of marriage at all. On that note, if you would like to know about where I personally stand on the issue of gay-marriage read my Modest Secular Proposal.  Moving on.

His second suggestion is a bit more obvious, even to those not paying attention to party politics. (2) "Clinton is a radical feminist: This should be your mantra for the campaign." Furthermore Clinton when compared to Trump and Sanders will not be viewed as a radical, so make her accountable for the stances she takes. If she stands with BLM, does an interview with Lena Dunham, or disregards male rape ask her why.

"Journalists" behind the Rope
In principal I love this idea. A political figure, especially someone running for president, should be held accountable for their actions in the past and present in order for the voter to make an informed decision. Unfortunately there can be no accountability where there is no ability to hold someone to account. The GOP has already tried to show the public scandal after scandal and they have slipped away from public view like water off a duck's back. Whether we bring up the the Monica Lewinsky scandal, to Benghazi, to Whitewater, to the disappearance then reappearance of the Rose Law Firm records, to the Clinton Foundation receiving money for favors, nothing has seemed to stick and I blame the left-wing media. Most news media outlets have let her and her husband come out unscathed, unworried, and bold enough to rope them in like cattle.

Conte's third suggestion is easier to write than implement: forget Bill Clinton. He writes, "You’re fighting for the young demographic, the Lewinsky scandal is gone, and if you go after that, you risk getting called on dismissing traditional family values."

To this I must say, how can we go after Hillary for being a feminist (someone who claims to support women's issues) if we don't bring up this scandal? What about other women that were sexually involved with Bill, like  Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey? Not the mention the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick supposedly back in 1978 by her husband. What's even more ironic is this recent Hillary Clinton tweet:

So she's only a feminist (using the usual feminist definition of course) when it comes to trying to get the female vote, but when it comes to her personal life she is not. She not only ignores male rape, but female rape accusations as well. Furthermore while we are on the subject of rape, back in 1975 Hillary legally defended an alleged rapist of a 12 year old girl. Now suddenly today in 2016 I'm supposed to believe she is a "defender of women?" Oh, did I mention Lena Dunham in her own book admitted to molesting her little sister? I didn't? Did I mention Dunham lied about a sexual assault by a college campus Republican? Well neither did most mainstream journalists. Ultimately my question becomes how can we challenge her character, judgement, and honesty if we don't go back and look at these scandals? We can't. We won't. We shouldn't.

As for Conte's worry of "risk getting called on dismissing traditional family values" by bringing up past sexual indiscretions of former President Bill Clinton, the issue from my perspective doesn't have anything to do necessarily with morality, it has everything to do with national security and lying to millions of Americans while under oath. Any flaw in character can become a flaw in America's national security. For example the president can be extorted by our enemies to either fund or promote their nefarious activities. From my perspective being pro-family values is akin to being anti-risky behaviors, therefore it would make sense those who are pro-family values within the Republican party are going to address Clinton's sexual history in that manner. Honestly the risk of Republican embarrassment seems worth it given the level of the position Hillary Clinton is seeking: the presidency.

Lastly, Conte suggests the GOP not only ignore Bill's past indiscretions, but ignore the idea that global warming does not exist, "Even if you believe it’s not real, there is no evidence it isn’t, so instead of getting yourself stuck in a very difficult position, go to the economics. Why a carbon tax doesn’t work? How has been the handling of the issue been under Democrats? There is a lot to criticize there without saying it’s not real." He goes on to write, "You won’t win that argument, the academia is on the democrats on this one, and to be perfectly honest so am I, in principle..."

Global warming or should I say climate change, or whatever else they decide to call it in the years to come, is a theory and not necessarily a fact. Forgive me if I believe a 1.02C increase in average world temperature isn't a big deal. That being said I will ignore that slight difference between us and I can agree with Conte's overall message, whether or not you agree with the theory the solution to this theory does not solve the theoretical problem. Unlike Conte, I not only want the GOP focus on the horrible carbon tax policy, I want to delve into how the issue is dealt with by politicians during campaigns. Interestingly enough Obama used this theory to promote his presidential campaign. During his nomination victory speech President Obama said his moment (presidency) will be "the moment when the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and our planet will begin to heal..." I highly doubt the (theoretical) issue of climate change will be solved in a mere 4 (now 8) year presidential term, but call me crazy (or better yet Republican). False promises of grandeur like Obama's on the subject of climate change is probably one of the reasons I don't take the theory very seriously. Without any specifics on what Republicans can do except stop denying the theory and then stop denying the "solution," I'd be interested to see if Conte would like Republicans to do the same thing: run on changing the temperature during their term but use different solutions for the problem.

Believe me I understand the need for a Republican image problem to attract those outside of the party, but if the restructuring of the Republican party means it's values are going to be revised because we need to be on the "right side of history," then to many conservatives like myself it's not going to be worth it. The Republican party's reputation by the overall public is one thing, it's reputation to it's own members is another thing altogether.