Kathleen Parker writes in her column, “Giving Up on God,” that in the aftermath of Sen. John McCain and the GOP’s disastrous showing in the 2008 general election, there is a need for the party to distance it’s self from the overtly religious positions that have dominated the platform for the past twenty years. In her article, Parker believes that as the American electorate becomes more diverse, less likely to have traditional families, and has shifting religious beliefs the Republican Party’s political success will continue to decline.
I agree with one part of Parker’s argument and disagree with another. Let us begin with our agreement: which is on the issue of diversity. No one can deny the fact that while America is becoming increasingly more diverse, the Republican Party is not. President Barack Obama won the election handily with the same amount of support from various demographic groups Sen. George McGovern had carried during his lost in the 1972 presidential contest in the largest landslide in election history; large amounts of support from African-Americans, Hispanics, affluent and young voters, and about 40 percent of the total white vote. The difference between the two was the electorate. In 1972, the electorate was 90 percent white, but in 2008 the electorate was 72 percent white. If the current trends continue, by the 2040 presidential election, the electorate will be majority-minority, with white voters making up less than half of the voting population. An increased minority support for the GOP is essential to remaining a viable political party.
Where I disagree with Parker is when it comes to religion and voters. I do not believe religious voters can vote on non-religious grounds. For them, religion is the lenses through which “values-voters” see not only their votes, but also every aspect of their lives. Furthermore, I do not believe that religion is somehow dead or on some type of decline. Religious voters right now are raising their children with the same values that they grew up with and those values will not leave them. What is most important to the Republican Party is to take an ecumenical approach to faith, encouraging the community as a whole to engage with them on social and life issues. If the faith the GOP preaches to the masses can take on a more inclusive tone, it will allow Republicans to become a “big-tent party,” draw-in new voters, and become competitive on a national level again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I agree with the argument in this post. Although the GOP's "stronghold" on religion has benefitted them in general, their inability to branch out and get votes from other major sectors was their downfall in 2008. Obama made it very clear that religion was important to him, however, unlike the Republican Party, he didn't make it a defining characteristic of his campaign. The GOP will continue to harbor the support of the "Bible Belt" and religious sectors of the country so long as it keeps religion--and conservatism--a priority in their agenda. And considering that they will always benefit form this contribution, why would they change their stance on religion? Sometimes being extreme is more beneficial than straddling the fence--something politicians do too often. At least in this case, we know where the GOP stands.
As Julius noted, I think a change in tone in the conversation the GOP is currently having with the public would greatly benefit the party. Rather than an exclusive tone that appeals to particular faiths, an inviting tone would provide a more inviting message and broaden the party’s appeal to a greater constituency. We discussed the idea of “civil religion” in class, in which the rhetoric can be religious but is also subtle enough to be open to interpretation. Inclusive religious rhetoric can still speak to a particular constituency directly, as the GOP does now, but the conversation can also touch other constituencies as well.
I agree with Julius, Rahul, and David that the Republican Party will benefit from increased minority support. However, I am not convinced that this increase in minority support is immediately necessary for the party's "viability" or that lack of minority support was the reason for the party's downfall in the 2008 election. It seems to me that the downfall of the Republican Party was the result of a combination of two factors: a voting populace that was angry with a presidency they believed was marred by ineptitude and administrative failure and a campaign that just happened to hit the core desires of the populace with taglines like change and yes, we can. This is not to say that the Republican Party won't have to broaden their message to speak to more demographics - this is simply to point out that these changes alone may not translate to political victory.
While I support the argument that religion in America is not on the decline, and I agree with Julius’ contention that values-voters see politics and society through a religious lens, it seems clear to me that the Republican Party, for good or for ill, has hitched its destiny to the future of conservative Christianity. Evangelicals and fundamentalists make up the backbone of the Republican Party throughout the United States. The Republican Party simply cannot “become a ‘big tent’ party,” as Julius claims it should, because the party’s base would revolt.
Clearly, in this age of “political correctness” and “tolerance,” becoming more ecumenical seems to be the only option for success. And perhaps widening the tent is the only way for the Republican Party to achieve dominance once again. However, Julius is suggesting solutions that are not feasible because of the present make-up of the party.
I really like this post. You brought a lot to the table and made a convincing argument. I do agree with you that the GOP needs to change and incorporate more views into its party to include minority voters. This is quite a daunting task, however, as it is hard to keep the GOP's strong religious right support as well as expand to the minority. What do you propose to do to make this happen?
Post a Comment