In today's politics, "Republican" and "Religious Right" have become, if not quite synonyms, an inseparable pair. Thus, it is surprising to learn that many Republicans wish to sever ties with fundamentalists. An article from the January 2009 edition of the publication Church and State titled "Religious right's role in GOP questioned after November electoral defeats" reports on this growing sentiment. According to the article, many Republicans are beginning to feel that their party's association with right-wing religious groups, many of which are thought to be "fanatical" by the general public, creates more harm than good, including conservative syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker:
'"[T]he GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows," Parker wrote. "In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."'
The article points to the backlash caused by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his VP pick as evidence of the dangers that pandering to fundamentalist citizens can create, noting that while Palin appealed to voters who identify as the religious right, the choice lost McCain the support of more moderate factions. Indeed, "'Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness.'"
In The God Strategy, David Domke and Kevin Coe analyze the way that, since the seventies, the Republican Party has tried to reach out and appeal to the Religious Right, espeecially by devoting more words of their platform to issues that religious conservatives care about, such as abortion and the definition of marriage. It seems that today, the GOP is regretting the link that it so carefully forged.
In my opinion, it wouldn't hurt the GOP to put a little distance between themselves and the Religious Right. There are a great deal of "moderate Republicans"-- economically conservative but socially liberal--who would be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate if the fundamentalist agenda wasn't part of the package deal. Although the conservative sector of America deserves to have its voice in American politics as much as any other demographic, they might get more accomplished if the party that represents their interests was not viewed as religiously extreme.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree with Molly when she says that it might be a good idea for the Republican Party to distance themselves from the Religious Right because I think a lot of people do look at them as one combined group. Most liberals and moderates view conservatives as having a religious agenda with their proposed policies. Therefore, I believe that the Republican Party could expand its support base by opening the party to people who might not agree with the religious aspect of conservativism but do agree with Republican economic policies. By leaving the radical right, the Republican party will appeal to a far larger crowd of moderates.
I definitely agree with Molly that the GOP needs to distance itself somewhat from the far religious right. I often feel that political elections boil down to more to a decision to avoid the involvement of radical conservatives than a choice between what the republican and democratic parties traditionally should stand for. If the Republicans were to distance themselves a bit from evangelicals, or at least loosen the ties between themselves and religious fundamentalists, the GOP might well be able to reach out to a much broader demographic and avoid calls of extremism or religious pandering. I think that if this were to happen, the choice between parties would be much more personal, based on the individual values of the voted, rather than the rejection of one party because of the associations it draws.
While I agree that it might be better politically for the Republicans to distance themselves from at least the most fundamentalist members of the Religious Right, I think the last line of the article Molly cited is quite telling: "Americans United noted that it's not uncommon for Republican moderates to attack the Religious Right after a defeat. The same calls were heard after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. If anything, the Religious Right emerged even stronger." Could that happen again? You can have your own opinion about whether such a reemergence would be a good thing or not, but it is interesting to posit. Could the Republican Party, still tightly connected to the Religious Right, gain prominence again in the next few election cycles? Is there any scenario where that could happen?
It’s important to remember, too, that the Republican Party got itself into this ‘mess’ of being connected to the Religious Right, and they have benefitted nicely because of it for the last 30 years. Is there a point of no return for the Republican Party, where it will be destroyed with or without the Religious Right? I think that the Republican Party has not reached that point yet, and it could still rise again, even with the Religious Right. Now, while everything looks really bad for the Republicans, Molly’s suggestions make sense. But the Republicans don’t necessarily have to change the fundamental make-up of their party in order to rise again. It will be interesting to see if they can achieve the seemingly impossible.
Post a Comment