Every reliable survey reveals a bell curve distribution of American political opinion. A solid majority of Americans, usually some 70 to 80 percent of the electorate, holds basically moderate views, center-left on social issues and center-right on economic issues. And yet, oddly, the overwhelming majority of elected officials represent the most extreme 10 percent on either side of the spectrum. Some of the reasons for this fundamental imbalance in the American political system can be seen in the career of William Frenzel, a Republican Congressman who represented suburban Minneapolis from 1971 to 1991.
A Dartmouth graduate, Korean War veteran, and successful businessman, Bill Frenzel fit the once-familiar profile of the Harold Stassen or Dwight Eisenhower variety of moderate Republican. He arrived in Congress as an opponent of the Vietnam War and a reformer willing to tilt with old Democratic dragons of the status quo such as the tyrannical House Administration Committee chairman Wayne Hays, who sometimes retaliated against his critics by shutting off the air conditioning in their offices during the broiling Washington summers. He joined the House Wednesday Group, a generally moderate association of non-ideological Republican pragmatists, and was willing to reach compromise agreements with his Democratic counterparts on the Ways and Means and Budget committees. But he was also an ardent fiscal conservative, described as “the only real free-trader in Congress,” who lived by Cicero’s 55 BC injunction that “The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.”
The result was that Frenzel often found himself in political no-man’s land, strafed by both sides. Liberals disliked him for his tight-fisted approach to social spending, his skepticism towards welfare, and his unwillingness to bail out unsound financial entities such as New York City circa 1975 and the Chrysler Corporation circa 1979. Electoral reformers objected to his opposition to campaign spending limits and same-day voter registration schemes, and his defense of political action committees. Labor and consumer interest groups awarded him failing grades year after year. At the same time, his moderately pro-choice position earned him the enmity of evangelical Christian groups, who seized the Republican Party machinery in his district and crushed his allies on the state central committee.
The hostility toward Frenzel also revealed that the New Right was not, in fact, conservative – at least so far as fiscal conservativism was concerned. His opposition to agricultural subsidies and import quotas on textiles was anathema to Southerners like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, while his criticism of cheap, federally-subsidized electric power put him on the opposite side of Westerners like Dick Cheney. His votes against bloated defense appropriations annoyed conservatives who considered it unpatriotic to apply economic rationality to military spending.
Frenzel did not share the New Right’s fetishization of tax-cutting. Realism compelled him to admit that some level of government spending was necessary and would have to be paid for. But he was impolite enough to observe that some of the most avid tax-cutting conservatives outdid even liberal Democrats as earmarkers and free-spenders, and curmudgeonly enough to dwell on the deficits that supply-siders dismissed as irrelevant.
Ultimately, Frenzel was punished for refusing to go along with his colleague’s appropriations requests, and his fiscal conservatism likely cost him a leadership role in the House. He took a resigned view of the devolution of Republican conservatives into big spenders, knowing that they worried about reelection just like the Democrats. And, he observed, “Once you become an appropriator, you get used to spreading the goodies around. You’ve been in Santa’s workshop for a long time, and you know how to send out the electric trains and the sleds and the dolls. And you learn how to go along to get along.” The back-scratching struck him as one of the worst aspects of Congress, and he noted that “If you’re a moderate Republican, you get the worst of both worlds, because you get punished both for being socially liberal and for being fiscally conservative. You’re doubly handicapped.”
The Republican Party has succeeded in purging itself of irritating moderates like Frenzel, but at what cost? Christian conservatives in Minnesota have been able to dominate the Republican Party but have proved incapable of attracting what Frenzel called “potential Republican voters who would vote in a primary but who wouldn’t come to a caucus and sit through hours of talk about killing babies.” Ideological enforcers like the Club for Growth have knocked off Frenzel-type Republicans in parts of the country including the Northeast, West, and upper Midwest where only a socially moderate and fiscally conservative Republican would have a chance of winning. And the Republicans’ swinish spending during their years in power has bankrupted their claim to be an alternative to Democratic budget-busting; so far as the public is concerned, the GOP is merely awaiting its turn back at the trough. The Republicans may enjoy greater internal cohesion without the likes of Bill Frenzel in their ranks, but making room for moderates once again may bring both majority power and a return to true fiscal responsibility.
30 responses so far
1 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 5:50 am
“Ultimately, Frenzel was punished for refusing to go along with his colleagues appropriations requests, and his fiscal conservatism likely cost him a leadership role in the House. He took a resigned view of the devolution of Republican conservatives into big spenders, knowing that they worried about reelection just like the Democrats.”
Professor, forgive me if I’m being a bit cynical here, but is your intention to stoke anger and resentment against the Trent Lott/Tom DeLay Republicans?
If so, that’s fine… I actually view both Lott and DeLay as RINOs in the sense that they were more concerned with power and acted more like Democrats when it came to appropriations than true believers in fiscal responsibility.
The thing is… my problem with this analogy if such was your intent…
“William Frenzel, a Republican Congressman who represented suburban Minneapolis from 1971 to 1991.”
1991.
1991.
No… not 2001… not 2003-2006…
1991.
Sorry, professor, but wasn’t Bob Michel the Republican Leader in the House in 1991? Not exactly a wild-eyed Religious Right fanatic.
(*SHRUG*)
Hmm… and didn’t the Republicans – after decades out of power – recapture the House in 1994… led by… er… a “gang” of Right wingers?
“Frenzel did not share the New Rights fetishization of tax-cutting. Realism compelled him to admit that some level of government spending was necessary and would have to be paid for.”
Wow. (*SMILE*) One can learn so much here at NM. For instance, prior to right now… prior to reading Professor Kabaservice’s piece… I had no idea that certain Republicans back between 1971 and 1991 believed in NOT TAXES – none at all. But, hey… according to the Prof they were against all spending too… so I guess that’s… er… balance.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Anyway… the intent of the author to laud the “good old days” of Republican minority status built upon “go along to get along” and hope to pick up the crumbs of power is quite clear.
Me? I’m 100% with the Professor in terms of having only contempt for those Republicans who act like Democrats (when it comes to spending and corruption) when in power, but it seems to me that if we’re going to look back to a “Golden Age” of TRUE conservatism in the House, we should be looking back to 1994-98 (perhaps extending that to 2000).
BILL
2 danbmil99 // May 4, 2009 at 6:08 am
Sounds like a great guy. This is the first time I’ve heard that my basic position (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) is representative of a large swath of the public. I’d like to see the data on that, because if it’s true, it lends credibility to the idea that there’s a center that is being ignored by both sides.
Time for a new party.
3 ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 6:54 am
“And yet, oddly, the overwhelming majority of elected officials represent the most extreme 10 percent on either side of the spectrum.”
……I actually don’t think this is true of the democrats today and it wasn’t true of the Republicans 20 years ago. Unless of course you think a desire for universal healthcare or favoring stem cell research are “extreme” positions. The Democratic tent is much larger than the Republican one. This is both a strength and a weakness. Their electoral base is more diversified by just about every measure but their legislative coalition is harder to manage. Ben Nelson is much closer to Republicans than he is to Henry Waxman. This in a nutshell is the current Republican problem. They need to make the tent bigger but in fact they are making it smaller.
4 ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 7:06 am
barker13
5:50 AM
“we’re going to look back to a “Golden Age” of TRUE conservatism in the House, we should be looking back to 1994-98 (perhaps extending that to 2000).”
……Precisely when the seeds of over reach, abuse of power, corruption, and extreme partisanship were sown by people like DeLay and Gingrich. The time when Gingrich tried to shut down the govt, when they launched the disastrous Clinton impeachment that first started to turn off mainstream Republicans like myself, when Gingrich and others were forced to resign. Yes I can see that would appeal to far right extremists. It’s an interesting parlor game to look back 80 years to 1933 which is really the starting point for the creation of the modern American state and the GOP has actually been in control of house and senate for a surprisingly short period of time in both cases.
5 Bulldoglover100 // May 4, 2009 at 7:24 am
Our party has to admit sooner or later that the so called leaders we elected were some of the poorest in history. We bought the flash and smile and they took our children and our money. Simple as that.
Cheney was the worst but I know in my heart that the day will come when he stands to be judged by his maker and I pity is soul.
6 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 10:56 am
Re: Ottovbvs; 7:06 AM –
Obviously we disagree, but I will say that DeLay needed Gingrich the way Marc Antony needed Caesar.
(*SHRUG*)
As to the government shutdown… Newt was right to draw a line in the sand.
BILL
7 Realist // May 4, 2009 at 11:08 am
The GOP is viewed as being more authoritarian than conservative these days. The over the top power grab for executive powers by Bush administration officials and lawyers obviously did not sit very well with voters in 2006 and 2008. Cheney was the heart and soul of this effort.
The slavish adherence to litmus tests issued by social conservatives further propagates this notion. Are we the party of intrusion into bedrooms and laboratories, or are we truly committed to less government interference? You can’t have it both ways: if you want less government control of your budgets in the form of lower taxes, you cannot then follow that up with intrusions into personal lives.
The dilemma for the GOP then is whether some sort of comprimise can be reached with an uncomprimising wing of the party. My gut tells me No. Unfortunately, the loss of the social conservatives would truly mean the end of the Republican party.
40 days and 40 nights I’m afraid.
8 ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 11:53 am
barker13
wrote 46 minutes agoRe: Ottovbvs; 7:06 AM –
” As to the government shutdown… Newt was right to draw a line in the sand”
……Yep that’s why he was in full retreat within 10 days…This was a very typical bit of Newt recklessness that ultimately resulted in him being forced from the leadership and the house…..The same features were apparent in his private life….the guy is a clever, loose cannon, goofball which is why he’ll never be president
….You should look at the control numbers I mentioned…they surprised me….in the last 70 odd years the GOP has only been in control of house and senate for around 20 of them so you could say the 1994-2006 period was a bit of an abberation and things are returning to normal with the difference that both parties are much more ideologically homogenous than they were previously when for example the Dems had the conservative southern bloc in its ranks.
9 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Re: Realist; 11:08 AM –
“The GOP is viewed as being more authoritarian than conservative these days.”
I’m aware of no evidence supporting this contention. Ya wanna attempt to back it up, Realist?
(Hey… I’m always open to new facts!) (*WINK*)
“The slavish adherence to litmus tests issued by social conservatives…”
Again, while I recognize and appreciate the point you’re trying to make by inference concerning single issue (or litmus issues, plural, if you’d prefer) voters, I believe both Parties count among their constituencies such folks.
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 37 minutes ago –
We continue to disagree about tactics, strategy, and… er… principles – to a large extent at least.
As to Newt’s private life…
Just out of curiousity… (*LAUGHING MY ASS OFF*)… do you see the irony of you bringing it right after Realist’s post?
(*SMILE*)
Seriously… I agree to an extent concerning Newt’s private life. Sure, no one drowned because of Newt’s behavior… but I like to hold my political icons to a slightly higher standard than that.
(*CHUCKLE*)
I do note your “control numbers.” They’re snapshots in time. (*SHRUG*) Not discounting them… simply placing them in their proper perspective.
BILL
10 ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm
barker13
wrote 11 minutes ago
……Gingrich’s professional and personal recklessness destroyed his career. He’s one of the most distrusted men in America and is now reduced to gigs on Fox News and at Heritage Foundation conferences. He’s never even going to be the Republican nominee for president. ie. He’s a failure in a sense that Clinton and Kennedy are not. I’m not carrying a banner for Kennedy
but he’s one of the most powerful members of the senate and widely revered as a national treasure (although not by the 25-30 who hate Obama).
…..My control years are basically when modern America was created. They bear much more resemblance to America in 2009 than 1909 does and are therefore a legitimate timeline on our society.
11 danbmil99 // May 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Realist says: “The dilemma for the GOP then is whether some sort of comprimise can be reached with an uncomprimising wing of the party. My gut tells me No. Unfortunately, the loss of the social conservatives would truly mean the end of the Republican party.”
I don’t see why. The Dems are doing OK without letting the *truly* crazy wing of the party control things (yet).
The choice is not to banish socons like they’re trying to banish what they call “RINO’s” (basically conservatives who don’t agree with their litmus issues). What we can do is simply adjust their sway on the party platform to the point where we can attract moderates and independents back to the GOP.
The problem of course is that the primary system leads in the other direction. Candidates have to do this crazy hypocritical dance to one side, then back to the middle to get elected. Only for the GOP, they’re no longer allowed to go near the middle.
12 Ken.McLoud // May 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm
It seems to me that the main problem here is that we have confused social conservatism with governmental conservatism.
Governmental conservatism holds that the only reason that governments are instituted among men is to protect their rights. Also, that any expansion of government beyond this end should be limited to the greatest extent possible.
Social conservatism holds that our culture was better in the past. That traditional (particularly christian) views on sexuality, race relations, etc.. should be preserved going into the future. If the society was better in the past then the way to ensure a better future is to be more like the past.
Due to some cosmic mix up the two have been combined to form the Republican party, even though on the face of it, they appear to have nothing in common. In fact, the two are really 180 degrees opposed to each other on almost every issue that social conservatives care about. A pure governmental conservative would firmly oppose any attempt by a social conservative to use the government’s power to enforce social beliefs.
Herein lies our problem. The very makeup of our party is illogical.
13 Ken.McLoud // May 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm
It seems to me that the main problem here is that we have confused social conservatism with governmental conservatism.
Governmental conservatism holds that the only reason that governments are instituted among men is to protect their rights. Also, that any expansion of government beyond this end should be limited to the greatest extent possible.
Social conservatism holds that our culture was better in the past. That traditional (particularly christian) views on sexuality, race relations, etc.. should be preserved going into the future. If the society was better in the past then the way to ensure a better future is to be more like the past.
Due to some cosmic mix up the two have been combined to form the Republican party, even though on the face of it, they appear to have nothing in common. In fact, the two are really 180 degrees opposed to each other on almost every issue that social conservatives care about. A pure governmental conservative would firmly oppose any attempt by a social conservative to use the government’s power to enforce social beliefs.
Herein lies our problem. The very makeup of our party is illogical.
14 ESB // May 4, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@ danbmill99: “The problem of course is that the primary system leads in the other direction. Candidates have to do this crazy hypocritical dance to one side, then back to the middle to get elected. Only for the GOP, they’re no longer allowed to go near the middle.”
This is an intriguing observation, but I think blaming the primary system is too simplistic. On one hand, your description fits the McCain campaign, to a point, namely in its relationship to the socons. The erstwhile “maverick” paid obeisance to Falwell et al. while waiting to jump back in the presidential race. Yet to the extent that he tacked to the middle during the general election — I didn’t notice much movement, myself; Mr. Earmarks is and always has been a conservative — he undid it with his choice of Sarah Palin. Is the problem the primary electorate, or the Republican electorate? Are these the same people?
Memories of poor Bob Dole feigning soul-brotherhood with Jack Kemp, R.I.P., also come to mind.
15 Ken.McLoud // May 4, 2009 at 2:22 pm
It seems to me that the main problem here is that we have confused social conservatism with governmental conservatism.
Governmental conservatism holds that the only reason that governments are instituted among men is to protect their rights. Also, that any expansion of government beyond this end should be limited to the greatest extent possible.
Social conservatism holds that our culture was better in the past. That traditional (particularly christian) views on sexuality, race relations, etc.. should be preserved going into the future. If the society was better in the past then the way to ensure a better future is to be more like the past.
Due to some cosmic mix up the two have been combined to form the Republican party, even though on the face of it, they appear to have nothing in common. In fact, the two are really 180 degrees opposed to each other on almost every issue that social conservatives care about. A pure governmental conservative would firmly oppose any attempt by a social conservative to use the government’s power to enforce social beliefs.
Herein lies our problem. The very makeup of our party is illogical.
16 barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Re: Danbmil99; wrote 21 minutes ago –
“…what they call “RINO’s” (basically conservatives who don’t agree with their litmus issues).”
I won’t speak for “they,” but I’ll gladly speak for “I.”
The sense in which I use “RINO” is in the sense of a hypocrite – specifically with regard to government spending and government growth.
As to “Litmus Tests”…
Well, I expect Republicans – those I consider “real” Republicans – to broadly share my constitutionalist views. They should be big fans of Thomas and Scalia.
Other than that I’m pretty broad minded.
(*WINK*)
BILL
17 sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Ken McLoud: Religion was the philosophical basis of the modern conservative movement, from its very beginning in the 1950s.
The book that first launched William F. Buckley to prominence was “God and Man at Yale” (1951), in which he noted how liberal Ivy League universities like Yale were forcing secularism on their students, even on religious students. This made Buckley think about how liberalism was taking away our other freedoms too.
As Ayn Rand pointed out over 40 years ago, modern conservatism’s moral justification for individual rights came from religion. The way National Review saw it, Big Government was threatening to take away our GOD-GIVEN rights.
Meanwhile, starting in the 1960s, the social conservatives felt betrayed by the social engineering of the Democratic Party, from the Voting Rights Act (which alienated Southern whites) to welfare and forced busing (which alienated Northern whites). They were ready to consider a party switch. First they tried a third party in 1968, but that proved a loser, like all third parties.
So in the 1970s, what emerged was a broad coalition of economic conservatives (opposed to liberal statism), foreign policy hawks (opposed to Communist advances in the world), and social conservatives (opposed to “atheistic” leftism). And as long as they were all fighting against liberal secularism at home and “atheistic” Communist advances abroad, this coalition held together.
But once they won, and took over the government from the liberals, they now had to institute actual policy. And after Communism collapsed and the Cold War ended, the disagreements on policy among those three factions of the conservative coalition became visible.
Hope this helps.
18 cb55 // May 4, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I think this argument gets old. We keep getting told that “moderates” have been successfully kicked out of the party. Yet are last president was prett moderate- unless being pro-choice is Kabaservice’s requirement for being considered a “moderate.” Our last presidential candidate, John McCain was pretty moderate, but again he is pro-life, so that might not meet the criteria. Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, and many others seem pretty moderate to me.
If being pro-choice- or voting for Obama’s stimulus package is actually what is required to be in this moderate club- since Specter, Snowe, and Collins seem to be the only ones these people here seem to give that title to, then this conversation is stupid, and you people are as very bit as exclusionary as you are claiming conservatives to be.
19 danbmil99 // May 5, 2009 at 12:51 am
Slightly off-topic, but not completely: The GOP house just voted overwhelmingly against addition of sexual preference and gender identity to the hate crime statues. NOT hate speech; hate crime, as in violence.
How can a social moderate take that vote as anything other than unbridled bigotry and support of violence against people whose lifestyle choices aren’t the same as your own?
Way to go GOP! Moving right into the mid-20th century.
20 barker13 // May 5, 2009 at 6:30 am
Re: Sinz54; 4:36 PM –
“…Ayn Rand…”
http://solohq.org/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand,_Objectivism,_and_Religion_(Part_1_of_4).shtml
“Among authors and philosophers, Ayn Rand is noteworthy for her atheism and uncompromising opposition to religion. Unlike many non-believers who see utilitarian value to religion, Rand is somewhat unique in seeing (with minor exceptions) virtually no value to religion.”
Re: Danbmil99; 12:51 AM –
Good for the GOP.
I’m against crime. “Crime.” Period.
BILL
21 sinz54 // May 5, 2009 at 7:31 am
danbmil99: Many conservatives, such as myself, regard all so-called “hate crimes” legislation as politically correct statism.
If you murder someone, you should be tried and convicted of murder. It doesn’t make your crime somehow worse because the person you murdered was a member of a Protected Class like blacks.
All human beings are created equal. But “hate crimes” laws suggest that some humans are more equal than others.
And we should explain that to the American people.
22 sinz54 // May 5, 2009 at 7:36 am
cb55: There is no room for social moderates, or their ideas, in the GOP anymore. This means those who aren’t animated by same-sex marriage, abortion, and premarital sex.
The 1976 Platform acknowledged that there were differing views on these issues. The 2008 Platform does not. It takes a hard-right stance on all of them, without even acknowledging that those who disagree can still be proud Republicans.
23 cb55 // May 5, 2009 at 10:34 am
KenMcCloud: I do not necessarily agree with your point on social conservatism and governmental conservatism.
First of all, some coalitions are just necessary. And in my opinion social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives need to find common ground. And they can- someone who is pro-choice, or someone who just does not really care about the issue, can still find common ground with social conservatism. As a “governmental conservatives” you should at least have the stance that the federal government should not be deciding what the abortion policy is for very state and community, whether you are pro-choice, pro-life, or just dont care.
You are right that a pro-choice or pro-life stance really has nothing to do with governmental or fiscal conservatism. But how those decisions and laws our made have everything to do with “governmental conservatism.”
Now, there needs to be give and take from both groups. But if you are really some “governmental conservative” you should probably be more inclined to support federalism, and less inclined to want to allow the federal government to make those kind of decisions.
Hey, we might be voting on a different side of an issue in our state elections, but when it comes to the federal government, we should be on the same page.
24 cb55 // May 5, 2009 at 10:48 am
sinz54- I do not necessarily agree with you here. My opinion on this is that the Frums, and other moderates, want to expel social conservatives out of the coalition, because moderates are “embarassed” by them.
I think this is a stubborness on both sides. They both need each other on the national scale, yet they both want to kick each other out. But the simple fact is that both sides interests are based on limited federal government. Roe v Wade, federal courts making rulings on state marriage, etc go against the role of a limited federal government.
But some of this debate has been about Arlen Specter. Specter was not given the boot just because he is pro-choice. The last straw with Specter was that he supported the stimulus package, and was going to support Card check until he got a challenger. So not only was he not a “social conservative”- he was not a fiscal one either. Club for Growth is not a group based on social conservative principles. It is a fiscal conservative group. Yes, probably many of its members have social conservative stances, including Toomey. But their charter and what they promote is fiscal conservatism.
25 danbmil99 // May 6, 2009 at 4:41 am
sinz54: “danbmil99: Many conservatives, such as myself, regard all so-called “hate crimes” legislation as politically correct statism.”
OK, but they’re on the books protecting race, gender, and religious identity. To vote against extending the existing policies to cover LGBT etc. gives lie to the idea that the GOP has any respect at all for gays.
I love when a republican is asked about gay marriage, they always say some mamsy-pamsy thing about not being bigoted or homophobic. My point here is that by and large, the GOP thinks homosexuality is a sin, and that people who choose that lifestyle should live in shame. Their basic desire is for “don’t ask, don’t tell” to be the law of the land.
The problem is, for the most part the younger generation doesn’t think that way at all. Almost everyone under 35 has an ‘out’ gay friend or two, and in general they see it as intrinsic to the person, not a ‘choice’ in the deeper sense. So they see this older attitude as deeply bigoted, and that’s a huge turnoff.
It’s going to be hard to get back to power with such low support from everyone born after 1975 or thereabouts,
26 danbmil99 // May 6, 2009 at 4:53 am
cb55: your points about federalism are interesting. This is an aspectt of the ideological divide that doesn’t get talked about much.
In general, I think liberals do not believe in “states rights” in any real sense. So when it comes to something like abortion or gay marriage, they will not be happy with them being legal in NY but illegal in AL. They feel it’s a moral issue to protect the women and gays of Alabama from oppression. (Of course, many pro-lifers feel it’s their duty to save babies everywhere, so the whole ‘let the states decide’ thing doesn’t really hold water when you feel strongly that someone’s rights are being abused).
Now the irony: liberals, by and large, are not nearly as aggressive as conservatives (well, neocons) about the idea of extending democracy to places like Iraq. They complain about the treatment of women and minorities, but they also have this weak-kneed morally relative sensitivity to ‘local culture’.
Of course, true conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, avoid this hypocrisy by rejecting the neocon idea that the US is the world’s policeman.
I think the truth is that people bend their ideology to suit their bias. Examples such as Terry Schiavo, and the SCOTUS overrulling Florida in 2000, make it hard to take the GOP’s supposed belief in federalism seriously.
27 sinz54 // May 6, 2009 at 9:53 am
danbmil99: I support the right of states to set their own marriage laws. If the Vermont legislature wants to legalize civil marriage for gays, that’s fine with me. I absolutely oppose the passage of a Defense of Marriage Amendment, as the current GOP platform advocates. Such an Amendment is wrong on many levels–moral, legal, constitutional.
But I’m still opposed to “hate crime” laws. And it’s a violation of principle to vote to extend a bad law even further, just because you don’t have any hope of getting it repealed at the present time.
If I were in Congress, and a vote came up on whether to extend hate crime laws to cover gays or or any other new group, I would just vote “Present.”
28 sinz54 // May 6, 2009 at 9:57 am
danbmil99: The Christian evangelicals have told me, to my face, that they do NOT believe in federalism, if federalism means they must turn a blind eye towards dangers to Christianity in other states.
They told me that they agitate against the Federal Government when they believe that Government is doing things detrimental to their practice of Christianity. But that their goal remains the spread of Christianity. And if the Federal Government can be turned toward support of that goal, they would be happy to use the Federal Government for that purpose.
Hence their advocacy of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which would ban abortion nationwide. They don’t care that it’s inconsistent with federalism. It’s consistent with Christianity.
29 cb55 // May 6, 2009 at 5:23 pm
sinz54 and dandmil99: I believe that an Evangelical who ignores things such as federalism, and limited federal government are not conservative either. Just as much as I believe a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage advocate who is willing to ingore the same prinicples are not really conservative either.
But consevatives, moderates, social conservatives, libertarians, etc, need to find common ground in some areas. There is no way we can agree on everything- so the common ground needs to be the approach, and manner which things can be attained. Too much central and federal control leads to everyone being unhappy at some point.
While I am not a fan of these type of Ammendments- they are a legitimate option for the American public. The process is allowed and in the Constitution. I think when courts ignore States rights, that is a tool to combat it. But at the same time, it is almost impossible to get through, so a super-majority of people would have to really support it.
But different states having different laws gives people options. You may not like the marriage institution in your state- but another might be more to your belief system.
The gay marriage debate is not a big deal to me. The state either has a vested interest and reason in an institution like this, or it does not. At this point in time, I no longer see what an individual state’s interest is. I know it might sound radical, but let’s just end the argument, and not have state marriage. It does not bother me if gay people want to get married. But if they are included, what point does marriage serve for the state. And if it is about including everyone, why does the state still have an interest in denying other domestic set-ups?
30 danbmil99 // May 6, 2009 at 5:55 pm
sinz54, re Evangelicals and politics: “They don’t care that it’s inconsistent with federalism. It’s consistent with Christianity.”
Then anyone who promotes this line of thinking should not have a strong voice in the GOP. I guess by my own sword, I would have to agree that Roe v Wade might be overturned, and leave it to the states.
Note that as of today, the GOP supports a “right to life” amendment, and a “sanctity of marriage amendment”. They also oppose any local ordinance that restricts gun ownership, even if it means cops get killed by drug dealers with easy access to weapons.
No attempt at federalism there — it’s one-size-fits-all. If the liberal states don’t like our nation-wide platform, they can go fly a kite. Well, that’s why they’re in the minority, and are going to stay that way until they can walk their walk as well as they talk their talk.
No one wants to vote for a pack of hypocrites.
You must log in to post a comment.