Advice for the RNC

[Whack-a-Mole]

@FriarTed

4.) Social/religious conservative issues

Abortion-

Gay issues-

I think the issue here is a matter of inclusion. Do you want a white, evangelical party? Go ahead. However I do not see that as a Republican desire. Republicans were once the party of small government and state rights over federal rights. By adopting the social conservative agenda they are anything but. All for state rights until a state does something they do not like such as same-sex marriages or medical marijuana or right-to-die (Schiavo anyone?).

Republicans have managed to become ever more restrictive of our freedoms. Those freedoms in the US encompass allowing someone to do something you may disagree with.

Teaching on evolution-creation: Not a Federal Gov’t issue. On the local level, schools should teach facts, not interpretations. The age of the Earth & the Universe are facts. A process of development does indeed look like possible evolution. (Then again, it could also look like old-earth creationism.) Don’t shut down student discussion or penalize students who don’t believe in Evolution, as long as they understand it.

We’ve done this around here before and I think there is no real disagreement among anyone with a brain that creation/ID do not belon anywhere near a science classroom. Nor should discussion on creation be presented as a reliable refutation of Evolution. That said I am fine with religion being taught in schools in the guise of, say, a comparative religion class or religion’s role in history and so on. I seriously doubt you could even have a history class without examining religion’s role there.

Beyond that though the place for teaching a specific religion is in that religion’s church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. No problems with that at all and if mom & dad want to send their kid to Sunday School more power to them.

Btw, on sex-ed in schools, also not a Federal Gov’t issue. Local educators need to work with families to decide on a curriculum that is accurate & thorough & essential, and respectful of moral & religious concerns.

Well, while in general I want to agree with you I think you get far too uneven of an education when it is up to local communities to decide what should and shouldn’t be taught. I think there is a base of knowledge that all should possess regardless of where you live and not open to discussion. Surely we can all agree math should be taught to every child. If some weird cult in a town decided that math was the work of the devil should they be allowed to remove that from their schools? Unfortunately many religions view sex as “dirty” or morally depraved or somesuch. Why should students not be educated on biological facts (eg. menstruation, how prenancy occurs and progresses, sexually transmitted diseases and ways to protect against such, etc.)? We are all human, denying these things will not make them go away and never, ever have I seen where ignorance is a preferred state of affairs.

Acknowlegement of God in the Public Sector- Part of America’s heritage, done by every Founding Father & President, including Mr. Separation Tom Jefferson, widely supported by the people, recognized by the courts. Get over it.

Use of the public sector to promote a specific religion- Iffy. That includes Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, prayer at school functions. That can all be relegated to the private sector. However, historic displays that have been around for decades should probably be left alone.

Iffy on this myself. I do not care that “In God We Trust” is on our money. On the flip side I am not sure that a school should be getting in to prayers and such that do promote a specific religion. If your child (pretend you have one if you don’t) was made to face Mecca and pray a few times a day because he/she was in a predominantly Muslim school would you be ok with it? Even if your child was not forced to pray do you think they’d be comfortable standing to the side while all their peers prayed?

Separation of church and state is a good thing and should be maintained.

[IClaudius]

@Rand_Rover

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

Wow that attitude completely stinks. Believe it or not, liberals don’t believe they’re cynically rounding up poor people as electoral fodder in the name of some a priori ideological agenda for big government. They actually believe in a different political and moral philosophy, which is under-scored by a different approach to political economy. That approach is not just marketed to poor people for some ulterior motive, it is directly premised on it being in those same poor people’s interest.

Your application of that false cynicism to minorities is even more bizarrely repugnant, as if the mere fact of being a different race can be equated with material disadvantage, and intellectual weakness. An utterly contemptible and indefensible sentiment.

Typical juvenile South Park Libertarian abrasiveness.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Rand_Rover

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

The ironic thing here is your evangelical hick idiot run government that espouses a love for small government managed to do quite the opposite. Perhaps by itself one of the best indictments of the hijacking of the Republican party there is.

In a clear break from Republican campaigns of the 1990s to downsize government and devolve power to the states, Bush is fostering what amounts to an era of new federalism in which the national government shapes, not shrinks, programs and institutions to comport with various conservative ideals, according to Republicans inside and outside the White House.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9307-2005Feb8.html

George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

SOURCE: Big government gets bigger - Washington Times

[FriarTed]

@Mach Tuck

Maybe I’m too isolated in my liberal bubble, but you lost me here. How do gay issues potentially endanger religious rights and freedom of association?

Already, Christian-owned facilities & businesses are being successfully sued for failing to provide services to gays who want them for their functions- wedding photographers, fertility services, wedding chapel venues. Using Bob Jones University as an example, eventually there will be legal efforts to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions that are not quite churches which uphold traditional views against gay sex.

That’s when it goes beyond tolerance & equal rights. That’s when it does indeed become culture war.

[FriarTed]

Since medical marijuana has been brought up, I’m pretty much for allowing medical pot & decriminalizing regular pot use. Btw, I’ve never touched the stuff.

[Yossarian]

@Rand_Rover

Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities.

I am beginning to think that this paradox is part of the problem. I’ve lived in the west and now (since 2002) lived in the south (NC and KY). As a westerner, it was easy to get along with the Republicans, who were largely in it for smaller government and had a libertarian lean. The state I live in now went for McCain by about 58% (and higher for Bush), and has anything but a small state government–I pay state income tax, state sales tax, AND city income tax! I don’t complain because I like and appreciate the public services these taxes provide me (well, that and because I’m a state employee). My impression is that folks here in the south are very socially conservative and are yet in favor of big government.

[BwanaBob]

@Liberal

I invite people to argue against me or offer ideas of their own. Participate in any appropriate way, but I’d like it if people were analytical and studious about it with a minimum of drama and hyperbole.

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here’s what I would do.

…
4. Decide what Republicanism means and stick with it

I recommend that you define it in the way that best accommodates my suggestions (1) - (3). In other words, I think you should become more libertarian, along the lines of Goldwater Republicanism. What happened with Reagan Republicanism is that you went from being fiscally conservative and socially liberal to being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. That is not a tenable position to hold in a vigilant and empowered American society. Once the social conservatives (again, identified above) get started, their tentacles reach far and deep, and they become hard to disjoin from the party.

Liberal nails it with #4. That’s where the GOP lost me years ago.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@FriarTed

Already, Christian-owned facilities & businesses are being successfully sued for failing to provide services to gays who want them for their functions- wedding photographers, fertility services, wedding chapel venues. Using Bob Jones University as an example, eventually there will be legal efforts to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions that are not quite churches which uphold traditional views against gay sex.

That’s when it goes beyond tolerance & equal rights. That’s when it does indeed become culture war.

This is what you call freedom of religion and association?

Private organizations can mostly do what they wish, but tax exempt organizations cannot discriminate, period.

“Religious institutions that are not quite churches” can hold whatever views they wish. Hopefully they are hating the sin and loving the sinner, as the saying goes. But if they enjoy tax exempt status, they have to work and play with everybody.

I’m not one of the people arguing that no churches should be tax exempt (I’ve met a few). But having that status and trying to pick and choose your members based on gender, sexuality or whatever is simply not allowed.

What you call culture war I call respecting the Constitution and obeying the rule of law.

[FriarTed]

@Mach Tuck

This is what you call freedom of religion and association?

Private organizations can mostly do what they wish, but tax exempt organizations cannot discriminate, period.

“Religious institutions that are not quite churches” can hold whatever views they wish. Hopefully they are hating the sin and loving the sinner, as the saying goes. But if they enjoy tax exempt status, they have to work and play with everybody.

I’m not one of the people arguing that no churches should be tax exempt (I’ve met a few). But having that status and trying to pick and choose your members based on gender, sexuality or whatever is simply not allowed.

What you call culture war I call respecting the Constitution and obeying the rule of law.

Yes, it sure as heck is allowed. Tax-exempt churches & religious schools/colleges can indeed discriminate on sexual behavior & on gender. Catholic, Orthodox Jewish & very conservative Protestant seminaries do not train women as clergy. THAT is part of their religious liberties & they do retain tax-exemption. When that starts being challenged, then watch the consequences fall.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@FriarTed

Yes, it sure as heck is allowed. Tax-exempt churches & religious schools/colleges can indeed discriminate on sexual behavior & on gender. Catholic, Orthodox Jewish & very conservative Protestant seminaries do not train women as clergy. THAT is part of their religious liberties & they do retain tax-exemption. When that starts being challenged, then watch the consequences fall.

So we’re clear on this, you’re claiming that these tax exempt organizations not only can discriminate, but should be allowed to do so?

You’re coming out in favor of what you’ve defined as discrimination, and decrying opponents of such as being engaged in a culture war. Is that right?

[FriarTed]

@Mach Tuck

So we’re clear on this, you’re claiming that these tax exempt organizations not only can discriminate, but should be allowed to do so?

You’re coming out in favor of what you’ve defined as discrimination, and decrying opponents of such as being engaged in a culture war. Is that right?

It’s a fact. Tax-exempt churches can & do discriminate on the basis on gender & sexual behavior. Many of them only ordain male clergy and require heterosexual marriage or celibacy among its clergy. And that is part of their religious rights.

Did you seriously not know this?

[Knorf]

I’m a former Republican who’s voted Democrat for the past 16 years. I left the Republican Party when I became extremely disappointed with the increasingly sanctimonious, divisive tone. I detested Gingrich’s politics, and his appalling scorched-earth tactics. In 1994, the GOP was even blocking its own bills simply to increase the perception that the Democrats couldn’t get anything done. Tom Delay – another horrible man. Blantant gerrymandering, blatant refusal to acknowledge that the other had sometimes had a point: he browbeat his own colleagues if they didn’t fall in line. Standard GOP operating procedure: demonize the other side, block them regardless of whether their ideas made sense, and present an inflated sense of your own righteousness to the public.

That is what has to go.

Here’s what the GOP needs to do to get someone like me to vote GOP again:

–Adopt a policy of tolerance towards differences. Bring back the Big Tent.
–Resurrect your advocacy of smaller government, for real. Not just words. Do it.
–Resurrect your advocacy of financial restraint, and opposition to “pork-barrel” politics. Not just words. Do it.
–Reject all politics of demonization and destruction. Recognize that liberals are patriots, too. NO MORE “Real America” and “Liberals are Traitors” bullshit.
–Realize what holding the moral high ground really means. I.e., it means humbly realizing that you don’t have all the answers, and that many different points of view deserve respect, if not agreement.

[Shodan]

@Mach Tuck

So we’re clear on this, you’re claiming that these tax exempt organizations not only can discriminate, but should be allowed to do so?

Don’t know about Friar Ted, but I would say yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. Passing laws that Roman Catholics have to accept women into the priesthood, or they have to perform gay marriage, constitutes an infringement on freedom of religion. Yes, that includes churches who don’t accept black members or private universities that do the same.

As to the OP, I would recommend that the RNC make sure next time that they are running and a Republican is in the White House, that the economy is doing better. If the banking crisis had gone down next week instead of when it did, Cindy McCain would be looking at furniture.

I realize that social conservatives are universally despised on the SDMB, but the Republicans did not lose because of their social conservatives, and dumping them would not attract people who are prevented from voting GOP by their stance on stem cell research or partial birth abortion. Sam Stone pointed out in another thread that the McCain campaign was essentially flat until Sarah Palin joined the ticket.

I know, I know, she’s terrible and evil and stupid and blah-de-blah. McCain didn’t realize soon enough how universal the attacks from the MSM would be. And the GOP ought to be on notice that Bobby Jindal or whoever seems to be a possible candidate in 2012 will be subject to the same treatment starting in 2010. But responding to a loss by dumping your base would be like the Dems in 2005 cutting loose all the gays, feminists, and union members.

And it wasn’t the war, either. Bush got re-elected with that albatross around his neck, and the apparent success of the surge that even Obama admitted meant that, handled correctly, it could have been a plus for McCain.

But it was the economy. McCain’s suspension of his campaign was an original idea, and if he had been seen to create a credible response to the situation, he would have gained from it. He didn’t, so he didn’t.

For now, I would advise the RNC to sit tight. The economy is probably going to get worse instead of better under Obama, so it will be easy to blame him in 2010. In 2012, they need a fresh face - no more of these McCain/Dole clones. An outsider.

And a recommitment to conservative ideals. Limited government, cut spending, that kind of thing.

Gay marriage is not a winning issue. Didn’t the propositions to ban it mostly pass, or come close to it? Unless the Dems get impatient and try to shove it down the people’s throats with judges making law, in which case it will become a winning issue - for Republicans.

[DSeid]

The rumors of the death of the GOP are greatly exaggerated.

Obama won by 6%. With Democrats coming out above historic norms and more than usual GOPs staying home. With an overwhelming percentage of the Black and an impressive percentage of the Hispanic vote. And with a populus throughly disgusted by the job done by the current set of bums. A few percent different in a few states and it would be different.

To use a cliche, what the RNC needs to do is not fight the was just lost, but get set for the war to come. Focus on regaining some seats in Congress next cycle. Let the Palin contingent (be it with Palin or someone else) lose the next president run (unless Obama screws up an incumbent is hard to beat) and think of where the electorate will be in 8 years.

The GOP turnout this time really is their floor. Hardly anyone could have run a worse campaign than this one and following as unpopular a President. All they need to do is expand a bit around the margins and find a way to keep the Dem turnout a bit more subdued, perhaps a bit less overwhelmingly winning Hispanics and Blacks.

Hispanics in particular are critical for them. More than anything else they need to turn down the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Many Hispanics are actually fairly conservative and are ripe for GOP picking if not for that. And Hispanics are a growing portion of the population. If the Hispanic vote had gone differently Nevada, Colorada, New Mexico, and maybe even Florida and Virginia could have gone differently.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@FriarTed

It’s a fact. Tax-exempt churches can & do discriminate on the basis on gender & sexual behavior. Many of them only ordain male clergy and require heterosexual marriage or celibacy among its clergy. And that is part of their religious rights.

Did you seriously not know this?

The original example was Bob Jones University. But I think you’re correct - in my business, we call this kind of thing being “dead right”.

You’ve come out unambiguously as in favor of discrimination. I mentioned earlier that I have not been one of the people who is against tax-exempt status for churches and such. You’ve come close to convincing me that perhaps I should be.

I would have previously said there is a difference between a Bob Jones University and a church proper, and maybe some exceptions should be made for the church in deference to freedom of religion. But you seem to group them together. Fine with me - I’ll just be opposed to all of them having tax exempt status.

I think freedom of religion is a good thing. But now I’m beginning to question whether extending tax exempt status to religious entities is going too far.

To bring this full circle and back to the OP, this is exactly the kind of thing that I view as a mistake by the GOP/RNC.

Here I am, a person generally in favor of religious freedom, and usually willing to leave people alone in their beliefs. Now I find out it’s not enough for religious organizations to be tax exempt, they seem to want to get dispensation for disriminatory behavior in the guise of religious freedom.

That’s not freedom of religion, that’s special privileges. We wouldn’t allow human sacrifice for religious purposes, and we shouldn’t allow what has been clearly defined as discrimination to be practiced by tax exempt entities.

Culture war? I didn’t previously think so, and still resist the notion. But you may be “dead right” in that, if these really are conservative views, there may be a problem. If so, it will continue to alienate folks like me who could be tempted to vote Republican under some circumstances.

[Shodan]

@Mach Tuck

I would have previously said there is a difference between a Bob Jones University and a church proper, and maybe some exceptions should be made for the church in deference to freedom of religion. But you seem to group them together. Fine with me - I’ll just be opposed to all of them having tax exempt status.

I believe the current status is that no organization that receives federal money can discriminate. It isn’t a question of tax-exempt vs. taxable.

Here I am, a person generally in favor of religious freedom, and usually willing to leave people alone in their beliefs. Now I find out it’s not enough for religious organizations to be tax exempt, they seem to want to get dispensation for disriminatory behavior in the guise of religious freedom.

That’s not freedom of religion, that’s special privileges.

I think you are highlighting a problem that many people have with gay marriage.

It is not a question of agreeing to leave each other alone. It isn’t simply a matter of gays wanting to be left alone to marry, and it is nobody else’s business. If you pass laws compelling churches or mosques to perform gay marriage, then ipso facto you are compelling others to comply with your point of view.

If gays can marry at city hall, then the right to gay marriage has been adequately established. If you then try to compel that same ceremony to be performed at a local mosque, then you have taken the step beyond establishing your rights and into interfering with my rights.

A church is not a public accommodation in the same sense that a restaurant or a bus line is a public accommodation. And it is afforded special protection for its operation that restaurants don’t have.

[Liberal]

@Knorf

I’m a former Republican who’s voted Democrat for the past 16 years. I left the Republican Party when I became extremely disappointed with the increasingly sanctimonious, divisive tone. I detested Gingrich’s politics, and his appalling scorched-earth tactics. In 1994, the GOP was even blocking its own bills simply to increase the perception that the Democrats couldn’t get anything done. Tom Delay – another horrible man. Blantant gerrymandering, blatant refusal to acknowledge that the other had sometimes had a point: he browbeat his own colleagues if they didn’t fall in line. Standard GOP operating procedure: demonize the other side, block them regardless of whether their ideas made sense, and present an inflated sense of your own righteousness to the public.

That is what has to go.

Here’s what the GOP needs to do to get someone like me to vote GOP again:

–Adopt a policy of tolerance towards differences. Bring back the Big Tent.
–Resurrect your advocacy of smaller government, for real. Not just words. Do it.
–Resurrect your advocacy of financial restraint, and opposition to “pork-barrel” politics. Not just words. Do it.
–Reject all politics of demonization and destruction. Recognize that liberals are patriots, too. NO MORE “Real America” and “Liberals are Traitors” bullshit.
–Realize what holding the moral high ground really means. I.e., it means humbly realizing that you don’t have all the answers, and that many different points of view deserve respect, if not agreement.

A great contribution to the thread, Knorf. Thanks. Not that there haven’t been others, but still.

[Carson_O_Genic]

Mach Tuck, what you are calling discriminatory are age old tenets of the respective religions- if the government attempts change by withdrawing tax status, is the government not in violation of Constitutional safeguards?

[redtail23]

@Shodan

Don’t know about Friar Ted, but I would say yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. Passing laws that Roman Catholics have to accept women into the priesthood, or they have to perform gay marriage, constitutes an infringement on freedom of religion. Yes, that includes churches who don’t accept black members or private universities that do the same.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that private schools are tax-exempt under a separate set of rules from churches. Most private colleges are tax-exempt, including those that are not religious. One of the rules for tax-exempt universities prohibits racial discrimination.

It’s one thing to claim infringement on freedom of religion for a church. By all our laws and precedents, churches may discriminate at will based on religious grounds. I’ve got no quarrel with that.

However, there is a different set of rules for private universities. They are not churches and don’t get the same protections. BJU lost their tax-exempt status because they broke the rules for universities to receive such - not because their religious freedoms were infringed.

If they want to operate as a church, then they can have the benefits of being one. But as a university, if they want to discriminate then they lose tax-exempt status. No infringement there. Please note that the IRS never threated the LDS church with losing tax-exempt status, despite the fact that they still practiced racial discrimination in the same time period as the BJU case was playing out.

Quite obviously BJU’s “sincerely-held religious beliefs” were not as important to them as their tax breaks. Can you imagine the RCC agreeing to ordain women just to keep their tax status? Because I can’t.

[BarnOwl]

With all the excellent suggestions in the OP, the one thing that’s missiing (I think) is the fact that the GOP is first and foremost, the Party of Wealth. No amount of lofty sounding principles can hide this.

Get rid of all the Evangelicals, the Rovians, the ignorant, the rabid assholes, etc., and what remains? The rich, who don’t give a shit about anyone or anything except money, and getting more and more of it.