I know that there are people who vote for the GOP despite the party’s stand on social issues. But how often does the opposite occur?
Gary Bauer is the head of American Values, a socially conservative non-profit: “American Values is deeply committed to defending life, traditional marriage and equipping our children with the values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces.” American Values seems to focus more on social than fiscal issues.
Bauer’s been out lately decrying the Nevada GOP’s decision to take opposition to abortion and gay marriage out of their platform.
In the last few days, he’s been trumpeting the fact that 82% of Republicans are against the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Pretty normal stuff so far. But I found this article in the Washington Examiner interesting:
The “prominent critic” is Gary Bauer. Later in the same article, they actually quote Bauer:
Now, there’s a big difference between this quote and the paraphrasing up earlier in the article. Bauer is talking about the perception and the writer phrases it as a statement of fact. But whose perception is he talking about? The big question: Is this the perception of a significant number of people who are voting Republican?
I don’t think these folks are particularly common, but in political discussions in the past I’ve called them the “true Jesus” Republicans/conservatives – that is, Republicans who actually care about the poor and social ills and believe public policy can be a big part of the solution, but also strongly oppose abortion, gay marriage, sex ed in schools, etc.
I think there’s a healthy number of people on both sides.
Take your typical evangelical Christian who opposes gay marriage, abortion, and adores his weaponry. He’ll tolerate the fiscal business of lowering taxes on the rich while cutting Granny’s Social Security, he may have listened to enough right wing radio that he believes it, but the straw that stirs his drink is the social issues. Before he votes for drain commissioner, he wants to know if that person is anti-abortion.
Then you have your Rockefeller Republicans. They love their tax cuts and cutting environmental regulations. They’ll pay lip service to the anti-abortion love them guns crowd, but if they were given truth serum they’d admit they don’t really give a shit about social issues.
If I had to guess, I’d say there are more social issue Republicans than there are fiscal Republicans, if only because the number of people who benefit from Republican fiscal policies is pretty small. The two have had an uneasy alliance made uneasier by the advent of the Tea Partiers, who insists that both positions be adopted simultaneously with equal fervor.
I wouldn’t be surprised that there are significantly more people who vote Republican despite social issues than the other way around. Economic issues are more complicated than social issues. While everyone has a gut level opinion one way or another about gays, there are probably fewer who have that same level of opinion on fiscal policy. As a result you will find that many who align themselves with the Republican party on social issues, will then look to that party to determine what their opinion should be regarding fiscal issues.
It’s relevant because it is about the class division within the GOP. We know what motivates the rich, and I think we know what motivates the “grassroots” and it mostly ain’t a sense of being “Taxed Enough Already,” though it does involve resentment over how their taxes are spent. “But they created the Tea Party out of that original white, working-class bloc by feeding their prejudices and stoking their insecurities.” – that’s what it’s about, their prejudices and insecurities, which mainly touch on social issues, and hybrid social/economic issues such as immigration.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
How many vote Republican despite, not because of, fiscal issues?
[/QUOTE]
I would say quite a few, but not for the reason you gave. There may be a difference between social issues and economic issues, but there’s also the difference between how Republicans are perceived on economic issues and what they actually do.
When they’re out of power, Republicans speak of the importance of fiscal discipline and the dangers of deficits and debt. The last time they were in power, they started two wars and passed Medicare Part D with no attempts to pay for any of it. In my view, even those who think they’re voting for Republicans because of fiscal issues are doing so despite them.
While that’s true (and it cuts both ways), I’m primarily interested in the people who are voting for Republicans despite what they perceive as their fiscal policies.
A large chunk of them, if not a majority are Democrats (especially those who are Catholic). Governor Huckabee had some potential to be a genuine populist in the tradition of William Jennings Bryant, but nowadays he seems to drifting towards standard Religious Right/Tea Party positions.
Certainly, those who are Republican due to social issues and also racial animosity as a result of the Southern Strategy are not trivial-consider the poll numbers among Republicans with regards to support for raising taxes on the wealthy or entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare.
I think you might be reading a bit too much into Bauer’s comments. He’s not saying he opposes the Republican economic plan, just he doesn’t care about it and that it shouldn’t take priority.
I used to be what the OP describes. I was (am) anti-abortion and supported “traditional marriage.” I didn’t care a whole lot for the GOP’s fiscal policies - nor, for that matter, its positions on the death penalty or gun control. But abortion, especially, was important, so I tended to be a one-issue voter.
Then a couple of things happened more-or-less simultaneously but over a period of time:
I changed my mind about gay marriage
I realized that after all those Republican nominations to the SCOTUS, abortion law hadn’t changed. But big corporations had a lot of decisions go their way.
I became spiritually convicted about how our country treats the poor
As my views drifted left, the Republicans lurched right.
The last Republican president I voted for eagerly involved us into stupid, expensive, unnecessary wars.
I still consider myself “anti-abortion,” although I no longer support laws that limit the availability of them. I think that instead of trying to make abortions difficult or unavailable or illegal, opponents should be trying to make them as unnecessary as possible. Regardless, I can’t see myself voting Republican again.
I think most of the working class who vote Republican would be better off under Democratic policies. They are the people helped by unemployment insurance when their jobs move overseas, they are the people who can’t afford health insurance, they are the people who have friends and family (if they don’t need it themselves) who need food stamps and welfare, a lot more of them would be helped by minimum wage increases than would be hurt…
Are there any prominent Republican leaders who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (or vice versa)? No, I don’t count Rand Paul and the supposed libertarians. They’ve been just as likely to throw red meat to the masses to pad their support as the true blue conservatives. I’m talking about someone who is in a position to get elected (weeding out the more religious leaders who are sometimes mute on fiscal issues) but is only half conservative. The other half is either fiscally or socially liberal.
The only one I can even think of was Jon Huntsman, who wasn’t all that liberal, just less crazy than the other guys
I’m a regular commenter on Dreher’s blog and have corresponded with him a bit over PM. He is unquestionably a conservative (and his views on economics are those of a traditional European conservative, i.e. not a modern Republican). He is only in the most tenuous sense a Republican, and apparently left the box for president blank in 2012, because he couldn’t stomach either Obama or Romney.
My priest back home (in Boston- I’ve lived in the Midwest now for six and a half years, and in Africa for a few before that, but I still consider Boston my home) is a single-issue voter, and votes Republican more or less solely on the abortion issue. So there’s one data point at least.
I’m acquainted with some members of student pro-life groups and so forth, and I think there are a fair number of people who vote GOP more or less purely based on abortion, though I don’t know how statistically significant they are. As my friend who did statistical analysis for the Obama 2012 campaign says, people who like labour unions and hate abortions are Democrats, for the most part.
I’m not sure this is necessarily true. I’d argue that you can put a ‘simplistic’ gloss on economic debates, and a ‘complicated’ gloss on social issue debates.
I’ve been more or less ‘hard left’ on economics since I was 15 or so, and started thinking for myself: while some of my views have changed, specifically my views about markets, I’m no less hard left now than I was then. By contrast, my views about abortion have changed maybe 150 degrees since then, and my views about gay issues have fluctuated quite a bit.
I’m an occasional commenter and reader at Dreher’s blog, even though I usually disagree with him. But he writes well, and I read him because I think it’s useful to find out how those I disagree with actually come to their conclusions. I’m a bit disturbed by the amount of white supremacists he tolerates as commenters, though.