Have Republicans Finally Had Enough?

I was very interested to see the reaction of many Republicans to the over-the-top behavior of the extreme right in the wake of the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller earlier this week. On The Next Right they quickly removed an offensive article and comments had loudly condemned the author. On Little Green Footballs they posted a substantial article condemning commenters and posters on several other right-leaning blogs for their comments about Tiller. These reactions give a clear impression that more and more mainstream Republicans are fed up with the fanaticism of the religious right, sickened over their behavior over the Tiller issue and just about ready to give them the boot.

Is it possible that this incident is the straw which finally broke the camel's back and has created an unhealable rift between rational conservatives and the extremists of the religious right? Even Republicans who are socially conservative seem to have had enough of the extremist rhetoric and support for violence coming from people like Fred Phelps and Randall Terry. They seem to have worken up to the fact that the fanaticism and terrorism they oppose in the Islamic world is not much different from the beliefs held by some they considered allies.

As Barry Goldwater pointed out many years ago, the one thing which Republicans ought to be extreme about is liberty and on all other issues they ought to be rational and pragmatic. Maybe that lesson which he spent decades trying to teach with his own actions, is finally sinking in.

The obsession with legislating morality and with opposition to abortion and gay rights is really not part of the core Republican agenda. These ideas and the fanaticism they inspire were brought into the party through its alliance in the post-Reagan era with religious conservatives. Historically, Republicans have had a laissez faire attitude, not just to the economy, but also on moral issues. Republicans used to be dispassionate, leaving moral decisions in the hands of individuals and keeping government out of the picture. It seems like the pendulum might be swinging back in that direction.

As Abraham Lincoln said many years ago, our nation and by extension the Republican Party, was "conceived in liberty" and that idea of individual liberty ought to be the basis of every policy and every decision which Republicans make. There is very little question that abortion is a sin, but shouldn't that sin be a matter of personal responsibility to be resolved between the individual and his or her soul and church and god? Once you get government involved, a change in policy or administration could as easily mean forced abortion and sterilization as you have in China as it could mean protecting unborn fetuses. Putting such personal decisions in the hands of government can only work out badly when there is the potential to go to either extreme.

This change in attitude in the GOP seems real and very significant. It has been building for years, starting with uneasiness with many Bush administration policies and perhaps culminating with the Tiller incident. That doesn't mean that I expect a wholesale casting out of the religious right, but it does seem as if the more reasonable elements of the religious wing of the party are finally realizing that they have to distance themselves from the exrtremists, and perhaps put broader priorities first if they want to continue to play a role in the party and if they want that party to be successful. Extremism has been like an anchor dragging the GOP down and if the party cannot cast itself free of that extremism and chart a better course for itself it will never be successful.

Fanaticism and extremism breed violence and terror and are the enemies of liberty. If we are determined to fight them in the War on Terror how can we be less vigilant in opposing them at home? If we are to have a Republican party which makes liberty its first priority, then it must reject extremism and intolerance in every form. We can still embrace conservative and moral values, but we must accept that these are personal values and that only evil and oppression can come from giving government the power to dictate morality and institutionalize the prejudices of religious fanatics.

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

There have been some other changes recently

We have seen John Cornyn call out Rush Limbaugh on the Sotomayor nomination, and we have seen Newt Gingrich retract his "racist" label of her.

 

 

The cry of racism did seem

The cry of racism did seem rather over the top.  I get this feeling that Limbaugh is lashing out because he's not sure where the GOP is going, but he's pretty sure he doesn't understand the changes and maybe doesn't know how to deal with them.  Cornyn and Gingrich are politically savvy and I've seen many signs that both are adjusting their image and their messages to appeal to a younger, more libertarian audience.  Cornyn's staff is just packed with young, liberty-oriented guys and I think there's a reason for it.  He's smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing.

 

Dave

Cornyn and Minnesota

Have you read what Cornyn has said about years of delaying tactics in Federal Court in order to delay Al Franken's inevitable seating? If so, would you agree with me that he has decided to write Minnesota off? And the news from Minneapolis has a lot of spill over into the media markets in the Dakotas, Iowa and western Wisconsin - I think he is giving the GOP a massive black eye over an unwinnable and indefensible position.

Other than that, I agree that Cornyn is intelligent, competent, and just generally less nutty than some.

Given how close the vote was

Given how close the vote was in Minnesota, he's winning just about as many votes as he's losing in that state by opposing Franken to the bitter end.  Add in how many constituents Franken is bound to alienate once he's been in office for a while and Cornyn might be making a good bet.

 

Dave

this is a classic mistake

"Add in how many constituents Franken is bound to alienate..."

 

You are viewing Franken's liberal policies through your own conservative lens and expect him to be as unpopular in MN as he is with you.

As a public persona, all of his dirty laundry has already been aired. If a sitting senator could not beat him in an election, there is a good chance that he will be holding that office as long as he runs a clean (i.e. honest) operation and as long as he wants it.

In 2014, he will be running as an incumbent. This will only be a disadvantage if the Democratic party runs off the cliff in the interim, which it is clearly not doing at the moment.

Ray, I was thinking more in

Ray, I was thinking more in terms of how Minnesota will fall in the next presidential election, not any personal popularity Franken  may be gaining.  As for my feelings about Franken as a political figure, they aren't generated by any political viewpoint, but by his abrasive personality and utter lack of any kind of charm.  I find it amazing that he could have even gotten close in an election, much less win.

It's a pity Coleman's campaign wasn't more on the ball and better prepared to block democratic vote manipulation tactics which had been seen before and ought to have been familiar and which they really should have been prepared for.  But that's crying over spilt milk.

Dave

Even Rassmussen, the in-house pollster of the GOP

Yes the original vote was, statistically speaking, 50/50. However - as time goes by support for Coleman ebbs away and Franken becomes more popular. Even Rassmussen, the in-house pollster of the GOP, shows that a majority of Minnesotans want Coleman to conceed. They put the number at 54%; other polls show the number as high as 64%.

Its like the old saying:

"Pick your battles".

 The GOP would do well to analyze and then speak. The problem is that until more Senators like Cornyn and Hatch speak up and hold their ground (don't apologize) Rush will continue to be potrayed as the voice of the GOP, as planned and flawlessly executed by team Obama.

There are plenty of legitamate issues to confront Obama on. Certainly not every issue.

I've thought from the begining that we could do a lot worse that Sotomayor as a liberal replacing a liberal. And yes she does have some tough questions to answer, but would she want it any other way?

 

I agree totally, Lonestar

The Sontomayor pick was another example of the Obama team outmaneuvering the GOP. They have been in knee-jerk opposition to everything he's attempted since taking office, so he nominates a liberal justice that kneecaps them when they oppose. The Sontomayor pick pits the angry base against the pragmatists, which creates more stories about GOP infighting and marginalizes the party further among independents.

The GOP should indeed pick their battles wisely, like anyone, but they can't do that until they reclaim the podium from the unelected screamers on the sidelines. It's clear that's what Cornyn is trying to do, and I don't expect him to be apologizing to Rush anytime soon.

There is simply no coordination . . .

and perhaps that's to be expected this soon after a "thumpin".

You are right, there is a knee jerk reaction to oppose everything, when it would build credibility to support Obama's good decisions (opening travel to Cuba. nominating Sotomayor, honoring Reagan)  so that there is some credibility when a confrontation is called for.

And doesn't Rush actually seem uncomfortable is this role? I know his ratings are up and he probably likes that, but honestly he is better as a commentator when the pressure is off. I thought his analysis was better before. There is too much bitterness coming through right now.

 

Pressure?

honestly he is better as a commentator when the pressure is off.

In that case, the pressure has never been off.

Rush miscalculated

Rush was overconfident and goaded into saying things that are clearly having an unexpectedly detrimental effect on the GOP, and he can't "un-say" them.

It's like when the DJIA was under 7000 and the GOP wizards decided that it was going to drop a lot more, so they did everything in their power to pin the market average to Obama. Now it's clear that every news cycle that they spent trying to hammer the "Obama recession" meme was wasted with nothing to show for it.

To borrow a phrase from Noonan, the GOP needs to start acting like grown-ups again. This means, as you said, agreeing with Obama when agreement is warranted. You are 100% correct when you said that this will increase the effectiveness of their disagreements when those are warranted.

The start of the Republican party

Didn't the Republicans start out as the party that imposed anti-slavery morality? It's simply returning to its roots.

I'm all for a return to

I'm all for a return to opposing slavery for the GOP.  Let's start with slavery in the muslim world and then move on to those enslaved by the paternalistic welfare state the Democrats continue to promote.

Dave