The 2012 Presidential and congressional elections did not go as well as Republicans hoped. That much is clear to all Republicans. What is not so clear for some, though, is why. The Washington Post recently published an article entitled “For Red America, what happens now?” in which it documents Beth Cox, an avid Tennessee Republican, and her dismay with the outcome of the recent elections. If Cox is to serve as an example for confused Republicans across the country, the answer to her questions of “why?” should be becoming less opaque: the Republican party needs to revamp the way in which it presents some political stances that proved to be major topics in this election.
The Republicans most publicly railed against President Obama’s economic policies during the run up to the election. That was not unexpected. The economy, though improving, is still a big problem. Issues such as unemployment, the stagnant job market and the national debt are concerns for people no matter what their political affiliations. It was reasonable, then, that most of the political ads that appeared on the TV or Internet were concerning the economy.
The Republican Party’s fiscal beliefs are not sure to change anytime soon, which is fine. Republican ideas regarding taxes, balancing the budget or entitlement programs are perhaps their most solid political positions. They are also among the easiest to justify to those with opposing political ideas. It seems logical that if economic political positions were all that mattered, Republicans could continue to hold the same fiscally conservative stances and stay competitive with the Democrats. In reality, however, there are things that the GOP should change.
Where the Republicans faltered in this most recent election — and where they may continue to lose support in the future — was concerning issues that are quickly becoming matters of civil rights. Chiefly among those topics were gay marriage, citizenship for immigrants and abortion. The Republican stances taken by both Mitt Romney and GOP congressional candidates were anti-gay marriage, tough on immigrants and Pro-life — many times in all cases. Those stances contradicted the increased personal freedom that many had been calling for during the election season, such as freedom regarding marriage, access to contraception and family planning or the freedoms obtained by becoming U.S. citizens. Moreover, those are very publicized topics, and will no doubt mentioned over and over again when people give reasons for why Republicans lost the election, further ingraining negative aspects about Republicans into some minds. That is not to say that Republicans need to suddenly switch their stances radically. But perhaps they could start moving towards accepting different stances in some part. For instance, the argument against gay marriage is increasingly becoming weaker — especially when it is from a religious standpoint. With regards to immigrants, Republicans could more effectively address immigration reform, not necessarily to change their ideas on entitlements, but simply making it so that paths to citizenship are easier. The abortion and contraception debate will be harder to address, as it is among the most polarizing topics in politics, but many Republicans would be wise to tone down their demands that Roe v. Wade be repealed.
Some Republicans could very well feel the need to change in order to gain more constituents or in an attempt to better fit the times. The problem, however, is that as some Republicans inevitably move towards different social stances, others will remain steadfast in their current principles. The result will be a Republican party that is even more divided than it is now.
After the 2008 presidential election, the Tea Party was born. It was initially started as a way for very conservative Americans to get their voices heard and to challenge the status quo, calling mostly for fiscal reform. And though Tea Party members tend to endorse Republican candidates, the Tea Party is considered more of a wing of the GOP than part of its mainstream. What could really create trouble for Republicans is if a similar divide occurs, this time between those who want to progress in civil rights and those that remain grounded in very socially conservative holdings. Republicans need to come together at this time — any intra-party divides will further hurt the ability of conservatives to get elected to office.
Republicans considering the merits of their party changing some social policies should not be considered as moving towards more liberal or Democratic principles, but rather should be lauded as moving towards more equal civil rights. Similarly, Republicans should not ignore the merits of social policy change because they find it emblematic of an Obama administration. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, recently voiced his opinion that “as a political party we’ve got some work to do.” His sentiments are correct. The Republicans can still identify themselves as traditional conservatives through their fiscal beliefs, and unite strongly around their strongest topic, economic policies. When it comes to social issues, though, they should remain open towards identifying themselves with new stances.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: Little sympathy for LittleJohn’s closure
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoWith a new class of students arriving in August, Corner restaurants will face another test of their price discrimination and thus need to learn LittleJohn’s lesson quickly.
A statement by 401 concerned faculty regarding the crisis of President Ryan’s forced resignation
By Concerned Faculty | 4 days agoWe call on the Board to collaborate closely with faculty in appointing an Interim President to guide the university through this perilous time.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
5 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
