LIARs and RINOs. A Split in the GOP.
Yesterday I was ranked #94 in Will Folks’ South Carolina Power 100 Politicos. I’m not too excited because let’s be honest, #94 out of 100 doesn’t make me the man or anything. And because really…what does that mean anyway? I am shocked however that Will acknowledged my work at all and for that I am appreciative.
In ranking the most powerful Palmetto politicos, Will also notes their party, their fiscal conservative rating, and their status as a change agent. He completely ignores social conservatism. Will calls me a RINO, gives me a 10% fiscal conservative rating, and says that I’m not a change agent.
I guess Will forgot that I helped elect Senator Jim DeMint, one of the most conservative US Senators in America, and I continue to help lead his national web efforts. I also helped elect State Senators Chip Campsen and Shane Massey and have been involved in State Senator Greg Ryberg’s campaign efforts for the last few years. No one would argue that those are some of South Carolina’s strongest fiscal conservatives.
I bring Will’s ranking up because it made me think about the following analysis I wrote last month but have been hesitant to post. Here it is…
During the past few years we have seen the term “RINO” meaning “Republican In Name Only” thrown at half of our Republican legislators. We hear it from third party groups, legislators, and even our Governor. What’s concerning about the RINO accusation is that you only hear it in terms of fiscal conservatism. RINOs are always those Republicans who supposedly vote for tax and spending increases, but that demands an immediate question that no one has yet asked or answered:
What about social conservatives?
Social issues and the social wing of the Republican Party have nearly disappeared from public discussion. Good pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-gambling, anti-pornography, anti-violence legislators have been labeled RINOs for not standing with Governor Sanford on his vetoes while their stance on social issues has been completely ignored.
It’s to the point where a Republican could have led the fight against video poker and for the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but if they voted to override the Governor’s vetoes they will be labeled a RINO and suffer all the consequences that comes with the label…i.e. attacks through mail, radio, tv, etc…
So why are Republicans ignoring half their platform and concentrating solely on fiscal issues?
The answer is simple. They aren’t Republicans. They are Libertarians. And they are ripping our Republican Party in half while Democrats stand united.
Now don’t get me wrong. I too am a staunch fiscal conservative and support measures to enhance individual liberty, limited governments and free markets. However, as a Republican it is my duty to look at a state candidate’s entire record, platform, and belief system and weigh the fiscal and social sides equally. If it’s a candidate for federal office, I must include the security wing of our platform as well.
That means I have to ask a candidate a serious of questions, just a few of which are:
1 - “Have you or would you vote for a tax increase?”
2 - “Have you or will you vote against pork barrel spending projects?”
3 - “Have you or will you support spending caps and earmark reform?”
4 - “Are you pro-life?”
5 - “Will you support prayer in schools and the public display of religious documents?”
6 - “Will you continue to support the ban on gay marriage?”
There are many more questions I ask, but my point is this – the Libertarians calling themselves Republicans have a tendency to ignore questions 4,5,and 6 while concentrating solely on 1,2,and 3.
Did you know that the official Libertarian Party platform states “recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration?” Sounds a lot like saying “we’re pro-choice” doesn’t it?
Just in case you are wondering, that’s why most South Carolina Libertarians are calling themselves Republicans. They cannot align themselves publicly with the Libertarian party because of their stance on social issues like abortion. I once heard someone say “if I’m a RINO, he’s a LIAR – Libertarian Imitating A Republican.” Sounds about right.
While Libertarians have dominated the discussions within South Carolina Republican Party circles for the past few years, the discussion of moral issues has nearly disappeared from public view all together. Most concerning is that public concern is disappearing as the discussion quiets.
Over the past eight months I have run over 50 polls in different South Carolina state legislative districts. In nearly every one, social issues have sat at the bottom in single digits as a concern for voters.
QUESTION- Which ONE of the following issues do you think should be the top priority of the next state Representative (OR SENATOR) from this district?
State House District – Conducted May 29, 2008
26% Education
22% Jobs and the economy
16% State government spending
10% Illegal immigration
8% Taxes
8% Moral values
6% Health care
2% Crime and drugs
State Senate District – Conducted May 19 – 20, 2008
29% Illegal immigration
24% Jobs and the economy
12% State government spending
11% Education
8% Health care
4% Crime and drugs
4% Taxes
3% Moral values
State Senate District – Conducted May 19 – 20, 2008
30% Illegal immigration
19% Jobs and the economy
10% Education
10% Health care
7% Taxes
7% State government spending
5% Moral values
3% Crime and drugs
State House District – Conducted May 19 – 20, 2008
30% Illegal immigration
23% Jobs and the economy
11% State government spending
10% Education
9% Health care
3% Taxes
2% Moral values
1% Crime and drugs
State House District – Conducted March 10 – 11, 2008
27% Jobs and the economy
19% Health care
16% Illegal Immigration
13% Education
6% Taxes
5% Crime and drugs
5% State spending
4% Moral values
2% Roads
Keep in mind that we are talking about South Carolina, one of the most socially conservative states in the nation. Many will argue that there is no concern because there is no problem, but we all know that there is nothing further from the truth. We have seen dramatic increases in divorce rates, drug abuse, violent crime, teen pregnancy, abortion, and the widespread acceptance of nearly every form of sexual perversion. We can also add to this list the growing corruption within government itself, both at the national and state level.
While I strongly commend the Libertarians’ desires and efforts, I must disagree with their tactics and strategies. Calling yourself a Republican while bashing Republicans as being non-Republican and concentrating on only one plank of the Republican Party platform harms both the Libertarian and the Republican Parties. It also divides the conservative movement and allows the opposition to grow and eventually dominate.
Don’t believe me? Think that South Carolina is too conservative to let that happen?
While it’s true that in the past few years, the South Carolina Republican Party has picked up the Governor’s Office, both US Senate seats, both chambers of the General Assembly, and the large majority of statewide constitutional offices, we did have one stinging defeat in 2006 that shows reason for concern.
Republicans should have picked up the Superintendent of Education’s Office, but a divided party cost us the opportunity. The activists controlled by the voucher/tax credit crowd concentrated so much on the single issue of school choice during the primary that by the time the general election arrived the party divided itself in those GOP strongholds where public schools thrive and even the conservatives are afraid that school choice will strip funding from their schools and diminish their communities. Many of those conservatives, even in Floyd’s home county of Spartanburg, bucked the GOP and crossed over to vote for Democrat Jim Rex.
Had the Floyd campaign concentrated on some social issues and labeled Rex as being against school prayer, the display of religious documents, and the teaching of creationism, they could have brought many of those anti-voucher conservatives back into their camp.
You could argue that school choice is now part of our Republican Platform and that my argument doesn’t make sense. If that is your view, then you are missing my point entirely. My point is – we lose when we concentrate on only one part of our platform because we lose part of our base. That’s what the Libertarians are forcing.
I wholeheartedly agree that the route to a stronger Republican Party is a return our true Republican roots. But that means we must return to both our fiscal and social foundations.
We’ve got problems folks. The moral compass of our state and nation is off and in the time our nation needs a party pushing a course correction, the Democrats are building momentum while Republicans are being split in half and ignoring moral values all together.
Not good. Not good at all.
Comments
9 Responses to “LIARs and RINOs. A Split in the GOP.”
Spill It!
-
Connect
-
Recent Projects by UTPL
-
Recent Posts
-
Categories
-
Archives
-
Recent Reads You Should Read Too
Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader.
Wesley, while I agree with much of your post, I have to disagree with your statement that “Democrats stand united.” Just this week, we’re finding out how much of a pain in the neck the Clintons are for Obama. A full 30% of Hillary’s supporters will stay home or vote for McCain.
Republicans in the Congressional class of 1994 were elected for their bedrock fiscal AND social values- and they completely lost their way on the fiscal issues. Now, the main fight in the Republican party is over “booting them out” and getting back to a more responsible form of government. I, for one, don’t see that as a bad thing!
SeaFarer - I agree. I really meant here in SC more than nationally, but even here there are factions between say The Inez Crew and The Rex Crew.
Perhaps I should have said “more united.”
Karen Floyd lost because once she got into the fall, she backed off her one issue in the primary - school choice.
There were other issues she could have addressed that would have appealed to the middle of the road independent voters, such as challenging alternative funding and the tax-and-spend attitudes of many local school districts, or increasing real accountability for performance, streamlining the agency to make it more of a resource to help local school districts meet local challenges, etc.
It’s a message that would have been simple: “I want your child to get the best education, give you the most choices, and when you don’t get the best, I will hold the responsible parties accountable”.
But it’s not what we heard from her campaign.
The Rex message, while not the best, addressed the concerns of parents better than Floyd’s campaign, while coming across as consistent and understandable.
Overall, excellent article. Great thinking there.
Of course there is no debate amongst Republicans on questions #4-6 because all S.C. Republican candidates answer yes to those questions…many Democrats in South Carolina do too. We could ask candidates if they support communism but it’s almost as moot. Those questions are largely settled by federal policy anyway, rather than the state.
School choice is as much an issue for social conservatives as fiscal ones. The question is do we continue to keep kids trapped in a failing, expensive and bureaucratic education system or do we allow parents the choice to put their share of education resources into private and parochial schools in an attempt to get better outcomes? This is not a libertarian philosophy as its one that is supported by most Republicans and many Democrats as well.
Your blog argues the benefits of outsourcing as it allows you to focus on broad outcomes rather than getting bogged down in details. That same concept works in education - a superintendent doesn’t need to run a school system, but needs to make sure our kids get an education. A very different focus but the latter will provide our state with better educated children which should be our goal.
But let’s not get too focused on school choice because as you correctly argue, we lose when we only focus on one part of our platform. I know of few supporters of school choice who are as focused on the issue as its opponents . So, why do you work for Republican candidates whose main campaign strategy is to repeatedly attack their opponents on one issue- school choice? It is part of the Republican platform…but you and many of your candidates seem to be the ones joining The State editorial board in being myopically focused on it to the detriment of our party and our state.
Your analysis is suprising that we should see such a “backlash” against social conservatives by their libertarian leaning fiscal compatriots when it appears to be just the opposite in the national scene. But then again we are South Carolina. As a person who stands against at least one “leg” of the tripartite list you’ve outlined when it comes to RINO and LIAR, the answer is that Moralism reached it’s crescendo in SC with the passing of the marriage ammendment. It was the last battle to fight, there are no other subgroups to discriminate against with any moral standing. Jim Crow and missegenation have been struck down, women got the vote 88 years ago and somehow the Bible got polluted with the notion that blacks and whites can be equal and that women don’t have to shut the hell up. Gays are the only available group left to use the righteous hand of God against and that battle effectively ended for SC in 2006. Now that may change in the years to come in the wake of people actually coming to believe that gays are folks deserving of ‘white male’ dignity too, but rest assured with such efforts by the SBC, Adam Fogle, and Bob Jones University, the PFC, South Carolina has nothing to worry about…
With that being said I agree with OutWithTheGoodOleBoySystem, everyone in SC is on the same page morally )as I’ve just demonstrated), now it’s time to cull the financially weak, the people who believe in big spending and on raising taxes on the white folk and distributing to things like public education (poor trash and black folks!) and “pork” (who needs clean environments, road ways, healthcare, and festivals - it’s all for poor trash and minorities). Then and only then will Jesus truly bless our fair state with his blonde haired blue eyed blessings. Amen.
Earl - yes and Rex won because he not only appealed to all parts of his own party, but also to parts of ours.
OutWithTheGoodOleBoys – there is a difference between answering yes and actively pushing those causes. Libertarians answer yes and call themselves Republican, but only concentrate on pushing fiscal policies. My point is that while calling themselves Republicans they are calling strong social conservatives RINOs as if being pro-life would allow them to fit in the Democratic Party.
The school choice issue was just an example and my point was that Floyd failed to concentrate on “pure” social issues. While school choice is a hot topic with home schoolers and parochial schools, most of the debate centers on the dispersement of funds, thus making it more of a fiscal issue.
As for my clients and strategies, we will leave that for a different conversation but I assure you we will return to the issue.
Mattheus – always good to hear from you. I’ve been enjoying your blog. Isn’t it funny that Moralism reached its crescendo about the same time the Libertarians began dominating public debate? Did eliminating gay marriage in South Carolina drop divorce rates, drug abuse, or pornography? The problems aren’t dead…just the discussion.
I guess my response Wes is that yes the crescendo came not because libertarians came to power but because there was not an ‘other’ to combat. Problems such as divorce, pornography and drug abuse are seen as personal problems, not societal problems in a way that fear of the ‘other’ is a societal issue. Perhaps that has more to do with our protestant back ground as a state, I’m sure Earl can share that for the Catholic/Orthodox folk marriage isn’t something just between the two at the altar, but also between them and their families and church communities - when one is hurt or pained, they all are hurt or pained. The same thing with drug abuse and pornography proliferation, I’d agrue that it’s not so much about limiting free speech when it comes to pornography but addressing why people feel they need to purchase pornography? That’s an even deeper issue. I agree, the problems aren’t dead, but the discussion I can’t help but believe was aimed at the wrong party. Gays don’t increase to divorce rates, nor to drug or pornography addictions though they can share in the afflictions caused by all three. Somehow our state’s moral leaders chose instead of building up the common good, and supporting all people in this state - to instead do what they’ve historically done, scapegoated and suppressed a minority.
increase should read add