Andy Obermann
Redefining Republicans
By Andy Obermann
Finally, it seems respectable to call oneself a Republican, while not sharing the party's religiously driven social agenda.
This was the message evident in the wake of last week's Republican National Convention in New York.
With socially moderate speakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP seems to be pitching its stakes as the nation's most inclusive party.
Americans watching the convention, in essence, saw the "new right" of the Republican Party. This wing shares the party's conventional fiscal conservatism and belief in America's need for a powerful military, but advocates a true limited-government approach — espousing socially libertarian positions.
If this is a true revival of limited government beliefs, especially in our day-to-day lives, it will be a welcome sight in taking the seats of power from the religious right in the GOP.
While it may be true, however, that the 2004 platform left much to be desired on the social front, the welcoming reception for McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger was exceptionally encouraging.
So what does it mean to be socially libertarian? Many traditional Republicans are under the false impression that claiming such a position means one supports the Democratic Party agenda in regards to gay marriage, abortion and a number of other issues. In reality, however, this is far from the truth.
To me, defining oneself as socially libertarian reflects a true limited government approach to such issues.
For example: I don't support gay marriage — my moral compass tells me it's wrong — but I also don't support government intervention in the issue at the federal level, via Constitutional Amendments.
The only reason I state level intervention is because it involves the changing of laws affecting citizens on a state-by-state basis. To change these laws, legislatures must have the consent of the governed through ballot proposals and proper legal channels. This approach will guarantee the will of the people directly affected by the proposed changes will prevail.
The same can be said in the case of abortion.
To me, it's not a pro-choice/pro-life issue. In most cases (with the exception of hard left abortion advocates), everyone agrees abortion has a negative impact on our society. The real issue involves federal government legislating morality and imposing it on states with a blanket law disregarding the differences of people in those individual areas. Again, to abolish or legalize all abortion, the issue should be taken before the people of individual states to decide what is best for them at a more direct and effective level.
The only time federal intervention should be considered is when extreme circumstances arise (such as the practice of "partial-birth" or "late-term" abortion).
The same can be said for any number of issues.
The major upside to the social libertarian philosophy is its basis in logic and law, rather than religious convictions and moral indignation.
Washington Post columnist George Will termed the movement the return of "Goldwaterism" — after the late Barry Goldwater, former Arizona Senator and Republican presidential candidate in 1964. Goldwater followed the ideology that federal government should have as little involvement in the everyday lives of the American people as possible — economically and socially — while maintaining the world's most powerful military.
President Bush's commitment to the GOP's religious right has ostracized many conservatives who feel they have no place in the party. Many Americans associate Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" as the heart of the Republican Party, more so than the influence of McCain or Giuliani.
Should "Goldwaterism" take hold, however, this belief will be removed; giving rise to a true philosophy of limited government — the stepping-stone for Republicans control for years to come.
© Andy Obermann
Finally, it seems respectable to call oneself a Republican, while not sharing the party's religiously driven social agenda.
This was the message evident in the wake of last week's Republican National Convention in New York.
With socially moderate speakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the GOP seems to be pitching its stakes as the nation's most inclusive party.
Americans watching the convention, in essence, saw the "new right" of the Republican Party. This wing shares the party's conventional fiscal conservatism and belief in America's need for a powerful military, but advocates a true limited-government approach — espousing socially libertarian positions.
If this is a true revival of limited government beliefs, especially in our day-to-day lives, it will be a welcome sight in taking the seats of power from the religious right in the GOP.
While it may be true, however, that the 2004 platform left much to be desired on the social front, the welcoming reception for McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger was exceptionally encouraging.
So what does it mean to be socially libertarian? Many traditional Republicans are under the false impression that claiming such a position means one supports the Democratic Party agenda in regards to gay marriage, abortion and a number of other issues. In reality, however, this is far from the truth.
To me, defining oneself as socially libertarian reflects a true limited government approach to such issues.
For example: I don't support gay marriage — my moral compass tells me it's wrong — but I also don't support government intervention in the issue at the federal level, via Constitutional Amendments.
The only reason I state level intervention is because it involves the changing of laws affecting citizens on a state-by-state basis. To change these laws, legislatures must have the consent of the governed through ballot proposals and proper legal channels. This approach will guarantee the will of the people directly affected by the proposed changes will prevail.
The same can be said in the case of abortion.
To me, it's not a pro-choice/pro-life issue. In most cases (with the exception of hard left abortion advocates), everyone agrees abortion has a negative impact on our society. The real issue involves federal government legislating morality and imposing it on states with a blanket law disregarding the differences of people in those individual areas. Again, to abolish or legalize all abortion, the issue should be taken before the people of individual states to decide what is best for them at a more direct and effective level.
The only time federal intervention should be considered is when extreme circumstances arise (such as the practice of "partial-birth" or "late-term" abortion).
The same can be said for any number of issues.
The major upside to the social libertarian philosophy is its basis in logic and law, rather than religious convictions and moral indignation.
Washington Post columnist George Will termed the movement the return of "Goldwaterism" — after the late Barry Goldwater, former Arizona Senator and Republican presidential candidate in 1964. Goldwater followed the ideology that federal government should have as little involvement in the everyday lives of the American people as possible — economically and socially — while maintaining the world's most powerful military.
President Bush's commitment to the GOP's religious right has ostracized many conservatives who feel they have no place in the party. Many Americans associate Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" as the heart of the Republican Party, more so than the influence of McCain or Giuliani.
Should "Goldwaterism" take hold, however, this belief will be removed; giving rise to a true philosophy of limited government — the stepping-stone for Republicans control for years to come.
© Andy Obermann
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
