The hits just keep coming. The degradation of our society and the politically correct war on common sense have indeed taken their toll. Have we fallen so far that any person that would have a chance to lead, would be required to pander to "special" groups, play identity politics, and bow at the altar of Al Gore's anthropogenic global warming? Will all future leaders of the Republican Party choose to coddle pro-abortion groups? A visit to The Republican Leadership Council (RLC) web-site provides potentially depressing insight into the future of the party.
Former libiot Republican governor Christie Todd Whitman is one of the three creators of the RLC (along with Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Sen. John Danforth)... so maybe her influence gives the RLC a "move away from the right" flavor that Steele would not carry to the RNC if he were to become its chairman. However, if the RLC is indeed an indication of the future of the Republican Party, I have to wonder if it will be worthy of support. If Whitman's apparent goal of moving further to the middle is shared by the party leadership, will it retain its members? Perhaps member retention is not an issue in the modern Republican Party. Perhaps the goal is to attract new members, who as products of our education system, shun traditional values and choose politically correct causes over common sense. Of course in addition to attracting "independents" and possibly disgruntled Democrats, conservatives with values would be able to remain in the party... as long as we keep our mouths closed and support whichever indistinguishable-from-a-Democrat candidate is offered.
The RLC touts as "successful" examples, Republican politicians who one might expect to have a horn protruding from his or her nose (RINOs.) Would Michael Steele heed their caution against moving to the right?
3 Successful Republicans Caution Against a Move to the Right
by Robert F. Bukaty, Associated Press
As Congressional Republicans lick their political wounds and try to figure out how to bounce back in 2010 and beyond, they might want to consult with Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander and Peter T. King.
Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.
“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.
“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.
“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.
Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander are exactly what I picture when I think of conservative values... in a parallel universe maybe.
From the "About Us" section of the RLC site:
RLC-PAC members consider themselves True Conservative Republicans. Republicans who believe that our elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents to spend their money wisely. We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans' personal lives. And we believe in a strong national defense.
The Republican Leadership Council PAC or RLC-PAC is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally conservative, socially inclusive Republican candidates at all levels of government. Governor Whitman also created a 527 to advance the issues that help define Real Conservative members of the Republican Party.
RLC-PAC is NOT defined by one issue. We believe, as you can see through our diverse National Board, that people who believe in the core Republican values can find common ground on social issues.
There are some inconsistencies and problems there (in addition to Governor Whitman, I mean.) The problem is that by stating "We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans' personal lives" they, in my opinion, are being contradictory. I agree that government should have an extremely limited role in American's personal lives, but I don't believe that is what is meant in the statement. I get the impression that this is directed toward the so-called "social issues." Whitman is pro-choice and Michael Steele believes Roe v. Wade should remain in place. This one bad decision by the Supreme Court plays a huge role in Americans' personal lives! Oh well, I suppose I am just a cave man for doubting that a woman has a right to have her baby put to death and that this right must be protected from any interference by the voters of any individual state. After all, doesn't the Constitution specifically give the Supreme Court the power to overturn the will of the citizens of any particular state on an activist whim?
Would Michael Steele's RNC strive to be "socially inclusive?" The RLC's list of strategic partners gives cause for concern. Examples:
Log Cabin Republicans
The mission of the Log Cabin Republicans is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Log Cabin’s mission derives from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.
All Americans already have equal rights. The existence of this group is based on a desire for attention and special treatment based on sexual preference. Is the idea that homosexuals will all vote Democrat unless the Republican Party gives them special acknowledgment? Should we all make a special effort to respect their private lives by making special public proclamations in support of their private lives? (Confusing, isn't it?)
Of course the pro-infanticide population is well represented with four organizations among the RLC's strategic partners, including:
Republican Majority for Choice
The Republican Majority for Choice is an organization of Republican men and women throughout the United States, who believe in our party’s traditional principles of individual liberty, strong national security and sound economic reason. They endorse the ‘big tent’ philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues, and support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political.
Silly me, I thought Roe v. Wade's assault on the rights of individual states ensured that this issue remain political as well as personal. I am also confused about how something so basic as protecting innocent life can be dismissed as a minor "social issue."
The bottom line is the RLC's focus seems trained on being a more moderate Republican Party and placing special groups on pedestals based on identity politics. It could very well be that Michael Steele will become the RNC chairman and provide wonderful conservative leadership. However, if the RLC, its strategic partners, and the columns it displays on its site are any indication of Michael Steele's leadership, I don't think conservatives with values will be able to stomach it.
I believe it is necessary to reiterate my position on Roe v. Wade for those of you who would seize on it like a dog to a bone. Seeking the overturn of this bad Supreme Court decision is not equal to seeking government interference in private lives! It is seeking to get the federal government out of the way of the states and the rights of the states!