Nearly 2,000 social and political conservatives have assembled in Washington this weekend for the “Values Voter Summit.” It’s an annual event, organized by groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
This year, many of the participants are feeling under siege, with Democrats in control of both Congress and the White House. But they’re promising a religious and political revival in 2010.
Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana, was one of the first speakers at the summit, which runs through Sunday, offering such workshops as “Global Warming Hysteria” and “Countering the Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools.”
The participants’ own agendas vary, but they’re united in their suspicion of just about everything that’s happening in Washington, from propping up the auto industry to remaking health care.
I note in the above that there are three distinct and not obviously related issues of concern expressed by these discontented voters: 1) global warming; 2) the homosexual agenda in public schools; 3) government assistant to the auto industry; 4) health care reform. Probably 5) abortion should be added to the list.
These are quite distinct issues: 1) is an issue of physical science; 2) and 5) are arguably the issues that “value voters” care most about. 3) and 4) are largely spending and economic issues.
Should there be a voter revolt in 2010 (as in 1994), and the Republicans should regain congress, I would predict the following, based on consistent patterns since the 1980 presidential election:
1) The new congress would have (and could have) absolutely no effect on the convictions of scientific researchers concerning global warming.
The new congress would try to do something about 3) and 4). Predictably, for the last forty years, Republicans have placed their primary focus on returning the country to a laissez faire economic agenda–no government involvement in social programs, tax cuts, government spending only for military and crime prevention.
Nothing or next to nothing would be done about 2) and 5). As they have for the last thirty years, value voters would vote for “values” and receive Adam Smith’s economics.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please raise the standard]
RE: “Nothing or next to nothing would be done about 2) and 5).”
I’m a bit confused by this statement.
I think we all agree that the pearl that we seek regarding abortion is the ultimate overturn of Roe V Wade — and Bush and the Republicans certainly accomplished all that they could accomplish by appointing some of the best Supreme Court Justices that our nation has seen in a long time. Bush appointed Supreme Court justices who will not somehow “discover” the new right to killing fetuses — so were a similar case to come up again before the Supreme Court, we are in better shape now than ever in the past 30 years on the SC even with Sotomayer as a justice.
Other than that overturn, there’s not a whole lot that can be done. And Bush and the Republicans did all that could be done with that as well.
Regarding abortion — other than the overturn of the appalling Supreme Court case, it has been an unbelievably wonderful several years. I have many complaints about Bush — but not his pro-life stances and decisions.
Here’s what’s happened over the past several years:
— the courts upheld growing restrictions on abortion, including on, of course, the repellent practice of partial birth abortion
— as a result, states got to pass informed consent laws,
— require ultrasounds prior to abortion
— force abortion mills to operate according to the same standards as other outpatient surgical clinics
All of that led to:
— closures of private abortion mills
— in some states — like Mississippi — no institution that takes state money can perform abortions
— abortions reduced by 20% since 1990
In my own city, the major abortion mill closed down.
In addition, Bush eliminated government funding for fetal stem cell research, something I might add that McCain wanted to add back and of course that Obama promptly added back as he clearly stated he would.
No, the last several years have been incredibly successful regarding abortion — and cultural advances have been made, as well. The percentage of Americans who do not approve of or accept abortions is growing steadily. There is a cultural shift going on.
I say all of that, having not voted for either main presidential candidate, and having voted for a Democrat for Senator [he lost]. But it’s important that those of us — whether members of the party of the Republicans or Democrats or independents like me — who loathe abortion and recognize it for the bloody sin of our country’s past more than three decades also recognize the dramatic successes that occurred over the past several years, almost entirely because of Bush and the Republican Party.
I reiterate — I think the Republican Party’s actions regarding economics and fiscal conservatism have been appalling. I did not support the initial bailout package, which as we all know was sponsored by Bush and for which many Republicans voted. I will not be voting for those Republicans in 2010. I do not believe that the State has either the authority, responsibility, or the competence to “save healthcare” or the car industry or pretty much anything else that the market should be vigorously running.
I also agree that they did not do well with the gay agenda — other than passing DOMA. But the only thing I can think of that could be accomplished on a national front with the gay activists is the constitutional amendment.
RE: “The new congress would have (and could have) absolutely no effect on the convictions of scientific researchers concerning global warming.”
I completely agree. Nor will the new congress have any effect on the *political* convictions of the scientists who promote human-aided global warming — and wish for the State to further regulate and control individual actions regarding same.
But a new congress does not need to have an effect on the political or scientific convictions of global warming scientist/activists. The new congress merely needs to refuse to agree to the draconian and collectivist regulations and State control of the energy industry.
I myself am deeply suspicious that the Republicans will be unable to pull off anything all that important in 2010 — largely because they have refused to run or promote conservatives.
So William Witt need not fear. I, a political conservative, have little belief that a crop of conservatives will be elected in 2010.
Agreed. However, the election of a less environmentally doctrinaire legislature would prevent the “rush to folly” over AGW. With all respect due our past VP, in this case NONE, AGW is not and never has been a consensus of the scientific community as a major driver in climate change. In the past few years, the obvious correlations with solar activity, as well as other non-human causes, have started to yield the underlying physics. The difference between the public and political picture, and that of the science community, is truly striking.
[blockquote] I’m a bit confused by this statement.[/blockquote]
Sarah,
Don’t be. “Conservatives” have had thirty-six years to overturn Roe vs. Wade. During that time, Republicans have controlled the White House for twenty-three years. Republicans controlled the Congress from 1994 up through much of George W. Bush’s Presidency, during which time Republicans controlled all three branches of government.
Granted, there have been minor correctives to the abortion license, but abortion on demand right up through delivery remains the law of the land throughout the country, as it has been since 1973.
I would have been most impressed if George W. Bush had devoted the kind of enthusiasm to passing a constitutional amendment against abortion during the time when his party controlled all three branches of government as he dedicated to convincing the country that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear) that he was prepared to use against the US, or that, in light of a then balanced budget, he used to convince the country that they deserved a tax rollback, since it was wrong for the government to run on a surplus.
What I do vividly remember was a presidential debate with Al Gore in which Bush responded to a question on his policies on abortion exactly as had Geraldine Ferraro and Mario Cuomo a couple of decades earlier.
I would at least find it interesting to see values voters ask themselves why they continue to support a political party that is strong on rhetoric, but shows by what it delivers that it really cares about other things.
Republicans may have had ‘control’ of Congress, and appointed justices to the Supreme Court, but right now they do not have the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision. And this will be the case unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed granting this ability.
RE: “Don’t be.”
Ah — I see — it wasn’t accidental ignorance but rather pretence.
But as you know, in order to be able to “overturn Roe v Wade” [my what a grand sweeping wave-of-the-paw sort of activity that is] one must [i]actually have Supreme Court justices whom . . . you know . . . care about the Constitution and don’t discover “rights” to kill babies in their deconstruction of that document.[/i]
That necessarily means that at minimum a President — Republican necessarily too — must have a Republican House and Senate in order to appoint a strict constructionist judge or two [and as we have seen in the past six months, in order for a Democrat to appoint a raving who-cares-about-the-Constitution “a-wise-latina-woman” sort of justice as well]. In the [i]rather limited[/i] time in the past thirty-six years that Republicans have owned President, House and Senate, excellent progress was made — in fact three great constructionist justices appointed to the vociferous disagreement of . . . you know . . . those legislators of the party of the Democrats.
RE: “I would at least find it interesting to see values voters ask themselves why they continue to support a political party that is strong on rhetoric, but shows by what it delivers that it really cares about other things.”
I’m a “values voter” and one of the only values that the Republicans have supported vigorously in their efforts over the past 12 years has been the anti-abortion value.
I heartily agree — the Republican party pretends to be fiscally conservative but is not. The only difference in the area of fiscal policy between Republicans and Democrats is the speed by which the different parties wish to hurl the country towards mass collectivism and massive State power and control.
But why that is a concern politically liberal people one cannot imagine.
However . . . anyone at all who loves abortion has but one party who 1) happily defends and promotes it in its platform, 2) appoints justices that will support same when it comes before the Supreme Court, and 3) attempts with all of its power to prevent further regulations while at the same time showering more confiscated moneys upon the industry.
And it ain’t — regrettably for otherwise politically liberal Christians — the Republican party.
Signed,
A conservative who will most likely come 2012 not vote Republican and who did not in 2008 because she is a values voter, along with being a fiscal conservative
And to counterweight my happiness with the efforts that the Republican party made on abortion — one of their only good points . . . and just in case any of the Republicans with whom I have crossed swords here think I’m changing my mind about the party, I paste these excerpts from Paglia’s latest — of course I disagree with her on abortion [one of her issues with the Republican party], Cheney, and Gingrich, but she certainly grasps the overarching sweep of Complete Failure and Abject Destruction and Surrendering of conservative principle and integrity in the party.
[blockquote]By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats’ main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP’s facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen.[/blockquote]
*****
[blockquote]Having said all that about the failures of my own party, I am not about to let Republicans off the hook. What a backbiting mess the GOP is! It lacks even one credible voice of traditional moral values on the national stage and is addicted to sonorous pieties of pharisaical emptiness. Republican politicians sermonize about the sanctity of marriage while racking up divorces and sexual escapades by the truckload. They assail government overreach and yet support interference in women’s control of their own bodies. Advanced whack-a-mole is clearly needed for that yammering smarty-pants Newt Gingrich, who is always so very, very pleased with himself but has yet to produce a single enduring thought. The still inexplicably revered George W. Bush ballooned our national deficits like a drunken sailor and clumsily exacerbated the illegal immigration debate. And bizarrely, the hallucinatory Dick Cheney, a fake-testosterone addict who spooked Bush into a pointless war, continues to be lauded as presidential material.[/blockquote]
*****
My favorite parts of her analysis are almost always her leftist vision of Republicans [other than her apt descriptions of the actions of her own party].
I am a values voter. In the past I was registered republican but I have never voted party, I voted candidate. I vote for fiscal and social conservatives. I am a registered independent. I will continue to vote for fiscal and social conservatives. I will support them with my time and money when they show promise of being one who can withstand the corruption of Washington. When they fail to honor their pledge to uphold these values I will do whatever I can to see they don’t get a second bite at the apple. And as to why we value voters would rather see a party of possible inaction in place than one that would prefer to ram a liberal social and fiscal agenda down our throats? Do I really need to count those ways for you?
Sarah,
There is another way to overturn Roe vs. Wade besides a restructuring of the Supreme Court, which would only return the battle to the legislative realm, either at the Congressional or state level.
The only way to actually ban abortion would be a constitutional amendment, which I believe would be an impossibility given the divided opinion of the electorate.
But any resulting legislation would then have to pass Supreme Court muster, which means the legislation could be (read: would be) overturned by SCOTUS on appeal of the ACLU and NOW. Which goes back to Sarah’s point: without a preponderance of conservative constitutionalists on the court, any attempt at legislation is DOA.
People make a very good point that very long control by the presumed “values party” did not result in any of the promised changes and some of those do not involve Constitutional reform. Where is the prayer in school that was promised? The outlawing of teaching of evolution? But to the abortion issue, some have suggested (not me btw) that the very worst case senario for the “values voter” would be for Roe v Wade to be overturned. The issue would then be fought state by state with results that would be both predictable and unpredictable. As i have said here before, largely to deaf ears i believe, beware of unintended consequences. If you think that is not possible then i would urge you to review the history of prohibition.
Everyone, of course, votes “values.”
What is noteworthy is the group to whom this is ascribed by the media powers that be.
Does this mean social liberals don’t have “values”? I mean this is pure idiocy. I guess they mean the greatly-to-be-fear-unwashed-values voters want to “impose” their values. Is this what they mean? But then they don’t?
I mean I know people are blind, but this is beyond belief.
Perhaps Michael Savage is right. Liberalism is a mental disorder — at least cognitively.
[blockquote]But any resulting legislation would then have to pass Supreme Court muster, which means the legislation could be (read: would be) overturned by SCOTUS on appeal of the ACLU and NOW.[/blockquote]
A constitutional amendment would not have to pass Supreme Court muster.
#1 William Witt’s 2) and 5) both relate to government control over what people do with their own bodies. And most people I know don’t want any government on any level to seize that control.
So, #15, you’d naturally be against Obamacare, right?
#16—Huh? Obama’s initiative to keep people from dying because they lack health insurance and to keep people from going bankrupt just because they get sick doesn’t relate to the topic of this thread.
I suppose it’s just a matter how you couch the “seizing” part, doesn’t it? Obama’s already said his plan’s going to deny, for example, elderly patients the implantation of pacemakers in favor of giving them a “pain pill.” Are you okay with “government at any level” seizing that control? Cuz yer gonna git it.
No. 18 – Obama was on TV all morning yesterday and I didn’t hear him say that. No more pacemakers for old folks, huh? He really said that? Wow. Pain pills (in quotes no less) instead. I must have dozed off. I’ll pick up this morning’s Washington Post. It’ll be a banner headline. Let’s see . . . ooops. Not here. Boy, a lot of us missed the money quote I guess.
It wasn’t on Sunday, NoVA, it was at a health care town hall. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo]LINK[/url]
You may call me Scout, Jeffersonian. OK, so I follow the link and I find nothing that supports your comment no. 18. What gives with you? When did Obama say that his health plan is going to deny elderly patients pacemakers in favor of giving them pain pills? I’m a conservative, small government Republican with real concerns about health care policy. My biggest concern, however, is that this very important and complex discussion gets debased by a lot of rhetorical hooey from both sides, and that the educated citizenry and leaders of a free Republic can’t get their sleeves rolled up and tackle the problem if any citizen feels free to misrepresent the positions of the President or others.
[Please remember to address the thread topic and be careful of personal comments – thanks – Elf]