A friend of mine commented on my lamenting the election results by suggesting I should be pleased about “waking up one morning to find America cares more about social issues than what’s trading on the market.” Wow. That is pretty harsh. So you are suggesting that the only thing I care about is how much money I’m making. I was really offended. To be fair, this person happens to be a very nice person who (as astounding as it may seem by the comment) didn’t mean to offend me and apologized. However, I find this is a very common view held by lots of liberal folks.
So, let me explain why I voted the way I did. I based my vote on a combination of the probable outcome of each party’s platform and the severity of that outcome: probability and severity. So, for example I believe probability that the Republicans would have overturned RVW was minutely small. I also believe that gay rights will happen regardless of whom is in office because the country is demanding it. And, based on what I know and have read, the policies of the current administration will be very, very detrimental to our country’s economy. I am gravely concerned that our current fiscal policy puts America on the path to Greece. Right now, the Greeks are worried about how they will feed their families and not much else. And really isn’t the ability to earn a living just as much of a human rights issue as these other things?
Ultimately I weighed each outcome’s severity with the probability that that outcome would occur under a particular platform. I believe the probability of our country facing serious economic problems due to the administration’s fiscal policy is much higher than the probability of women loosing rights they currently have or homosexuals not gaining rights the should have. It isn’t that I don’t care about the other issues, but I think the probability of the economy doing poorly and the severity of that outcome outweighed the probability and severity of the other issues.
The current Republican platform is forcing many like me to either vote for its economic agenda or against its social one. I’m guessing many of the folks who voted for the President feel the same way; they just assessed the probability and severity of outcomes a bit differently than I do.
It is interesting that the party that preaches ‘freedom’ is the same one that is telling us what decisions we should make about our baby and our partner. I have a conservative friend who is furious about New York’s big soda ban. “You can’t tell us how much soda to drink!” “We are becoming a nanny state!” is another phrase I hear a lot. And yet, it is fine to dictate what we can do with our unborn child or whom we should partner with?
If the economy is so important, why not loosen up on the other social issues that put many voters at odds with the Republican economic platform? By drawing a line in the sand on social issues like gay rights and abortion, the Republican Party is forcing many voters to give artificial weight to those issues. And I believe this in large part drove the outcome of the last election. If I was gay and had to vote against gay marriage in order to get a conservative economic policy I bet I’d vote for my partner’s rights every time. That is totally reasonable. So, let’s not force voters to make that choice.
I’d like to see Republicans take a social position that is respectful of both sides and completely defensible. Doing this would allow voters to set those issues aside and focus on domestic and foreign affairs thereby assessing who really is most the most competent leader.
On abortion for example I’d suggest we basically agree to disagree. Abortion is an issue that is contentious because (with good reason) it is so emotional. The likelihood that we as a nation will come to an agreement is very, very small. So, how about a compromise? Keep abortion legal. However, don’t use any federal funding for abortions. This gives respect to both sides. Pro-life advocates win by not having any of their tax dollars spent to fund a medical procedure that they are so deeply opposed to. Pro-choice advocates win with freedom to choose and independently support organizations like Planned Parenthood if they feel it is appropriate.
I told my husband before the election that if the Republicans can’t win with Romney and Ryan, who I thought were strong candidates, the party has serious problems and won’t get in the oval office again until they are fixed. Sara Westwood, in the article below says the Republican Party must, “Modernize and prioritize.” I’d assert that modernization the party needs stems from prioritization that many want.
In the mean time, try to remember, we conservatives aren’t monsters.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578107410973408952.html?mod=e2tw
clearing mud 