Republican Revolution

From Laurie Higgins:

In lengthy discussions on a political website over the past few weeks on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of voting for “moderate” Republicans, I have been surprised to learn of the intensity of hostility that “moderate” Republicans feel for conservatives. They call conservatives “crazy loons,” “whack jobs,” “insane,” “fringe,” “hysterical,” and “homophobic hatemongers.” Yes, they sound remarkably like liberal Democrats.

The occasion of these discussions was the publication of an article in which I suggested that the time has come for conservatives to make their votes count by voting for liberal Democrat Pat Quinn in the Illinois gubernatorial race over the “moderate” Republican Bruce Rauner who has campaigned on his liberal social policies.

I’m proposing this strategy not because I support Quinn’s policies, but because the Republican Party is rapidly abandoning what are dismissively called the “social issues.”

“Moderate” Republicans have deceived gullible, compliant conservatives for years, urging them to call a “truce” (or more accurately, a surrender) on the social issues until our state and federal fiscal house is in order. What “moderate” Republicans didn’t tell their gullible, compliant water-carriers is that they have no intention of ending the truce, because in reality they hold in contempt conservative views on life, marriage, and religious liberty. What many “moderate” Republicans (henceforth referred to as “immoderates”) do care about are conservative votes and money.

But they won’t care about those for long.

If conservatives don’t want immoderates elected, then they should better ensure they aren’t elected. They can accomplish this by voting for their opponents. Perhaps if the Republican Party sees that they can’t win elections with lousy immoderate candidates, they will find and fund candidates who support the entire Republican Party platform. And then they can harangue and hurl epithets at immoderate Republicans, commanding them to hold their noses and support conservatives who may not be their “perfect” candidates.

What is perhaps most troubling about the views of immoderates is their religious hostility. When conservative commenters dared to refer to God in their comments about the dismantling of marriage or the killing of preborn babies, immoderates would say, “Aha, finally the truth is out. Conservatives extremist fundies want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country in violation of the separation of church and state.”

Word to immoderates: Conservative people of faith are as fully entitled to have their faith shape decisions regarding elections, laws, and policies as are those who attend liberal churches and synagogues and as those who hold atheistic worldviews. I think Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that lesson.

Again and again, immoderates accused conservatives of demanding only “pure” candidates, which is patent nonsense. This is just another way to ridicule conservatives who believe that issues related to life, marriage, and religious liberty are at least as important as the almighty fiscal issues that single-issue immoderates view as sacred.

Immoderates apparently haven’t noticed that they themselves are guilty of demanding “purity” in their candidates. Would immoderates vote for a candidate who vigorously promoted Republican positions on marriage, preborn life, religious liberty, immigration, gun control, education, healthcare, and national defense, but openly opposed Republican positions on government spending and debt, tax policy, and energy policy?

I would submit that what we’re facing now is a time unique in modern American history and one which demands radical, countercultural action. We’re facing the dismantling of marriage, which poses a real and imminent threat to religious liberty. We’re facing daily the purchasing of DNA by naturally sterile homosexual couples who see nothing wrong with robbing children of their right to be raised by both a mother and a father. And we’re seeing Republicans embrace such pernicious non-sense.

Read more: