Thanks, But No Thanks

By

November 16, 2010

So the fissure between some in the “Tea Party” movement and “social conservatives” continues to fester beneath the surface of American politics, revealing itself periodically, but not quite coming to a boil — yet.

Yesterday, Politico ran a story about a letter sent by GOProud, a homosexual activist group, some tea party leaders and various bloggers, urging Republican leaders in Washington to avoid putting forward any legislation on those nasty little  social issues the Tea Party seems so bent on ignoring. Focus, they say, solely on limiting government. 

Mitch Daniels, your office is calling.

Truce. Let’s bury the hatchet for a while and just focus on the issues where we agree. We’ll get back to the “divisive social issues” later. There are more important things to deal with. 

We’ve heard it all before.

Now, there are many possible responses to this foolish line of thinking, not the least of which is the polling that shows an overwhelming majority of tea partiers as socially conservative, and the fact that pro-life and pro-marriage candidates dominate the class of new Congressmen that will arrive in Washington in January — many of whom ran campaigns that touted their socially conservative leanings. 

But you know all that already. 

I have some other reactions (not all printable!). For instance, this truce that’s being pushed, does it include, say, GOProud’s friends at the Human Rights Campaign and their state chapters like Equality Virginia? Or Planned Parenthood? Or NARAL? Will they cease and desist from pushing their agenda’s during the “truce”? No more coming to the government for grants? No more money to Planned Parenthood? No more attempts to legislate same-sex marriage? 

Yea, that’s what I thought. So we’re being asked to just play defense? Sorry, I’ll pass.

And why can’t we focus on more than one issue at a time? Is it really that difficult? Honestly, social conservatives, who are also overwhelmingly fiscally conservative, have no problem working on lowering taxes and decreasing the enormity of government at the same time they seek to restore some ethical standards that once under-girded our culture. Is it so bad that our politicians can’t think about two issues at once?

Don’t answer that.

Frankly, this whole debate is wearing thin. News flash: social issues aren’t going away. They aren’t going away because for a large segment of the electorate, on both the left and the right, these issues matter. They matter a lot. They matter to those of us who believe that strong, stable, two parent families will reduce poverty a lot faster than any government program. They matter to those of us who understand that losing 50 million people from the population since abortion was made legal has had a $35 trillion negative impact on our economy (not to mention the fact that those are 50 million human beings we’re talking about!). They matter to those of us who understand that our freedom to say what we believe and exercise our faith in the public square is threatened by the relentless march of secularism.

So no, I won’t be joining any truce. The Family Foundation isn’t joining any truce. We aren’t going away. No matter how badly some in the “Tea Party” wish we would.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

Tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 Responses to “Thanks, But No Thanks”

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Family Foundation, srossie. srossie said: Are the Tea Party and social conservatives at odds? http://t.co/ocVDjE9 [...]

  2. Mark Siegel says:

    You say most Tea Partiers are social conservatives. If that’s true then days of reckoning lie ahead. In the case of civil rights/marriage rights for gays will these social conservative TP’ers point to the Constitution or the Bible? Since the two are not always in harmony we will see their true colors. This may take some time to manifest itself but those day/s will surely come and I’m looking forward to it.

Leave a Reply