Debate over the center and the GOP

I listened to a fabulous debate on NPR titled Will the GOP Die If It Doesn't Seize the Center.  There was an exchange, found on the Charlie Rose Show that really stuck with me.  It goes as follows:

Ralph Reed:

"Well, I think conservatism in a nutshell is a philosophy that argues that as government gets bigger, that freedom necessarily constricts.  And we believe people are best able to rise as high and as far as their God-given talents, abilities,ambitions, and desires will carry them when government gets out of the way and allows free men and women to do those things that are best left to them.  Government should be small. It should be limited, and it should be confined to specific enumerated purposes"

John Donvan:"Where do the social issues fit in?"

Laura Ingraham:

"It's the idea of ordered liberty. Jefferson wrote about it.  Madison, Mickey's favorite framer, wrote about it, that liberty without virtue is really meaningless because my idea of liberty could conflict with your personal space or everyone does what everyone wants to do in his or her own time, and obviously you'll have natural conflicts.  So ordered liberty is obviously the best. And a moral core, encouraging moral behavior,society changes, maybe society will change what the meaning of the world "moral" is, and I understand that.  But the morality has a place. We see it playing out today with the reaction to what happened in the horrible attack in Boston.  Morality is around us.  We can try to ignore it, we can try to say that -"

End of exchange.   And then:

Ralph Reed:

"But the fact of the matter is that what the Republican Party stands for, what it fights for and what it seeks to advance, is policies that will strengthen marriage, family, childbearing and rearing, so that young people are not left behind in circumstances where this young girl could end up finding herself. We seek policies that strengthen the family, because we know that if somebody gets married and stays married, bears children within the institution of marriage, and gets a job, any job, and graduates from high school --that person that I just described, in the United States of America, you know what that-- what chance that person has of living in poverty? 

Two percent. You do the opposite of those four behaviors, you don't graduate from high school, you don't get your first job, you bear children outside the institution of marriage, you have an 85 percent chance of living in poverty. And I read “Losing Ground.” And Charles Murray's exactly right. But the sociology and pathology of poverty in America today is largely as a result of government policies that don't strengthen those institutions "

Wow.  Where does one begin?

I find it interesting that she bring up the reaction to the bombing in Boston as an example of morality "playing itself out".  Not sure what she means here but it's an easy example because NO ONE is going to debate the lack of virtue or morality in the act. And the left certainly is not interested in pressing such liberties.  But I wonder if Laura would point that event out if instead it was an abortion clinic that had been bombed.  Would that continue to be an example that she would bring up as an immoral act?  

But let's address what was really implied in the question with regard to social issues: First, gay marriage.  How is it that gay marriage is a moral issue and how is it that the Republican Party is the authority on what's moral?

Her argument implies that progressive or liberal movements are not moral if they don't follow the moral code or principles prescribed by the Right.  Because, after all, the Right strongly believes  "people are best able to rise as high and as far as their God-given talents, abilities,ambitions, and desires will carry them when government gets out of the way and allows free men and women to do those things that are best left to them."  But according to Laura, only if those people are following the correct MORAL freedoms.  As opposed to freedoms the Right deems as "IMMORAL."  

Their Achilles heel is their belief that only THEY know what the correct moral freedoms are. 

There are a ton of Christian believers on the Left who have morals and who do not believe that gay marriage is a moral issue.  But the Right believes that it is a moral issue and that their perception of morality is superior to that of the Left.  So to abandon or compromise on their point of view on this issue is to turn their back on morality.  I keep hearing Rick Santorum saying "What a snob" when I think of this.

This even goes with the issue of Pro-Choice.  It is moral to remove the reproductive rights of a woman in order to force her to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and to force her to have a baby she does not want.  That in the Republican point of view is moral and the right thing to do.  And the Left's moral point of view that a woman has total control over her body and can make decisions with regard to aborting a pregnancy is considered IMMORAL and therefore it would be considered a liberty without virtue; and therefore not a liberty worth protecting.

I have to say, I'm very glad she cleared that up for me.


My question is to what extent does the Party believe they should go to protect their virtuous freedoms from "corruption".

Now this leads us to the issue regarding this issue of marriage.  Something else the Republicans do not understand.  We have a pretty high divorce rate in this country.  We also have a pretty high number of single women who do not want to be married.  Why?  Because marriage is no longer a path to survival for WOMEN.   In order for the GOP's ideal society to exist, they would have to promote and push policies that prevent women from being healthy, happy and productive outside of marriage.   Divorce would have to be more difficult.