The EFM Feature

Charles linked earlier to a clip of Gov. Romney explaining why the Republican “stool” should have three legs–military, economic, and social conservatives. Meanwhile, Rudy has argued forcefully that the stool should have two legs–military and economic conservatives. He doesn’t say that there isn’t room for us social conservatives, but the implication is that our issues take a back seat to military and economic issues. But if Republicans put social issues on the backburner, who will carry the cause?
If the results of a new Gallup poll are any indication, it won’t be the liberals.

Percentage Calling Each “Morally Acceptable”
May 10-13, 2007
Homosexual relations
Liberals — 83
Moderates — 50
Conservatives — 23
Sex between an unmarried man and woman
Liberals — 89
Moderates– 66
Conservatives — 34
Having a baby outside of marriage
Liberals — 83
Moderates — 59
Conservatives — 33
Abortion
Liberals — 67
Moderates — 39
Conservatives — 24
Divorce
Liberals — 87
Moderates — 68
Conservatives — 49
Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos
Liberals — 84
Moderates — 69
Conservatives — 48
Cloning humans
Liberals — 22
Moderates — 9
Conservatives — 6

With the exception of cloning humans, liberals have reached a “morally acceptable” consensus on all of the issues listed above. Translation: There’s not much of a political market for social conservatism if the GOP elects to cut off that leg from its stool. Now that’s not to say that social conservatism will die without the Republican party; it won’t. But it will be, even if only temporarily, without a political voice. And once that voice is lost, it may take a generation of political activism just to return it to the prominence it enjoys today. As such, conservatives should think twice before we abandon the cause for which we are the best–if not only–hope.


Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

Comments are closed.