The EFM Feature
Picture+13

Is the Republican primary season revealing a disturbing strain of political correctness in the conservative movement.  I think so, and at Patheos I explain why.


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.

3 Responses to Mitt Romney, the Tea Party, and the Rise of Conservative Political Correctness

  1. Ross says:

    Amen! Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and George Will are infected with the same disease they have diagnosed for Mitt Romney-flip-flopperitis. They supported the platform Mitt Romney ran on in 2008 and declared it acceptably “conservative”. Mitt Romney is running on basically the same platform in 2011. If the principles of the 2008 platform were “conservative” , logic would dictate they would be “convervative” now!

    Moreover, these gentlemen are inconsistent in their “conservative” principles. For example, one of the issues they rail on most is “Romneycare” and the “individual mandate”. Yet, a hallmark “conservative” principle in my opinion is personal responsibility and accountability.

    Currently, there are people in our society who take no responsibility to provide for themselves including healthcare. Under the laws as they currently exist, these people can transfer that responsibility to the “people” at large through government. That transfer is a form of socialism which conservatives decry!

    I doubt most conservatives would tolerate their relatives living in their homes and using their means when their relatives took no thought about providing for themselves. For short periods of emergency they would gladly help, but would bristle at being saddled with taking care of those relative s forever. There are reasons that some individuals cannot provide for themselves, but lack of caring or effort by the majority does not qualify.

    These are are real life issues facing ecclesiastical and governmental leaders not academic or journalistic exercises. Someone has to pay the cost to provide these services. “Conservatives” would argue it should be the individual where possible. And yet, some “conservatives” sling barbs at any effort by those governing to establish personal responsibitity.

    The difference between “Romneycare” and “Obamacare” is the focus. Mitt Romney made an effort to target only those who where not taking responsibility for their own healthcare for whatever reason. From Mitt Romney’s perspective, the legislation was directed at them and not the “people” at large. A “conservative” position for sure. “Obamacare” focuses on all the people-those who are providing for themselves as well those who are not. A “socialist” position for sure.

    Of couse, no legislation is perfect and is full of compromise as a reult of the legislative and political process. But what is significant is the intent! “Romneycare” was guided by Mitt Romney under “conservative” ideas where ” Obamacare” was motivated by “socialist” principles . In my opinion, the socialist principles are not provided for in the U. S. Consitution.

    As to the other issues of “purist conservatism” -abortion, gay marriage, global warming, and gun rights-often used to impugn Mitt Romney’s “conservative” credentials, the argument really is a matter of degree rather than philospical point of view. For Mitt Romney in my opinion, he has not changed his position on the issue but the role of government in dictating postions to society at large-not the right or wrong of the issue! While there may be some definitional or “purist” differences, he has always been against abortion, gay marriage , cap and trade and for gun ownership .These have always been “conservative “postions. Very little in life is “all or nothing” and governing requires wisdom and judgment. Having sat in the “governing ” seat is a plus for me not a point of crticism.

    It is easy to sit in the “peanut gallery” and throw stones. Presidents, governors, stake presidents, bishops and to some degree CEOs have to actually face these real life issues not just pontifcate. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, George Will and other detractors have not spent much if any time in governing seats and therefore have no record upon which to fanatically condemn as they have. It is easy to be a “politacally correct” pursit when one is not facing the real life issues and will not be judged by one’s decisions.

  2. RC says:

    Great piece David. You hit a poignant issue for me. The conservative PC group is like Christianity. They all claim to be Christian but differ so widely on any range of theological issues. Some say baptism is essential for salvation, while others do not. And the list can go on for miles. There are so many levels of belief (religiously and politcally) within a group or party, it can range from A to Z. While the M’s are blasting the C’s, the G’s are blasting the W’s. For what end?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>