Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Can’t they all just get along?

As one media-fed controversy (“Crimsongate”) dies down, another one rises, this time sparked by Ohio Senator George Voinovich’s recent remarks about the GOP in the Columbus Dispatch. Voinovich, a moderate Republican, declared that his party is being hurt by the perception that it’s dominated by Southerners. “We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns,” Voinovich asserted. “It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr.’ People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell [do] they [have] to do with Ohio?’”

Voinovich’s remarks were condemned by Louisiana GOP Senator David Vitter; in addition, US News & World Report religion writer Dan Gilgoff claimed that Voinovich “…may be using ‘Southerners’ as shorthand for religious conservatives or white evangelicals.” A Hotair.com discussion of Voinovich’s statements degenerated into an online brawl between those who believe that the GOP panders to religious conservatives from the South and those who believe that libertarian-minded Republicans want to force conservatives of faith out of the party.

It’s sad that Voinovich’s remarks have apparently worsened tensions between the GOP’s libertarian and socially conservative factions; as a moderate, Voinovich should be the target of each faction’s contempt, not the jumping-off point for renewed hostilities between both sides.

The GOP can live without Voinovich, but it will die if social conservatives and libertarians don’t set aside their petty grievances. If the party’s two main factions were united, their combined power would bring the Democratic Party to its knees.

There is no logical reason why social conservatives and libertarians cannot coexist peacefully within the GOP. If members of each faction share the same general goals (building up a strong national defense, restraining the reach of the federal government, implementing pro-growth economic policies, etc.), then it’s irrational and irresponsible to allow divergent views on certain social issues to tear the party apart.

On Hot Air, some libertarian commenters argued that social conservatives seemingly want to impose a religious test upon the party’s current and future members. It’s hard to imagine this actually being the case: if conservatism is the central tenet of the Republican Party, then it would be impossible to make members of the party pledge allegiance to any one religion.

Conservatism is ecumenical; when properly defined and properly understood, it can appeal to anyone regardless of religion, race, identity or income. If the Republican Party is indeed the political vessel of conservatism in the United States, then by definition the party cannot have a “Christian Only” entrance requirement.

Another argument advanced by Hot Air’s libertarian league is that the Southern evangelical flavor of the GOP leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouths of voters from other regions. According to this view, Southern evangelicals are self-righteous and arrogant, believing themselves to be representatives of the “heartland” and “real America”; such self-righteousness is leading the GOP into de facto rump-party status.

I agree with the libertarians in this regard: rhetoric about the “heartland” and “real America” is unnecessarily divisive and off-putting, since it implies that only certain regions of the country are willing to listen to conservative arguments. Those who prattle on about the “heartland” and “real America” seemingly want to concede the country’s major cities to the Democrats.

This is destructive thinking. If America is truly in the middle of a war between capitalism and socialism—between freedom and statism—then it must be noted that the front lines of that war are everywhere: every town, every city, every county, every state. If conservatives are serious about maintaining the country’s character as intended by the Founders, then they cannot leave any region behind.

There are little heartlands everywhere across this country, places where folks can be reached by the optimistic message of conservatism so long as that message is delivered the right way. Some of these areas will not be able to hear a religiously-themed conservative message; selling a “values” message to a secularized region of the country defies all logic. However, these regions could be reached by a libertarian-themed conservative message: this is why it’s so important for the GOP to develop an urban-oriented conservative vision to complement the rural-oriented conservative vision that has led to the party’s success in the South.

Libertarians and social conservatives need each other; why engage in a pointless civil war when, as allied powers, they could achieve so much in the struggle against socialism? Instead of wasting time feuding over Voinovich’s words, Southern social conservatives and libertarian-minded Republicans from other regions of the country should work together to strengthen the GOP and the overall conservative movement while agreeing to disagree on certain hot-button issues. Either these GOP factions will work together as a fighting force, or they’ll delight Democrats with a long, drawn-out divorce.