Social Cons Who Heart the Pledge

The
GOP's PDF is earning applause from some on the right who think
"strengthening the family" is a pressing federal policy issue in
2010. Ralph Reed,
come on down!

Significantly, House Republicans rejected the false choice
between tea-party issues like cutting spending and delimiting
government and pro-family issues like honoring marriage and
protecting unborn life. For some strange reason, the media and some
in the GOP think the two agendas are incompatible. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Indeed, the exact opposite is true.
Pro-family candidates are the most likely to be fiscal
conservatives, and tea-party candidates are most likely to be
pro-life. Witness Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Marco Rubio, and
Christine O'Donnell. How come every time we scratch a tea-party
candidate we find a social conservative and a person of deep faith?
Could it be that the notion of limiting government and maximizing
freedom presupposes a citizenry animated by virtue, faith, and
reliance on God? That's certainly what the Founders believed. How
refreshing that the House GOP agrees.

Can I get a Newt "don't-cut-entitlements"

Gingrich?

[T]he reform Republicans offer a choice between the job killing,
big government, high tax agenda of the Democratic Party and a
Republican Party agenda to reverse out-of-control spending, restore
fiscal accountability leading to a balanced budget, create
confidence in the private sector to spur new job creation, and
strengthen the family.

How about
Marjorie Dannenfelser, of the Susan B. Anthony List?

Today, in its 'Pledge to America' the pro-life Republican House
leadership has echoed the voices of pro-life Americans calling for
a Congress that will protect Life. The pro-life legislative
priorities included in their Pledge reinforce Republican Party
unity as we approach these critical mid-term elections.

American Principles Project founder
Robert P. George:

What we demanded of the GOP was a firm and clear commitment to
marriage, life, and the free and full participation of faith-based
institutions in our public life. We got it. Our goal was not to
shift the focus of the "Pledge" to social issues, but to make sure
that the GOP's longstanding pro-life and pro-marriage commitments
were not abandoned, compromised, or passed over in silence.

Yuval Levin:

The first thing that strikes me (especially in comparing this
Pledge to the Contract With America) is how much progress
pro-lifers have made both in the arena of public opinion and the
intra-Republican debate on the abortion question. The Contract
avoided the subject like the plague. This document speaks plainly
of a commitment to human life several times, lists abortion funding
as a key reason for repealing Obamacare, and promises a
government-wide Hyde Amendment.

Related Timothy P. Carney: "Tea
Partiers Oppose Abortion, Not Just Deficits." And Rep. Paul
Ryan: "The
Cause of Life Can't be Severed from the Cause of Freedom." And
to be sure,
not all social cons are jazzed.
I am pretty much the opposite of a social conservative, and will
never forget the nadir that was Terri Schiavo conservatism, so none
of this exactly tickles my ivories. On the other hand, as awkward
as it is for me to admit,
some of the most social of cons tend to be the most fiscal of cons,
too.
But I think the big takeaway here is the yawning chasm between
the Pledge to America and the Contract From America.
The latter document, which is a product of Tea Party concerns
instead of electoral
coalition management, is short, sweet (if on the vague side),
and marriage-strengthening-free:

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited
Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an "All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

I hope, but don't know, that the restive, Democrat-repudiating
mood in the country reflects the Contract much more than the
Pledge. But the disparity between the two is an always-welcome
reminder that the two major parties are reliably incapable of
translating strong grassroots sentiment into public policy that
acts on it. Democrats are finding that out the hard way this fall,
in the various "hippie
punching" wars between the snippy White House and a base
dissatisfied with pot, Gitmo, war, ObamaCare, and more. Republicans
will likewise rediscover the phenomenon if they don't start taking
government-downsizing seriously.
Bonus self-linking: Me in 2005 on "The
Gingrich Legacy," in which I detail the serial libertarian
disappointments with the 1994 GOP revolution, and conclude:

The Republicans
located and attracted a new base of voters with bomb-throwing
rhetoric that only happened to include some
limited-government ideas (hardly surprising, considering the party
had been out of government for so long).
The key to maintaining that base, besides the usual vote-buying
that every governing party engages in, has been to keep the bombs
coming, not to follow up on any of the limited-government
promises (with the notable exception of welfare reform). [...]
This, finally, might just be the fruit of '94?a base mobilized
not to reduce the scope of government, but to jeer at domestic
enemies, conflate opposition to war with treason, and vote
decisively against Michael Moore.
That self-described libertarians spend more time on these
pursuits than noticing how their ideals continue to be mocked by
the party they vote for is a testament to the alluring power of
party-based populism. That Democratic activists seem eager to
emulate key parts of this approach is a reason to curb your
enthusiasm about the day when the Gingrich legacy gets the whipping
it so richly deserves.

lesbian blogs lesbian advice lesbian movies