Values Voters, Republicans and Romney

There is a third rail of Republican politics and I am about to jump right on it with both of my size 7, 4-inch, white satin heels (no need not to dress up for a tough job).   What prompted this was an article about the Values Voter Summit this weekend.  There was concern, on the part of the assorted activists, that Romney wasn’t beating President Obama in the polls.  “If Romney loses this election, the party really needs to do some soul-searching.” was the quote from a participant at the summit.  I agree, but think this statement means something totally different to me than to him. 

I am a life long Republican, not an issues voter.  I am a Goldwater Republican.  For me it is all about economics and personal freedom, constrained only by the gentle guidance of the Constitution.  For a host of reasons I want Romney to win.  Those reasons include taxes and monetary issues, a foreign policy that rewards our friends more than our enemies, a philosophy of personal responsibility for our actions and proper reward for our successes.  I like the fact that Romney admires personal initiative and success.  He believes in America and the free market economy.  He doesn’t have any hidden agendas.  He wants a better America for everyone. 

Getting him elected, however, is a mathematical problem, not a moral one.  According to the September 1, 2012 Rasmussen poll, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans is at an all time high of 37.6%.  That is only about 1 out of every 3 Americans.  The other two thirds are roughly divided between Democrats and Independents.  If we don’t attract more than half the Independents, we don’t win.  I want to win. 

Here comes the third rail: 

1.  I, like most of the voters we need, don’t care who marries whom.  Homosexuals aren’t sinners, they are people hard wired at birth to a different sexual orientation.  There isn’t anything about homosexual marriage that threatens my heterosexual union. 

2.  I, like most of the voters we need, abhor abortion, but see it as settled law.  We have lost this fight, folks.  I don’t like it.  I will continue to try to limit and reduce the need for it.   That means more emphasis on contraception, not less.  It means holding men accountable financially for the children they father.  It means raising girls who don’t think their worth is tied to their sexual availability.  But most people feel that no woman should have to continue a pregnancy that she does not want.  Those of you who are already wiping spittle from you mouths as you start composing responses to this come off as mean spirited hysterics and, worse, you lose us votes. 

3.  I, like most voters we need, want people of faith to worship unmolested, but we don’t want any religion promoted or favored over any other.  It is incongruous to promote religious liberty and then say you worry that Mormons don’t quite pass muster.    

I have a nagging suspicion that we would lose the support of all of those, “values” voters if the liberals suddenly decided to keep their economically profligate ways, their steady erosion of personal liberties, their blithe march toward socialism, but then added, “Oh, but we are now solidly pro life, anti-gay, love Jesus and want prayer back in the schools.” Maybe the soul-searching that needs to be done includes the concept of a country that allows its citizens freedom to come to the best moral decisions without imposing those decisions upon them. 

You can head toward the middle, and still keep the faith.