Unprecedented: RNC boss man and bus load to attend March for Life
In a surprising but welcome move, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus is, according to The Washington Times:
… delaying the start of the party’s annual winter meeting so he and other committee members can join the March for Life on the Mall….
Mr. Priebus, in his second term as elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, chose to delay the start of the four-day winter meeting of the GOP governing body, also scheduled in Washington, to allow himself and RNC members to attend the march. The delay is unprecedented for a major U.S. political party, several state Republican Party chairmen and other RNC members said in telephone interviews.
Mr. Priebus also decided that the RNC will charter a bus to and from the march for those among the RNC’s 168 members who wish to attend….
I’m, of course, pleased by this visible show of support by the RNC. It will certainly garner the March for Life much deserved attention that MSM usually avoids while demonstrating some respect for the pro-life issue at the Republican leadership level. That this is even news demonstrates the perceived lack thereof. Were Chairman Preibus’s counterpart, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to announce she were attending an abortion fest sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the response would be, “But, of course.”
This move spurns erroneous advice of either liberal or wimpy arm chair quarterbacks like William Whalen who wrote in the Wall Street Journal on November 6, as they always do, that “Republicans would do well to de-emphasize social issues” since, he wrote, “[w]ithout the ‘war on women’ and its effect on turnout in the presidential election, Mr. Obama’s re-election might not have occurred.”
In fact, the “war on women” was one-sided, with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney electing to play rope-a-dope to Obama’s punches rather than punch back.
Same goes for pro-lifer Ken Cuccinelli against slimy pro-abort Terry McAuliffe.
American Principles in Action nailed the ridiculousness of this strategy in its excellent GOP Autopsy Report 2013:
In 2011, Indiana’s Governor Mitch Daniels suggested that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until our economic problems are resolved.
The next president, obviously, did not agree. President Obama has aggressively pursued his party’s social issues, from gay marriage, to abortion rights….
Meanwhile in the general election, Mitt Romney and his allied organizations acted on Daniels’ advice. Romney, the RNC and Romney-affiliated PACs all rigorously avoided television advertising on social issues, even in states (like Ohio) where the president’s support of gay marriage and taxpayer-funded abortion could have hurt him.
Unlike the GOP’s crop of successful state governors, who have generally governed as integrated conservatives (prioritizing economic issues but also pursuing socially conservative
legislation), the national GOP pursued a strategy of silence on social issues in the 2012 general election.
This national GOP truce strategy was noted by ABC News reporter John Parkinson when the Supreme Court ruled against Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013. The national GOP reaction to the Supreme Court decision was “almost entirely muted.” “Scores of Democrats [in Congress] tweeted their excitement and agreement with the Court when the decision was announced,” wrote Parkinson. “House Speaker John Boehner held a previously scheduled news conference at the Capitol, but when he was asked to react to the Courts [sic] decision, he punted.”
Similarly in June 2013, Texas Democrat Wendy Davis’s dramatic filibuster temporarily killed a late-term abortion ban and became a national cause celebre – but only among Democrats, as Politico noticed.
Democrats from President Obama down publicly supported Davis, while national Republican leadership “hasn’t latched onto the fight,” wrote Politico author David Nathers. “Few national Republicans have weighed in. And a key party official in Texas acknowledged there’s no behind-the-scenes help coming, though he says he doesn’t need it. Republicans will talk about the abortion bill when they’re asked about it, but they aren’t swooping into the fight with the same enthusiasm as liberals.”
National GOP elites publicly deny adopting a truce strategy, even as behind the scenes they urge (or even require as a condition of financial support) federal candidates to mute themselves on social issues….
One problem for the truce strategy is that “I’m not that extreme” is not an effective political response to the charge of extremism. It may be true, but it doesn’t work, politically speaking.
Politically, here is how the truce strategy plays out:
The Left punches on social issues, the Republican and conservative elites retreat and change the subject. The Left’s narrative therefore dominates. A unilateral “truce” on social issues turns into a political rout, failing in its alleged goal of “rebranding” the GOP. Instead it allows the Left to brand a silent and therefore defenseless GOP based on leftwing views of what “pro-life” or other values issues mean.
This issues-pessimism embodied in the truce strategy has created a self-defeating cycle on the social issues. The GOP adopts positions on values issues that its leaders refuse to advocate for or defend when attacked. The Democrats, understanding the GOP truce strategy, push hard, energizing their base, while accusing GOP candidates of extremism anyway.
The Democrats know they will not pay a price for their increasingly aggressive advocacy of their extremist social issues stances, because the GOP will not counterpunch on these issues. Thus they can please their base at no cost. In the face of Democratic political pressure, GOP candidates retreat, leaving middle-of-the-road voters to suspect that the unanswered charge of extremism is true (since undefended); and leaving voters who care deeply about life and other social issues to doubt GOP candidates’ sincerity.
Worst of all, the GOP doesn’t get the full, political benefit of our values stance, especially on life issues, because GOP national candidates do not seek to make the Democrats pay a price for their abortion-on-demand, taxpayer-funded, mandate-imposing extremism. The Democrats’ charge of extremism is left unanswered, confirmed in many voters’ minds by Republicans’ discomfort with our own positions. Hiding from your positions makes it look like you have something to hide.
When Todd Akin made his awful rhetorical faux pas on abortion and rape, Republicans and conservatives not only criticized his remarks, they distanced themselves and the party from his candidacy, and tried to force him out of the race and refused to fund his candidacy.
Yet many among GOP elites continue to blame Romney’s defeat on Akin, rather than recognize the fundamental weakness of a truce strategy: The strategy of retreat, rather than counterpunch, abjectly fails because it leaves the GOP’s political enemies free to define the meaning of the GOP’s position in voters’ minds.
The best defense for the weaker side of social issues (again politically speaking) is a strong offense; the alternative to a truce strategy is aggressively defining the social issues in voters’ minds on the Democrats’ weakest ground.
A perfect illustration of the truce strategy happened in the first debate for Virginia’s tight governor’s race in July 2013, when an obviously truce-savvy mainstream reporter asked Cuccinelli if he would push for abortion restrictions. Cuccinelli replied: “I do not expect to use the political capital of the governor’s office to be moving those pieces of legislation. My focus is on job creation and job growth.”
Cuccinelli did not use this opportunity to try to hold McAuliffe accountable for his deeply unpopular support of late-term or gender-selection or taxpayer financed abortions; instead Cuccinelli’s response suggests that his campaign has accepted the conventional wisdom that the best use to make of social issues is to signal to voters that you don’t take your own positions seriously enough to govern with them, so it’s safe for the mushy middle to vote for you. We do not bring this up to criticize Cuccinelli in particular, but simply as one of many illustrations of how the truce dynamic has taken over as the GOP’s conventional wisdom.
The truce strategy fails, politically, for three reasons: 1) it allows the opponents of the GOP to define the GOP brand, 2) it fails to make the Democrats pay a price politically for their social issues extremism, and 3) it persuades voters who might be attracted by the GOP values positions on life, marriage, or religious liberty that Republicans are fundamentally unserious in their values commitment, and therefore untrustworthy across the board.
To put it another way, the Left has read the GOP elites’ truce strategy playbook and they correctly understand the national GOP’s unwillingness to speak on social issues as an opportunity to use their mainstream media power to brand Republicans as extremists; they can do so because the truce strategy ensures that national Republicans will never fight back and make Democrats pay for their abortion and other social issues extremism. Democrats know that instead the GOP will retreat and change the subject to less “divisive” topics.
The truce strategy is a way to guarantee you lose a political argument, and the Democrats know it.
The APIA Report goes on to document the actual “pro-life advantage” among youth, independents, women, and Americans in general.
Perhaps Chairman Priebus is taking steps to correct the RNC’s huge political miscalculation. He may have started several months ago when accusing MSM of ignoring Planned Parenthood’s support of infanticide. When he ran for chairman it was certainly as an avowed pro-lifer. As recently as December 18 he expressed support on MSNBC for an abortion ban after four months.
We shall see. Rest assured MSM will cover the RNC’s “unprecedented” move to participate in the March for Life – and not objectively. It will try to find cracks, to get Priebus et al to make verbal mistakes. I hope he and others have done their homework.
[Top photo via Huffington Post]
It is welcome news to see the RNC going public in their pro-life support.
9 likes
I am cynical enough to suspect that there is a strategic political agenda in the public movements of political operatives.
I am also hopeful enough wonder if the Republican deadwood have been pruned, and that the young Republican leadership mean they are pro-life when they say they are pro-life.
12 likes
“I am cynical enough to suspect that there is a strategic political agenda in the public movements of political operatives.”
That was my first thought. The last politician I actually believed was actually genuinely pro-life was Santorum. And when Dems are pro-life I tend to believe them because they risk losing a ton of votes from their base. But overall most politicians seem to use abortion as a political tool. But hopefully this shows a possible genuine trend for Republicans to actually mean it when they say they want to get rid of legal abortion.
10 likes
I’m not sure it’s such a monumental development. After all it only means the GOP are starting to do what they should have been doing for decades now. Also note their big meeting is being held in Washington at the same time as the march. Wouldn’t it look outrageously bad if the whole bunch of them were meeting or drinking or whatever they do on those occasions when better than half a million dedicated pro lifers were shivering in the cold for hours to show their respect for life? No the GOP had to do this to save face, and it’s not much to celebrate over. So recork the champaigne.
5 likes
Perhaps when the RNC came calling for money this year, many more people than just your friendly Pharmer told them that since the Republican establishment is not pro-life, is embarrassed to be associated with pro-lifers and doesn’t want us to have a voice in their party, we are leaving.
I’ve been publishing it, tossing the RNC mail in the trash, telling every one I know, and telling the RNC phone solicitors who keep calling.
Maybe they’ve gotten the message.
But I don’t think the RNC visit to the March for Life is any more sincere than Fr. Jenkins from Notre Dame.
I don’t trust them. Vote for a real pro-lifer.
Washington D.C. is a backed up toilet which needs to be flushed.
5 likes
I can see his RINO suit slowly start to melt away and reveal the child of God..
I’ll be interested to see what happens next!
3 likes
Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth. The proper response is: “Whoo hoo!”
9 likes
Rick Santorum did better in the primaries than expected and lasted longer than other Republican candidates because he was genuine and articulate about traditional pro-life and pro-family social issues. That fact should have told the Republican Party leadership volumes in 2012.
In addition to back pedaling on his own faux pas, Todd Akin should have hit back hard against Claire McCaskill’s abortion on demand without apology stance. He may have still lost, but it would not have been by 15 percentage points.
5 likes
“We came.
“We saw.
“We promised to Defund Planned Parenthood!”
Make it so, Mr. Preibus! Make it so!
7 likes
GOP candidates have to get better at articulating the pro-life position. It isn’t enough to talk in the abstract about abortion, babies, life, etc. It has to be explained that preborn children are people no different than anyone else, and therefor deserve protection. Use ‘abortion’ less often. If you use imagery such as tearing apart a child or dismemberment you expose the left as the extremists.
8 likes
I don’t trust the GOP anymore. They are just as much “establishment” and “big government” as the Democrats.
So, I’ll wait on this one… but I have trouble seeing this as anything other than a calculated political move.
3 likes
Even political posturing means *something* though. Being highly cynical about politics generally permits me to be more optimistic with the specifics. Government leaders aligning themselves with LIFE is a good thing.
8 likes
“Being highly cynical about politics generally permits me to be more optimistic with the specifics. Government leaders aligning themselves with LIFE is a good thing.”
That’s a good point. If you look at it from a cynical perspective, maybe the RNC is thinking “wait, people take abortion seriously, it’s in our best political interests to align ourselves with the pro-life movement more publicly.”. I think culture is just as important as legality anyway, and if the GOP is noticing a trend towards pro-life that’s only good news. Now we just need the tiny amount of Dems who admit that they aren’t cool with abortion to take over the Democratic party. If enough people are pro-life I can see the Dems dropping pro-abortion politics at least a bit, that cynicism again.
5 likes
The last politician I actually believed was actually genuinely pro-life was Santorum.
You probably don’t remember our late great governor Bob Casey Sr. He was not only pro-life, but pro-union, pro working people, and pro social services for the poor. He was well-loved not only by the people of Pennsylvania but by prolifers all around the country. His son Bob Casey Jr. is a disgrace to his name.
5 likes
You’re right I don’t remember him, it seems he was out of office when I was a child. Wikipedia says that he was involved in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey that held up restrictions on abortions, he seems good. We need more like him. I like pro-life Dems.
5 likes
We need more like him. I like pro-life Dems.
I like pro-life Dems too — all three of them.
Seriously, there are some good prolife Democrats at the local and state level, but once they reach the national stage, their prolife convictions disappear. Can anyone think of a nationally known Democrat that is prolife? I can’t.
Yes, the Mighty Casey was the deft. in that case. I had the chance to meet Governor Casey in person. He was very charming, very nice. Not bad looking, either! His opponent during the second election was someone named Barbara Hafer, who referred to him as “that redneck Irishman from Scranton.” She lost miserably!
4 likes
Well there’s Dan Lipinski. I believe he’s truly pro-life. He’s national, at least he’s in the House. Uh…. I can’t think of any others. They do tend to evaporate at the national level, playing to the base and all. It’s like the GOP politicians that suddenly become pro-life when they want to run for Congress or whatever.
3 likes
Hey Deluded, you should run!
5 likes