Feb

16

Single Issue Values Voters: Prepare for Irrelevance

February 16, 2008 | |

I wanted to expand on a comment I made on a blog at Redstate suggesting Mike Huckabee as a potential VP selection. One of the comments suggested the following:

The GOP will not win if values voters stay home. Even the Dems angrily admitted that values voters made the difference for Bush in 2003. If they sit home, the GOP is tubed.

For the most part, for the past 28 years, Single-Issue Values Voters (SIVV) have had their way with Republican Presidential nominees. Reagan was a solid values candidate. So was GHWB. One could argue that their SCOTUS nominees haven’t turned out as originally hoped, but there were many mitigating circumstances. Qualified strict constitutionalist judges were few and far between, and those that were nominated were attacked by the liberals in the Senate, requiring them to nominate less conservative judges.

Fiscal conservatives sat out GHWB’s reelection bid due to the read my lips reversal, and that gave us four years of Bill Clinton. Having learned their lesson not to take their football and go home, many came back to support a moderate Bob Dole who ran a less than stellar campaign, but it wasn’t enough. Other conservatives, especially SIVV stayed home and decided to go with the devil they knew. Four more years of WJC followed. This was the beginning of the move to the forefront for values voters.

In 1999, these SIVV showed up in enough force to derail the campaign of John McCain, a solid fiscal and military conservative. He was conservative enough, but they wanted more, so we nominated GW Bush. They showed up in enough force for him to win in 2000, with even more coming to the polls to assure victory in 2004.

Now we come to 2007. Single-issue values voters, now feeling their strength from previous victories have to decide which of the many candidates to support. Rudy Giuliani is declared DOA due to his vocal pro-choice stance. Mitt Romney’s change to the pro-life position was deemed too politically expedient for them, so they went looking elsewhere. John McCain was seen in the same light as he was in 1999, not quite strong enough and his history of tension with evangelicals continued to keep them away.

Many were hoping for Fred Thompson to enter the race, hoping his previous stellar ratings from pro-life groups would be enough to coalesce around. Fred started out strong, but when challenged on HLA & FMA he stood by his federalist principles and the SIVV went packing. Thompson, like McCain and Romney were good enough on issues important for social conservatives, but these SIVV wanted more.

They found what they were looking for in Mike Huckabee. A former baptist pastor, strong on pro-life, family, and marriage issues, he was just the sort of candidate they believed would finally bring them the victory they’d been looking for. Constitutional amendments were promised, even though everyone but them knew they were unobtainable at this time or in the near future. These SIVV overlooked his ethical problems, his lack of experience with foreign policy, history of tax increases, class warfare rhetoric, and populist viewpoints.

Of all the candidates besides Huckabee, only Thompson was stronger than McCain on issues important to these voters. McCain is certainly good enough, having a solid pro-life voting history. Their main issue with him is his stand on stem cell research, but even for a strong pro-life voter like myself I believe science will soon render this research useless. It is my belief that these SIVV are so used to taking a principled stand at their church (where such as stand is warranted) that they can’t see it doesn’t work in the political realm.

Now we’ve come to the point where everyone but those in extreme denial realize that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President. SIVV, still believing themselves to hold the keys to the party are threatening to stay home and give the election to the democrats. They believe they can prove to the rest of the party that we can’t live without them. “Four years of Carter gave us Reagan” you will hear them say. I believe they are terribly wrong.

It is my belief that if these SIVV stay home this election, they will make themselves completely irrelevant and impotent for at least the next decade. Fiscal conservatives learned this by staying home in 1992. They’re just now, sixteen years later, having their say in this election. If the SIVV stay home, the rest of the party will look elsewhere for gains. Many people that vote for the democrat because the Republican party gives credence to the SIVV causes would vote Republican if the party moved more to the center on the issue, and that is exactly what they would do to bring these people in.

So I say to these single-issue values voters, stay home if you must. But in doing so, you must realize that you will make yourselves completely irrelevant and without any influence in the political realm for a very long time. During this time, your concerns will go unheard, issues that matter most to you will be decided by those who strongly disagree with you, and your cause will be set back by decades.

You would do well to consider the long-term consequences of such a decision. If you support the nominee, you will continue to have influence in the party. If you do not, you will have none.


Comments



1 Comment so far

  1.    The Art of Political Compromise : Night Twister on April 27, 2008 1:24 pm

    [...] doctrine puts that politician outside the camp. I call these voters Single Issue Values Voters. I wrote a blog about them and their influence over the Presidential primaries back in [...]

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats