For a long time, it's been obvious that
GOP politicians and media personalities bend backwards to avoid raising what
are supposed to be settled social issues, lest they turn off certain voting
blocs. Whether it's the Supreme Court redefining marriage for all
fifty states, the dismantling of Confederate monuments, or wishing to find a
"path to citizenship" for various groups that are here illegally,
Republican public relations experts try not to notice these issues, except to
criticize those who won't accept "necessary" or "positive"
change. This attitude is partly attributable to the fact that
Republicans are trying to capture at least some of the culturally leftist
Millennial vote. What's more, they're hoping not to get hammered too
badly among racial and ethnic minorities that typically vote for the left
(here, in Canada, and in Western Europe).
The Republican establishment and their conspicuously
neoconservative advisers, moreover, have their own interests and donor
base. Evangelicals in Texas may contribute votes to Republican
victories, but contrary to the prevalent opinion of the Huffington Post and the
British Guardian, these pious souls don't run the party. GOP
operatives in all probability don't give a rap about overturning the Supreme
Court's decision on marriage to please moral and social traditionalists, but
they do favor what their respectable donor base want: a pro-activist foreign
policy, tax breaks for corporations, and widening their electoral base among
left-leaning blocs.
If any doubt in this matter ever crept into my mind, it was
immediately dispelled by a conversation I heard on Fox News on January 3
between Chris Stirewalt and Karl Rove.
The topic these GOP worthies were supposed to be addressing is
whether Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a serious shot at
wresting the presidency from Donald Trump. Both thought this senator
is most definitely a serious competitor, who combines Trump's populist appeal
with a flamboyant speaking style. The question that Rove and
Stirewalt couldn't agree on is whether Warren believes in "markets,"
as she said she did at some point in her career. Stirewalt viewed
her as some kind of defender of capitalism despite her attacks on Wall Street,
while Rove questioned whether she really meant whatever she once said about
"markets."
Let me make clear that from what I've
heard her say, for example, at the Woman's March (against Donald Trump)
last year. It seems that Senator Warren is an agitated feminist, a
fervent advocate of Black Lives Matter, and a champion of every demand put
forth by LGBQT activists. Missing in this side of her political
persona is a monumental omission, and presumably, Stirewalt and Rove were
committing this omission as "professional" Republicans, who are
conceding troublesome social issues to the left while focusing on something called
"markets."
Let me say that even if I were an outright Marxist, I would still
not vote for Warren, who is not really a socialist, but a crazed warrior
against the list of human prejudices she ascribes to everyone who disagrees
with her. Her rant at the Women's March suggested a cultural Marxist
on steroids. In any case, her attitudes about "markets"
would be the last thing I'd worry about if Warren became
president. That would be like judging Castro by whether he was
providing enough Band-Aids for health clinics in downtown Havana or Cesar
Chávez by how many soccer balls he gave out to needy kids.
This careful sidestepping of the problem of Warren's true
radicalism may tell us something about how Stirewalt and Rove would have a GOP
candidate run against her in a presidential race – say, Trump if they
condescend to back him in 2020. This hypothetical candidate would
never be allowed to contest any of her social positions or the continuing
recriminations leveled by Warren against her opponent as a sexist, misogynist,
homophobe, or whatever other slur she raises against the target of her
attacks. They would have to focus on the effect of tax cuts, their
greater ability relative to Democrats to intercept domestic terrorists, and
saying more often than their competitors that the U.S. is the best country that
ever existed. If forced to choose between the model candidate of
Stirewalt and Rove and the perpetually outraged feminist from Massachusetts, I
doubt that I could even bring myself to vote.
Having said that, I also believe that the U.S. and most other
Western countries have swung so sharply to the left on social issues over the
last thirty years that the conflict-avoiding, pro-Wall Street GOP establishment
may be right in its strategy even if it gives no evidence of being socially
conservative. For example, although it was unusual to find anyone,
outside certain social circles, thirty years ago who thought marriage should be
extended to two members of the same sex, by January 2015, 60%
of those polled nationwide by CBS considered the redefinition of
marriage to be not only admirable, but also a "fundamental human
right." If someone asked me whether in light of this mass
conversion I could conceive of Americans, Canadians, and Germans thirty years
hence extending the legal definition of marriage to a father and daughter or to
a group "marriage" among three generations of the same family, I
would immediately answer, "Why not?" Providing that the
public is made to believe it's fighting rank bigots who oppose the further
discovery of "fundamental rights," most Americans, Canadians, and (if
their country still exists) Germans will be happy to view themselves as standing
once again on what for former President Obama is "the right side of
history."
Despite the fact that the left has won the culture wars hands
down, with a big assist from public administration and the judiciary, Stirewalt
and Rove may well believe that their party can survive by making the right
moves. Republican P.R. experts will have to convince a largely
leftward-leaning electorate that it can profit by voting for candidates with
the red label rather than the blue one. Appeals to the pocketbook and
physical security may still work for those designated as
"conservatives" even if other appeals do not. That assumes
that Republican candidates on the model of Mitt Romney make it appear that they
support at least in principle the valiant struggles waged by Senator Warren
against "prejudice." By then, however, even sane people
will have to insist that this self-described warrior for equality really cares
about whatever college-educated upwardly mobile voters, particularly women, are
supposed to care about.