Young Republicans Erase Lines On Social Issues

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/us/po ... ssues.html

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Matt Hoagland, the county leader of a group of young North Carolina Republicans, is busy trying to ramp up enthusiasm for Mitt Romney at the grass-roots level. So there are a few things he avoids mentioning to prospective young voters he wants to woo, including the hot-button topics like abortion and same-sex marriage, which have dominated campaigns past.

“Social issues are far down the priorities list, and I think that’s the trend,” Mr. Hoagland, 27, said. “That’s where it needs to go if the Republican Party is going to be successful.”

Zoey Kotzambasis, vice president of the College Republicans at the University of Arizona, considers herself a conservative. But she supports both same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Those are not just her opinions.

“A lot of the College Republicans I know share the same liberal-to-moderate social views,” she added. “And I think that’s changing the face of the party.”

In a break from generations past and with an eye toward the future, many of the youngest leaders of the Republican Party are embracing views on some social issues that are at odds with traditional conservative ideology — if they mention such issues at all, according to interviews, experts and some polling.

“When it comes to what you do in your bedroom, or where you go to church, or where you want to put a tattoo, we just couldn’t care less,” Mr. Hoagland said at a meeting last month of young Republicans in Charlotte.

And some social conservatives say they are deliberately playing down their own views on issues as a tactical move to attract more young voters to the Republican Party.

Polls show that Americans under 30 are the least likely to identify as Republican, and those in the millennial generation support President Obama by a wide margin. But in an effort to win votes by capitalizing on disenchantment with the recession and its slow recovery, Republicans are placing a renewed emphasis on fiscal issues, with hopes of energizing their young people — a group that had one of the lowest turnout levels in the history of presidential elections in 2008 and did not turn out in strong numbers in this year’s primaries.

“I would prefer that Mitt Romney leave social issues sort of alone, because I do disagree with him on those things,” said Ms. Kotzambasis, whose group, like many others, operates mostly independent of any national party oversight. “He keeps saying that the first things he’ll tackle are health care and the economy, and I hope he tackles the economy. I’m graduating in a couple years, and it’s pretty dismal where I am.”

What has become the norm, some experts say, is for young Republicans to take a cafeteria-style approach to issues that are important to them. And some established leaders see that as a boon to their party.

“My theory is that, just as young people don’t have to buy a whole album on iTunes and can pick and choose just the songs they like, they can customize their political views — and they do,” said Kristen Soltis, a Republican pollster who is the communications adviser to Crossroads Generation, a new pro-Romney “super PAC” aimed at young voters.

In her outreach to social moderates, Amelia Lutz, vice chairwoman of the Missouri College Republicans, calls her particular group “a welcoming, big-tent party.”

A poll this year by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that the percentage of Republicans ages 18 through 29 who favor same-sex marriage has grown to 37 percent, up from 28 percent eight years ago.

“The students I know who are conservative are far less so on social issues than our parents,” Ms. Kotzambasis, 19, said. “People are more accepting of different lifestyles.”

Younger Republicans are also the most likely members of the party to say that “more people of different races marrying each other” and “more women in the work force” have been changes for the better, according to a separate Pew study conducted last year.

Republican leaders also hope to tap into what they see as a growing libertarian streak among young conservatives — the same energy that Representative Ron Paul of Texas rode with some success through the early primaries, with a strong emphasis on minimalist government and individual freedoms.

Those ideas may complement long-established ideals about deficit reduction and cutting the size of government, issues on which young Republicans do not differ much from older generations of Republicans, experts said.

Asked what she thought would be the most effective message to reach young Republicans, Ms. Soltis echoed Ms. Kotzambasis: “Jobs, jobs, jobs could be it.”

All of their characteristics taken together, young Republicans present a nuanced mix of political ideals that may well change the face of the party over time, experts say. “There has to be room for them or the Republican Party won’t exist, at the pace this generation is evolving,” said John Della Volpe, polling director at the Harvard Institute of Politics.

With Mr. Obama currently leading Mr. Romney among Americans under 30 by 21 percentage points, according to the most recent Gallup poll, some Republican advisers said they would consider it a success if the margin shrinks by 10 points. “In some of these swing states, that could really be decisive,” Ms. Soltis said.

North Carolina is one such state. In McLeansville, 20-year-old Eddie Souther has founded a new Republican youth group, the Collegiate Informed Voters of Guilford County, that is reaching out to students in Spanish and Arabic as well as English, hoping to cast the widest possible net for Mr. Romney.

“We have a pretty significant Hispanic and Muslim population here,” Mr. Souther said, “and I’m just thinking about the future of the United States.”

Some young conservatives, Mr. Souther among them, continue to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage but say they are playing down their personal views because they have made the calculation that such issues will not be a factor in this year’s races.

Mr. Souther’s month-old group is going to be pushing on the economy and jobs, he said.

“I’m definitely socially conservative,” he said. “I’m not for gay marriage or abortion. But those are not issues that we feel are going to be moved or dramatically changed in any way.”

Other young Republicans spoke with passion about how their values had evolved over the past several years, especially while in college.

Ms. Kotzambasis, at the University of Arizona, said she was “accepting pro-life arguments” in the seventh and eighth grades. “But when I went through puberty and became a young woman,” she said, “I realized I didn’t know what I would do in that situation, so I couldn’t judge someone else’s choices.”

At least two members of her College Republican group, one of whom is a lifelong friend, recently revealed that they are gay, she said. And the open discussions that ensued greatly influenced the entire club, and solidified Ms. Kotzambasis’s own view.

“I think people have become much more at ease and comfortable about it,” she said. “Honestly, there’s about zero judgment from the people in our club, and I think that reflects the direction my generation wants to take the party in."

I'm not surprised this is happening. I think the Tea Party will peak around 2014 (since Romney probably is going to lose and then the TP can say that its he's not moderate enough). I don't think once these people mature though they'll really like Ron Paul's practically 19th Century views and go for centrist-technocratic types like Scott Brown or Jon Huntsman.

[Zaune]

“My theory is that, just as young people don’t have to buy a whole album on iTunes and can pick and choose just the songs they like, they can customize their political views — and they do,” said Kristen Soltis, a Republican pollster who is the communications adviser to Crossroads Generation, a new pro-Romney “super PAC” aimed at young voters.

That... isn't how political parties really work. You can rationalise it any way you like but voting for a party means voting for all their beliefs, even the ones you don't like. The only way to change that is to become an active member of the party and try to change those beliefs.

[Simon_Jester]

Within limits. People can and do say "I vote for him because I agree with him on X and Y, but disagree on Z, whereas with the other guy it's the other way around."

But that kind of mindset doesn't create strong, enthusiastic support for a party.

[Lord of the Abyss]

“My theory is that, just as young people don’t have to buy a whole album on iTunes and can pick and choose just the songs they like, they can customize their political views — and they do,” said Kristen Soltis, a Republican pollster who is the communications adviser to Crossroads Generation, a new pro-Romney “super PAC” aimed at young voters.

That... isn't how political parties really work. You can rationalise it any way you like but voting for a party means voting for [all their beliefs, even the ones you don't like.

Convincing people that that is how it works so they'll vote for you, then once elected ignoring their complaints about you voting against various issues they support is how political parties really work however.

[Channel72]

That... isn't how political parties really work. You can rationalise it any way you like but voting for a party means voting for [all their beliefs, even the ones you don't like. The only way to change that is to become an active member of the party and try to change those beliefs.

That IS how it works, because that's what actually happens. Most people only vote for a candidate because he supports most of their views, or at least some of their more important views.

I'm voting for Obama, but I don't support a lot of the policy decisions he makes. But what other choice does anyone have? This is just the nature of the "packaged" politics we have in the US. There's only two candidates who have a chance of winning, and you have to pick the one who supports the larger percentage of your views (or, more pessimistically, the one who is likely to do the least harm.) Even if there were more than two choices, it's unlikely you'd find a candidate you agree with 100%. If you're not willing to compromise by cherry-picking, then just don't vote.

[Simon_Jester]

Convincing people that that is how it works so they'll vote for you, then once elected ignoring their complaints about you voting against various issues they support is how political parties really work however.

They've worked that way for a little while, but that isn't stable in the long run. Eventually, the parties conform to the voter base; the reason you're disappointed with both parties is that you don't conform to the voter base.

[someone_else]

They've worked that way for a little while, but that isn't stable in the long run. Eventually, the parties conform to the voter base; the reason you're disappointed with both parties is that you don't conform to the voter base.

I don't think it's only him, most US citizens on SD.net seem to be disappointed by both US parties. And most foreigners (knowing something about US politics) posting here are as well.
But maybe this is not statistically significant as people here are inherently better/worse/mad/toolittle/whatever.

[Dalton]

This shift is not surprising. I'm predicting that the shift towards social liberalism continues, and we see a faction of the Republican party becoming more Libertarian.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Convincing people that that is how it works so they'll vote for you, then once elected ignoring their complaints about you voting against various issues they support is how political parties really work however.

They've worked that way for a little while, but that isn't stable in the long run. Eventually, the parties conform to the voter base; the reason you're disappointed with both parties is that you don't conform to the voter base.

Actually, I was thinking less of myself than I was of the Republicans and their base. How for many years, they appealed to the fundies and libertarians and other disparate right wing groups for their votes, while outside of rhetoric virtually ignoring them when it came to their actual agenda.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Convincing people that that is how it works so they'll vote for you, then once elected ignoring their complaints about you voting against various issues they support is how political parties really work however.

They've worked that way for a little while, but that isn't stable in the long run. Eventually, the parties conform to the voter base; the reason you're disappointed with both parties is that you don't conform to the voter base.

Actually, I was thinking less of myself than I was of the Republicans and their base. How for many years, they appealed to the fundies and libertarians and other disparate right wing groups for their votes, while outside of rhetoric virtually ignoring them when it came to their actual agenda.

Until now, anyway.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Until now, anyway.

Yes; the extremists seem to have finally woken up and realized they weren't actually getting much of anything in return for their votes.

[Aaron MkII]

Convincing people that that is how it works so they'll vote for you, then once elected ignoring their complaints about you voting against various issues they support is how political parties really work however.

They've worked that way for a little while, but that isn't stable in the long run. Eventually, the parties conform to the voter base; the reason you're disappointed with both parties is that you don't conform to the voter base.

Actually, I was thinking less of myself than I was of the Republicans and their base. How for many years, they appealed to the fundies and libertarians and other disparate right wing groups for their votes, while outside of rhetoric virtually ignoring them when it came to their actual agenda.

I would think it would lead to the party slowy being usurped by the wackos as they started becoming active in the party, to the point where the candidates are being chosen by the wackaloons.

[Mr Bean]

This is not exactly surprising. The Republican party has long been a struggle between the free wheeling as long as it benefits the free market Libertarian wing and the Religiously motivated fundamentalist wing of the party. To be blunt the Fundamentalists don't have a place in American politics because outside the 11% of the population they represent... pretty much everyone hates their policies. Were it not for the iron discipline and central control of the Republican party we long ago would have seen them breaking off. But a unique set of factors and the outright courting of them by Nixon lead to the death of the Dixiecrats and their absorption into the Republican party which forced the Democratic party to swing more left to define itself and resulted in both forces locking them in place.

Thing is the Fundamentalists have not been well served by this the last thirty years, Bush I hated them, Clinton payed lip service to keep them quiet and always "working" towards on of their goals but never achieving it and Bush II kept them quintessence except come election time. He did lots of little things but even with total lawmaking control he ignore the big goals of the Fundy wing of his party.

Add to that the long term problem of the youth becoming more liberal by simple exposure. Combine that with a culture that pushes tolerance on all levels and you get inevitability.

I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere because it's a favorite saying of mine. The people who voted George Wallace into office are still alive and still in power... But they are dieing off. By 2038 they will be 70 years or older meaning by 2045 we will be out of people in active politics who once marched with and supported segregation and Jim Crow in person and at the ballot box.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Actually, I was thinking less of myself than I was of the Republicans and their base. How for many years, they appealed to the fundies and libertarians and other disparate right wing groups for their votes, while outside of rhetoric virtually ignoring them when it came to their actual agenda.

I would think it would lead to the party slowy being usurped by the wackos as they started becoming active in the party, to the point where the candidates are being chosen by the wackaloons.

Which appears to be pretty much what happened; I doubt they thought it would work out that way though. In fact, I doubt they thought much into the future beyond winning the next election or two, much less the eventual result of such a vote-getting plan some decades in the future.

[General Mung Beans]

This is not exactly surprising. The Republican party has long been a struggle between the free wheeling as long as it benefits the free market Libertarian wing and the Religiously motivated fundamentalist wing of the party. To be blunt the Fundamentalists don't have a place in American politics because outside the 11% of the population they represent... pretty much everyone hates their policies. Were it not for the iron discipline and central control of the Republican party we long ago would have seen them breaking off. But a unique set of factors and the outright courting of them by Nixon lead to the death of the Dixiecrats and their absorption into the Republican party which forced the Democratic party to swing more left to define itself and resulted in both forces locking them in place.

Fundamentalists make up only about 11% of the population? Because from what I can see firm social conservatives make up a good thirty percent or so of the population (at least going by poll numbers on things like support for abortion being banned in most cases or gay marriage being banned by a constitutional amendment). This includes conservative Catholics (like Santorum who was more popular among fundamentalists/Evangelicals than Catholics) too.

[Mr Bean]

Fundamentalists make up only about 11% of the population? Because from what I can see firm social conservatives make up a good thirty percent or so of the population (at least going by poll numbers on things like support for abortion being banned in most cases or gay marriage being banned by a constitutional amendment). This includes conservative Catholics (like Santorum who was more popular among fundamentalists/Evangelicals than Catholics) too.

There's degree's of fundamentalism. I'm counting only the most extreme the reconstructions who's goal is nothing short of christian theocracy. Those who would favor a religious test for office, putting abortion doctors to death for murder, those who would make homosexuality a crime with serious prison time. There's about thirty percent of the of the population who can be called firm social conservatives and of that thirty there are about a third who would support these kind of measures. There's lots of social conservatives who want to ban abortion, there are much less who want to pass things like the person hood amendments which failed even in Alabama.

[General Mung Beans]

Fundamentalists make up only about 11% of the population? Because from what I can see firm social conservatives make up a good thirty percent or so of the population (at least going by poll numbers on things like support for abortion being banned in most cases or gay marriage being banned by a constitutional amendment). This includes conservative Catholics (like Santorum who was more popular among fundamentalists/Evangelicals than Catholics) too.

There's degree's of fundamentalism. I'm counting only the most extreme the reconstructions who's goal is nothing short of christian theocracy. Those who would favor a religious test for office, putting abortion doctors to death for murder, those who would make homosexuality a crime with serious prison time. There's about thirty percent of the of the population who can be called firm social conservatives and of that thirty there are about a third who would support these kind of measures. There's lots of social conservatives who want to ban abortion, there are much less who want to pass things like the person hood amendments which failed even in Alabama.

Thanks for the clarification. Interestingly from my experience a lot of them tend to be Ron Paul supporters (ironically) and not big foreign policy hawks since they usually are postmillenial rather than premillenial. One of the more notable Reconstructionists around, Gary North is part of Lew Rockwell's Anti-War group actually.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think it's only him, most US citizens on SD.net seem to be disappointed by both US parties.

Yes, because SDN is way to the left of the American electorate, and people with outspoken right-wing politics tend to get chased away.

So when I hear someone express their political views here, especially in N&P, the typical line is "The Republicans are the second coming of Attila the Hun, and the Democrats are a bunch of pansies who should man the hell up and try to enact social-democracy in the US NOW, dammit!"

That colors my assumptions, probably more than it should, especially for someone like Abyss, whose political leanings I honestly can't remember.

I would think it would lead to the party slowy being usurped by the wackos as they started becoming active in the party, to the point where the candidates are being chosen by the wackaloons.

Spend twenty years calling every little social change a sign that the commu-Democrats are trying to destroy American freedom and kill God, and... yeah.

Eventually, the partisans will listen, and take over your own party as a weapon against the imagined commu-Democrats.

This is not exactly surprising. The Republican party has long been a struggle between the free wheeling as long as it benefits the free market Libertarian wing and the Religiously motivated fundamentalist wing of the party. To be blunt the Fundamentalists don't have a place in American politics because outside the 11% of the population they represent... pretty much everyone hates their policies.

Part of it is that they're very, very strong in certain areas of the country, especially the more 'rural' states where a lot of Republican strength comes from.

I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere because it's a favorite saying of mine. The people who voted George Wallace into office are still alive and still in power... But they are dieing off. By 2038 they will be 70 years or older meaning by 2045 we will be out of people in active politics who once marched with and supported segregation and Jim Crow in person and at the ballot box.

Uh... People 70 years old in 2038 would have been infants in 1968, when segregation was still an issue. Not voters.

[Mr Bean]

I've said many times on this forum and elsewhere because it's a favorite saying of mine. The people who voted George Wallace into office are still alive and still in power... But they are dieing off. By 2038 they will be 70 years or older meaning by 2045 we will be out of people in active politics who once marched with and supported segregation and Jim Crow in person and at the ballot box.

Uh... People 70 years old in 2038 would have been infants in 1968, when segregation was still an issue. Not voters.

Look up George Wallace, his last elected term was not 1968, it was 1982. To be fair by the 80s he had recanted his old positions but I'm stilling counting that as any 20 year old voting in that election would have grown up on Mr Wallace back when he was an unrepentant bigot. I personally by my own record keeping count 1984 as the last election year that anyone who was an explicit bigot rather than a code word nudge nudge know what I meant person was elected to nationwide office. During Bush I that shit got scaled back something fierce and it was already on it's way after the Reagan re-election.

The 1984 elections was the last year by my recording that you could call a African American the N word on television and still get elected to nationwide office.