Conservative Donnybrook

Doughboy seems to be under the impression that the New York 23 election was a round rejection of social conservatism. As always, his opinion is based on a blog post from Pajamas Media. Unfortunately, PJ Media got it wrong. The facts belie that position. Let us examine the facts. The PJ Media article focuses solely on the NY23 election.

First, it is not all clear that if Republicans had nominated Mr. Hoffman in the first place, the Democrat would have won. I think at least some of the votes that might have gone to Hoffman were diverted by Scazzafava’s endorsement of the Democratic candidate. Even if not, does the outcome of that single race mean the all voters in every sector of the country rejected social conservatism? Not even remotely.

Second, how did other social conservatives fare in this election? Chris Christie, who won the New Jersey governorship, is pro-life and anti-gay-marriage. Likewise, Bob McDonnell coasted to victory on a platform that included a pro-life stance, and a goverment policy which favored “married couples over ‘cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.’”

In other words the two biggest wins on election night were for those who supported socially conservative positions. It is not at all clear that Hoffman’s loss came as a result of his socially conservative positions. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that his loss may have resulted from Scazzafava’s endorsement of the Democratic candidate. Indeed, it appears that conservative positions won out over the radical Marxism espoused by Obama and company. Social conservatism is a part of the calculus that both Christie and McDonnell benefitted from and other candidates should not shy away from strong social stands despite what moderates at Pajamas Media might suggest.

Finally, I’d like to say a few words about the accusation, if not expressed on this website, that I seem to be always attacking the GOP. I find it interesting that Doughboy finds it acceptable to cast aspersions on conservatives’ traditional support of social values. And, yet, that to him does not equate to an attack on the Party. To the extent that the Party is abandoning traditional family values, it appears that Doughboy might be in the mainstream. Indeed, he seems to be in lockstep with fellows like New York Times columnist David Brooks who has been advocating a move to the Left for the GOP in order to create a Big Tent Party. Any attack on traditional family values, one has to admit, is a departure from the prior platform of the (more) conservative party and, as such, a move leftward. Abandonment of the social platform of the Republican Party of the past several elections can only be seen as a move towards the Democratic Party for blatantly political calculations that do not serve the best interests of the American people or their traditional culture. To the extent that I have attacked the GOP for their migration on this front, I proudly admit this transgression and offer no apology for having or continuing to do so.