Mitch Daniels Was Right About The Social Issues Truce
Republicans should have listened to Mitch Daniels, because he was right.
Back before his name first started being floated as a potential candidate for President, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels made some waves inside the Republican Party by suggesting in a 2010 interview with The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson that the Republican Party should put aside social issues in the 2012 campaign and focus on the economy and the Federal Government’s fiscal problems:
The next president, whoever he is, “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 the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he’s attended for 50 years. In 1998, with a few other couples from Tabernacle and a nearby Baptist congregation, he and his wife founded a “Christ-centered” school, The Oaks Academy, in a downtown neighborhood the local cops called “Dodge City.” It’s flourishing now with 315 mostly poor kids who pursue a classical education: Latin from third grade on, logic in middle school, rhetoric in eighth grade, an emphasis throughout on the treasures of Western Civilization. “It’s the most important thing I’ve ever been involved in,” he told me. His social-conservative credentials are solid.
But about that truce . . .
“He might be one guy who could get away with it,” said Curt Smith, head of the Indiana Family Institute, who’s known Daniels since the 1980s. “He has a deep faith, he’s totally pro-life, and he walks the talk. And in an acute situation, like the one we’re in now with the debt, he might get away with a truce for a year or two. But to be successful in office he’s going to have to show those folks he shares their vision.”
Daniels, who has been pro-life for his entire political career, even went so far as to say that he would consider not renewing the controversial Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Not surprisingly, Daniels statements in the interview led to no small degree of upset among social conservatives. Anti-abortion groups jumped all over his comments about the Mexico City policy and Mike Huckabee, who at that point was still flirting with the idea of running for President, blasted Daniels for abandoning what he called “moral issues.” Several months later when Daniels was invited to deliver a major speech at CPAC 2011, several social conservative groups who were already boycotting the conference due to the inclusion of a gay conservative group called the invitation an “an affront to the millions of conservatives who believe that social issues such as abortion and traditional marriage are non-negotiable.” Daniels was undeterred, though, saying on other occasions that putting aside divisive social issues, even just temporarily was necessary for GOP unity and that, for the most part, these issues simply weren’t crucial matters at this point. After the Republicans won control of the House in 2010, Daniels was joined by several other conservatives who said the new House majority needed to focus on the economy rather than social issues.
Daniels ended up deciding not to run for President, which may be unfortunate, because it turns out he was right about the social issues truce. David Weigel points to a new Pew Research Center poll which shows, not surprisingly, that social issues rank very low on the things that voters are concerned about heading into this election:
More than eight-in-ten voters say the economy (86%) and jobs (84%) are very important issues in deciding who to vote for this fall. Roughly three-quarters also cite the federal budget deficit (74%), health care (74%) and education (72%) as top voting priorities. Near the bottom of the list are some of the hot-button social issues. Just 28% say that gay marriage is a very important issue, and 34% rate birth control as a top issue.
The chart tells the tale:
As Weigel notes, this really isn’t a surprising result and it’s not like Daniels had stumbled onto some previously unknown piece of political wisdom. It’s been rather obvious for the past two years, if not, more that the economy and jobs were the main concerns in the minds of voters. Indeed, the exit polls taken during the 2010 elections showed that jobs and the economy were the main issues upon which voters made up their minds to the exclusion of virtually everything else, including “hot button” issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Moreover, we’ve seen several polls that repeat nearly exactly the results from this Pew poll. Heck, it’s an idea that goes back to James Carville’s 1992 election mantra that “It’s the economy, stupid.”
This is why something like the candidacy of Rick Santorum was such a fundamentally bad idea, why the GOP made a major mistake when it let itself get dragged down the rabbit hole of the contraception coverage debate in February, and why many national Republicans are expressing concern now over the extent to which Republican controlled stated legislatures have veered so far to the right on issues ranging from abortion to contraception to the teaching of evolution in public schools:
Some Republican strategists and officials, reluctant to be identified because they do not want to publicly antagonize the party’s base, fear that the attention these divisive social issues are receiving at the state level could harm the party’s chances in November, when its hopes of winning back the White House will most likely rest with independent voters in a handful of swing states.
(…)
ohn Weaver, a Republican strategist who worked on the presidential campaigns of Senator John McCain and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., said that the attention Republicans were paying to social issues at the state level could cost the party support from several important blocs of voters, including independents, women and young people voting for the first or second time.
“I think it’s problematic,” he said, “not just for this national election we’re facing, but for the long-term health of the party.”
It all seems rather self-evident, really. After Virginia became the focus of the nation for nearly two weeks amid public controversy over two anti-abortion bills that were pending in the state legislature, one of which was watered down and the other of which was shelved, and the GOP jumped on the controversy over contraception coverage mandates, we began to see evidence of a widening gender gap between Republicans and Democrats. That alone should have been evidence enough alone that the GOP should stay away from emphasizing social issues and concentrate on the economy, and yet there are those on the right who continue to insist that these are issues the party can win on. They’re wrong of course, and Daniels and those that agree with him are right, but it may take an election cycle or two for the GOP as a whole to figure it out.
As gets pointed out quite often, it ain’t called the Stupid Party for nothing.
You’d think that it would only be the Economy, but the fact is that Republicans think that they can run the table now – start to privatize MediCare, maybe Social Security too – and so, quite rationally, everything is important to everyone. The stakes are high.
Call a truce? How surprising is it that a Republican would say that we need to calm down once a Republican is elected.
Thomas Friendman : Michael Bloomberg :: Doug Mataconis : Mitch Daniels
So they should be quiet about social issues…then try to overturn Roe v. Wade once elected?
Gee…that sure would have fooled everyone. Who’d ever see that coming?
Norm,
That’s not at all what Daniels was talking about. He was saying the party shouldn’t concentrate on those issues at all.
You can lead these extreme social conservatives to reality, but you can’t make them think.
Running down Pew’s list:
1, 2 – On the economy and jobs Rs have nothing but trickle down, tax cuts, and austerity. All of which have a known history of fail.
3 – On the deficit, they have the Ryan budget, which reduces everything except the deficit.
4,5 – On health care and education they got nothin’.
6 – On Medicare, see 3.
7 – On energy they’ve got “drill baby, drill”; against a Prez who’s been drilling.
8 – On taxes, see 3.
And so on.
They have talk about social issues. What else do they have?
Tsar Nicholas wins the internet today.
Cheers.
But Doug…the control of women and their reproductive choices is the raison d’être for the Republicans. Look at their record since the 2010 mid-term. It doesnt lie. Women’s rights and increasing the debt. To not talk about that is dishonest. If Daniels is not being dishonest he’s being naive.
This is what Walker did in Wisconsin…as soon as you are elected pass legislation you never talked about during the campaign.
I’ve always thought honesty is important. Radical, I know.
If he wants to avoid concentrating on those issues, he should become a Democrat. Rational Republicans are in deep denial about what their party has become.
So, Mitch Daniels is saying that if Republicans cannot win running as Republicans, they should pretend to be something else?
They already pretend to be fiscally conservative, and then blow out the deficit with tax breaks and plans for more tax breaks. Do we really want them to be pretending to be socially moderate as well?
The big question here is whether the list of what voters say is “very important” to their vote is actually important to their vote. My personal suspicion if that most voters don’t vote based on issues at all; they vote based on group identity. And even if they don’t care one way or the other on birth control, it’s an important signifier of Republican group identity. So Santorum benefits from pounding that issue with the Republican base, because even though they care more about the economy, Santorum is the one screaming “I’M ONE OF YOU! I’M ONE OF YOU!”
We keep hearing that it’s the economy. So what is Mitt Romney’s economic plan? How about Obama’s?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. No one knows. The candidates don’t know.
Here’s the dirty little secret of US presidential elections: presidents not only don’t control the economy, they have almost no impact on the economy. They fiddle around the edges with this tax rate or that but no one even knows what the hell effect that has. Right now we’re told we’re on the precipice of a double dip because of Spain. So apparently we should be voting in the Spanish elections, not that the Spanish government has any more idea what to do than we do.
This is all theater. Presidents manage foreign policy. And they appoint the Supremes. Other than that we should hire them on the basis of who we can stand to listen to for four years. Mitt Romney is a transparent fraud of a human being, so screw him, at least Obama can tell a joke.
And, of course, it’s been the left and the media (but I repeat myself) that keep bringing up social issues. Why, it’s almost like they want to trigger these fights or something.
I recall having a “WTF?” moment when George Stepha-whatever (the former Clinton stooge now impersonating a journalist at ABC — you know the guy) brought up the notion of banning contraception in a presidential debate, and a lot of others reacted the same way. Then, a few days later, the Obama administration pulls its “whoops, we’re taking back that whole ‘religious exemption’ thingie we promised before” move, and suddenly George looks positively prescient on the topic.
Now, if only the left and the media (but again I repeat myself) would show a hint of integrity. Let’s see them go after gay Obama supporters and ask them about Obama’s stance on gay marriage. Go to Hispanic groups and ask them what they think of Obama having record numbers of deportations of illegal aliens. And that’s just two examples off the top of my head.
Sorry, but if you plan on requiring intravaginal probes or prohibiting unions then you have an ethical obligation to tell the voters.
Why do you think so many are angry at state legislatures or the House? It ‘s not just the content of the laws. It ‘s because voters did not know that’s what would happen after the election.
As I read it, Daniels was arguing for lying in order to win.
The liberals are all social issues identity politics all the time.mostly made up, and always victimish.
And he can sing too…
Harry, Obama is a joke, and talk about a
transparentfraud of a human being…lol…..
I am for a combination of some of this:)
The idea that the Republicans can control their own agenda is laughable. Does anyone really believe that the MSM would ever let the Republicans ever focus on the economy and the deficit?
Image what the election in 2016 will be like when the Democratic Party primary will be the real election for president and the candidates will have no real difference on any issue because Democrats do not allow themselves to differ on policy and the MSM will not push the Democratic candidates on any messy social issue.
@anjin-san:
Of course, President Obama has not let homosexuals in the military to distract from his laser-like focus on jobs and improving the internet.
The different between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats know that they have the media of their side. President Obama does not have to worry about messy issues because PBS, NPR, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc will never ask him about those messy issues.
It would be interesting if Daniels said “Listen, we’re on the wrong side of these issues. We need to be on the side of women’s rights and gay rights, not against them. We need to accept tha climate change is real and discuss what, if anything to do about it. And we need to get realistic about the economy and our tax cut catechism.”
But he didn’t…he said that the GOP should just keep quiet about their real beliefs and hope the electorate is fooled.
@Jenos Idanian:
Because, of course, it’s “the Left” and “the media” who have forced Republicans to vote on measures that force women to have a vaginal ultrasound if they want an abortion, who have forced the GOP to embrace the anti-contraception stance of the Catholics bishops, who have forced the Republicans to pass anti-immigrant measures. The poor Republicans didn’t want to do any of these things, not at all!
Talk about victimization…I see the meme from some is, “It’s all the fault of liberals! They control the media so we can only talk about what they want to talk about! And Obama is a stinky head! Wahhhhhhh!”
@KariQ: Kind of a Jenny One-Note, ain’t ya?
Seems like your idea of social issues beings and ends with “I demand that someone else pay for my contraception, and should it fail, I demand someone else pay to kill the fetus that dares inconvenience me!”
Do you even know about any other social issues besides your own pet cause here?
@An Interested Party: Obama’s stinky head is his own fault. The guy’s got dog on his breath.
@An Interested Party:
Are you really saying that if the Repubicans pander their asses off to the left that they left will ike them.
Daniels is a fool if he believes that the left will let the Republicans concentrate on fiscal issues to the exclusion of anything else. If what one school board member is Arkansas says is used to indite all Republicans, then Repubilcans have no chance to control the message.
And in case you have not noticed, controlling immigration and reducing the number of illegal aliens is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Only the extreme left still supports open borders, unlimited immigration, and converting the U.S. into a third world country.
@Jenos Idanian:
Heh. And you’re not, right? Jesus, dude, read your crap out loud to yourself. You’re a fount of every braindead GOP talking point that’s poisoned the tubes for the last four years. Every effing one. There’s never a shred of originality in anything you post. Tiresome, tiresome, tiresome. And borrrrrring.
@Stormy Dragon: I’m with you on this. For so many, voting comes down to tribal identity. Remember when so many GOPers said Obama wasn’t born in the US? I think polling put it at 40%. I had a conversation with my dad who just couldn’t believe so many Republicans actually believed that. My theory was that a lot didn’t believe but said they did to identify with the tribe. “Well, the rest of the group is so board with this so I guess I am too.” I think this is why you see so little push back or dissension on the right. So many need to stay within the group identity. And that becomes a much larger voting factor than is given credit.
Jenos:
Superdestroyer:
Facts:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/04/sunday-news-shows-skew-too-conservative-media-group-says.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/study-obama-s-media-coverage-more-negative-than-romney-s-20120423
When your ideology does not match the facts…do you question your ideology…or just keep spinning away? My guess…whirling dervishes.
@Mark:
Do you realize that blacks vote over 95% for Democrats. Even idiot, corrupt racist Democrats like Marion Barry or Kwame Kilpatrick get votes from blacks.
Remember when members of the Congressional B lack Caucus claimed that AIDS was invented by the government or that the CIA created the crack epidemic. Republicans are not the only ones who believe crazy things and act on them politically. However, Republicans are the only ones criticized in the media for it. Just ask the Kennedy clan about vaccines.
You know…I don’t remember that. The Caucus really said that? Can you provide a link?
@Hey Norm:
How soon that progressive forget inconvenient incidents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK21ITFf5Sc
Or how progressive refuse to face facts that do not support their own ideas.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(05)01293-4/fulltext
Destroyer…
Neither one of those links says what you say they say.
It seems to me that if you have to make shit up in order to make your point it ain’t much of a point to begin with.
@superdestroyer:
You ought to ease up on that. You always bring that up when no one ever discusses the historical and present White power structure running the U.S. And don’t scream “Obama” because he’s not the sum of U.S. power structure. People vote their interests and, clearly, as you will see, woman, Black & Latino minorities will demonstrate that fact.
I, personally, hoped that Jon Huntsman would’ve run; but we got Romney. Just like flawed McCain, I’m not voting for flawed Romney. You know, greatest nation, endless wars, that sort of thing. My interest is a smart, financially conservative, minimal interventionist foreign policy and a concentration on THE NEEDS OF OUR OWN CITIZENS. Obama’s not perfect, but he ain’t Romney.
The Republican party as it stands seems to be splitting up into Tea Party and RINOs. They should just make it official and start a third party.
So, Republicans should stop focusing on social issues and instead focus on the economic principles and polices that led this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression? Or should they focus on the foreign policy that led us into Iraq and turned Afghanistan into a festering wound? If Mitch Daniels thinks social conservatism is the only problem facing the GOP, he ain’t nearly as smart as some people think he is.
Mike
@superdestroyer:
Nice theory, except for the obvious fact that there is no extreme left of any of any political importance or consequence in this country.
@Hey Norm: Normie, would those be the Sunday morning talk shows 1) mainly watched by political junkies, and 2) hosted by noted conservatives David Gregory, George Stephanopolous, Bob Schieffer, Chris Matthews, Candy Crowley, et al? The sole exception would be Chris Wallace, who’s more of a hard news man than any of the others.
Exactly what was your point in bringing that up, anyway?
@Hey Norm: As for your second point, here’s the response: 1) if Obama’s been treated more like a candidate than a president, that’s a fair reflection of how he’s acted far more like a candidate than a president, and 2) he’s done a really crappy job on a lot of things, so “negative reporting” is just fair reporting.
Keep on digging, Norm. I’m sure there’s a pony in there somewhere…
@Jenos Idanian:
George Stephanopolous is so completely cowed and intimidated by conservative’s routine and reflexive “liberal media” accusations that he can no longer be considered a liberal. Plus, George is a host on Good Morning america, which means that he is getting paid millions of dollars to present himself as a an airhead (how Palinesque).
@sam: So, precisely, how did I misrepresnt Kari’s statement?
I am actually pro-choice. I just don’t think “pro-choice” means “I can make someone else to pay for it.”
I have the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to bear arms. None of those mean I can make others listen to me, publish my ideas, or give me a gun.
@Jenos Idanian: Unsurprisingly, research suggests that “Sunday talk shows” lean conservative.
Your notion that hosts like “David Gregory, George Stephanopolous, Bob Schieffer, Chris Matthews, Candy Crowley [who?], et al?” are ‘liberal’ is rooted in their unwillingness to uncritically repeat the right-wing tropes you espouse.
Nothing like disagreeing with straw-men.
@James: I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of Candy Crowley; she’s on some obscure network called “CNN.”
Stephanopolous was a key member of Bill Clinton’s campaign and administration, and still quite active in Democratic circles.
Gregory has been caught repeatedly acting as an Obama apologist.
Schieffer, much the same.
Matthews’ leg still tingles whenever he thinks about Obama.
And if you could be honest for a moment, you’d admit that the hosts of the shows — who are there every week — shape the show’s tone far more than the guests.
@Hey Norm: I disagree with you all the time, and you don’t have much more than straw between your ears. And that was the crux of the recent stupidity over birth control — not banning it, as Stephanopolous tried to make the issue, but making others pay for it.
I just found another example of how it simply isn’t enough to “tolerate” others’ beliefs, you have to actively embrace it, or be called a hateful racist. In Kansas, they’re considering a law that would require churches to host gay weddings, whether or not they support gay marriage.
@Jenos Idanian:
Yes please, let us be honest.
I’ve produced cited research that contradicts your assertions. If you have an issue with the study, or a study of your own, I would love to see it. But you don’t have any research to cite, so you just continue to assert negative opinions about people that you have negative opinions about.
Though I know they shouldn’t
@superdestroyer:
Right and corrupt White republicans like John Ensign don’t get votes from whites… right?
Right… and a significant number of white Republican leaders, including those holding state and federal office bought into the entire rationally based birther thing.
No party or race gets out clean on these issues.
I didn’t challenge your study, I challenged its relevance. Talking about the accuracy of your argument doesn’t affect what I said one whit.
@mattb: I meant to bring this up at the time, but you and sd have given me the chance to bring it back.
When John Derbyshire, in his epic flameout, said “Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians,” I wonder if he specifically had Detroit and DC in mind.
@Jenos Idanian: I just read the one link you’ve post, which you billed as: “a law that would require churches to host gay weddings, whether or not they support gay marriage.”
Clearly, if not unsurprisingly, you didn’t read the article beyond the headline. Buried in the second paragraph:
Not only is it not “Kansas”, but mearly “Hutchinson, Kansas”. But also, it is not ” law that would require churches to host gay weddings,” but simply commercial space rental transactions could no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
I consistently do not understand why ‘conservatives’ such as yourself are opposed to equal protection under law for all citizens in terms of contractual rights.
@ Jenos…
You mean like businesses have to serve colored people?
What a radical idea…treat everyone equally.
You really do want to take America back don’t you?
No…it was about providing access to health care for women, and not having the Church impose it’s views on it’s employees who do not agree with it’s views.
@Jenos Idanian:
Ah, the classic ‘retreat and declare victory’. My citation is only irrelevant to the extent that it contradicts your predetermined conclusions about ‘Sunday morning talk shows’
The problem fir the Republicans is they have created a base that really cares about nothing but a return to the good old days of the 16th century.
For the third time: please explain how “the ideology of the guests” outweighs “the ideology of the hosts,” who are there week after week, set the theme, choose the topics, and ask the questions.
@Jenos Idanian: From the study I’ve cited, there’s strong evidence of a bias effect, in terms of guest sample:
If you can find me any kind of SRS study that investigates how ‘talk show host ideology’ creates a bias effect for ‘talk show content’, I would love to read it.
Until then, you point boils down to assuming your own conclusions. Your assumptions about “David Gregory, George Stephanopolous, Bob Schieffer, Chris Matthews, Candy Crowley, [et al]” clearly shape your perceptions of their show’s content, which makes me somewhat hesitant to take you cries of “liberal media” that seriously.
At any rate, you still haven’t approached Hey Norm’s original point.
Actually you give the Host way too much credit in an industry with Executive Producers and Producers and Associate Producers and Bookers and so on and so forth.
But just to keep it simple for you…who do you think chooses all those Republican guests you dolt?
@James: Apparently you missed it the first time I said it, so I’ll repeat myself:
@Hey Norm: Who chooses all those Republican guests? Why, the people who want to catch them in their “gotcha” questions and push more internecine warfare within the Republicans.
You really can’t make it up…
@Jenos Idanian:
Sigh, as opposed to the wide number of cities that have been run into the ground by white politicians (see most of the rust belt).
Seriously, your stopping this thread to bring up this sort of thing really makes me wonder if you are only in it for the Trollz now.
@superdestroyer:
i know im late to the party, but dude, you need new material. you quite literally have the same exact response to every single thread.
@Jenos Idanian: I didn’t miss it, but it is a great opportunity to point out that:
is a statement that is more revelatory about you, than anything else.
Bingo.
@James: Water is wet, and the “evidence” Jenos links to doesn’t really support his position. I’m not sure his assertion there was any less accurate than this:
There’s no question Washington DC is wired for Republican talking points, and they are taken much more seriously than they should be by almost all journalists. The GOP victimhood complex doesn’t allow for that possibility, which is why Jenos has to create “facts” to match his own “reality”.
Quick reaction, before reading comments: impossible. The GOP without the “social issues” is a shell of itself.
I’d love to see it, but I think it’s a pipe dream.
No need for another party, we will vote them all out sooner or later. I am thinking sooner…..
Oh and I was was a little mistaken. I should have said that liberals ARE social issues, all of the time.
The meme continues, I see, with a new twist…any news stories about the President that are negative are “real” reporting because he has allegedly done such a horrible job…meanwhile, any negative stories about Republicans are proof of the media’s alleged liberal bias and so many Republicans are on the gasbag shows because the hosts want to play “gotcha”…all this topped with a big dollop of the “Wahhhh!!!”…the contortions required for all of this should put some people in traction…
@Jenos Idanian:
Laughing long and hard. Pauses for breath, then laughs again. Sorry, but this is funny.
I mention these things because these are the things the GOP has chosen to do. I didn’t think them up. I didn’t invent them. They weren’t my ideas at all. Don’t blame me for noticing what your party is up to.
All else aside, what does this mean?
This is like that French picture of a pipe, with “this is not a pipe” written underneath it.[1]