I was very impressed with Ed's analysis on the state of the GOP and agree with many of his points, but take issue with several of his recommendations for the party moving forward. I especially disagree with his view that the GOP should adopt the Democrat positions on the "25% issues" of gay marriage, abortion, immigration, man-made climate change, and gun control. By 25% issues, Ed is saying that a significant majority of the Massachusetts population has settled on the side of the left and the conservative take on these issues will never win in Massachusetts. While I agree with that conclusion, I contend that we must be more creative at finding compromise positions that accommodate both sides of the spectrum and do not completely alienate social conservatives in the party.
Gay Marriage:
I agree that there is no going back on gay marriage and see no reason why gay couples should not have the same right to the pursuit of happiness that straight couples have. However, the equivalency of gay and straight marriages has resulted in Catholic adoption agencies closing shop and has forced merchants to service gay weddings that they religiously oppose. Tolerance should go both ways.
I agree with the libertarian approach to the issue of gay marriage: get the government out of marriage all together. All marriages, gay and straight alike, should be legally converted into civil unions for the purposes of taxes, legal contracts, property rights, etc. Couples that want the sanctity of marriage should get that in a church. There are numerous denominations that welcome gay marriage while other denominations do not. Furthermore, churches should be able to use their own interpretation of marriage when making policy for church-affiliated entities like adoption agencies and schools.
Abortion:
I think the bill being considered in Congress that bans most abortions after 20 weeks is a reasonable compromise that gives women the option of terminating unwanted pregnancies up until the point that a fetus can feel pain and soon becomes viable outside the womb. With so many people on either extreme of this issue, a compromise seems the only reasonable solution.
Immigration:
Open borders in a welfare state are simply unsustainable. The GOP should take this issue by the horns and reframe it as Border Security Reform rather than Immigration Reform. Once the borders are secure and our visa laws are being enforced, then we can decide who stays. But laying out the Welcome mat at a time of massive government debt, low labor participation rates, and stagnant wages makes no sense for the well-being of American citizens and there is no reason for the GOP to take up harmful Democrat policies that only strengthen their hold on power at taxpayer expense.
Man-Made Climate Change:
Neither stance on man-made Global Warming has been proven no matter how fervently people on both sides state their case. It's by no means "settled science". However, there are policies the GOP could advance that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We should champion the advancement of nuclear energy technology, retrofit existing nuclear power plants, and build others. Nuclear power is the most abundant source of electricity that generates no CO2. In any case, the existence of man-made global warming is uncertain enough that it does not warrant drastic new taxes on "carbon". These new taxes would simply grow government coffers and would have a negligible effect on global climate. Too many of our tax dollars go toward negligible improvement of one problem or another.
Gun Control:
With the exception of certain lawbreakers who should be banned from owning firearms, I think people should have the basic right to defend themselves and their families. The extent to which people are allowed to possess firearms in public I think is a reasonable area of local debate. There is a strong case to be made that concealed weapons being carried by individuals trained in their use make their surroundings safer from the threat of an armed assailant.
* * * * *
The Democrat advantage in Massachusetts is remarkable. Richard Tisei could have beat John Tierney but couldn't come close as soon as a less contemptible Democrat made it through the primary. Charlie Baker barely eked out a win despite Martha Coakley's low popularity and numerous gaffes during the campaign. In most of Massachusetts today, a Democrat has to lose for a Republican to win.
I am encouraged by the job Charlie is doing penetrating the urban communities and I hope the GOP succeeds in winning over more minority voters. The difference between Democrats and Republicans, in my opinion, is Equal Outcome vs Equal Opportunity and we have to take that message to as many people as possible. The media certainly isn't going to be of any assistance.
As Ed says, there are numerous other fronts, aside from the 25% issues above, where the GOP can distinguish themselves from Democrats: education, privacy, and others. I think it's crucial that the GOP maintain an alternative to the Democrats on these fronts and advocate for local decision making rather than centralized control by the Feds. The danger of appeasing the left on these issues is that the distinction between the Democrats and Republicans becomes less clear - and then who gets to 51% just doesn't seem as important anymore.
