A Response to Ed Lyons's Essay on the GOP

Ed Lyons's Essay: https://medium.com/@mysteriousrook/the-party-of-charlie-baker-c5e6c2de1625

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.

Latest Affront to the Constitution

President Obama’s unilateral declaration of legal status upon millions of illegal immigrants was a violation of his Constitutional limitations. Even if you approve of amnesty for illegal immigrants, you should not support the precedent of unchecked authority by any president. What if a Republican president was unable to negotiate a sweeping tax reform bill with a Democratic Congress, so instead suspended enforcement of particular parts of the tax code unilaterally?

What upsets me most about President Obama’s announcement was how disingenuous he was to address certain illegal immigrants that had arrived before 2010. Are we supposed to expect deportations for those that arrived since 2010? Get real. Obama was not trying to address the problem of illegal immigration at all.  He was setting the tone for his last two years in office: Congress and the voters who elected them be damned.

The problem with the Democrats’ strategy of repeating the 1986 blanket amnesty is that it fails to address the underlying crisis of illegal immigration. The 1986 amnesty was at least passed with the promise of securing the border and enforcing immigration laws so that we would never be faced with the same problem again. The fact that border security has not happened is why amnesty is so unpopular today. The truth is that an open border coupled with a welfare state is a ruinous combination. There is nothing hard about Obama’s decision to let more people in now. The hard decisions come after President Obama and the others in power in DC are out of office, when tens of millions of more illegal immigrants have arrived and our social entitlement programs finally default, which is the trajectory that they are on. A Balanced Budget Amendment will be needed at some point to stop DC from obligating America to unsustainable promises for political gain.

In President Obama’s speech, he cited the case of Astrid Silva, an illegal immigrant who came to the US when she was four and is now working on her third college degree.  She appears to be fully assimilated into American culture and on track to be a true asset to our society.  However, granting Ms. Silva legal status now ensures that tens of millions of more illegal immigrants will follow her over our unsecured border, and many of them will not be contributors. In fact, the DHS has already warned that a new wave of arrivals is likely to swarm the border soon. The answer is to secure our border and enforce our visas before discussing who should stay. Had Obama begun his presidency on this path, he might have been able to see the rewards of his reforms before leaving office.

Now the discussion is centered on what the Republicans will do to rein in a rogue President. They absolutely should defund Obama’s executive order. Then they must pass a bill as President Obama says.  That bill should not be for Immigration Reform, though, but rather for Border Security Reform. Only after we have a secure Southern border and enforcement of our visas should we discuss who stays. That would be an example of actual compromise – something that doesn’t genuinely interest the president and the supporters of his latest affront to the Constitution.

*   *   *   *   * 

I came across this article by Daniel Horowitz that talks more about the GOPs impotent response to the president's executive order. It explains the problem and the solution perfectly: 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2014/11/the-gops-insanely-backwards-reaction-to-obama