Blaming Social Conservatives for GOP's Ills

Ramesh Ponnuru has an important piece on the impact of social conservatives on the GOP and the efforts to blame them the party's problems:

In 2002 and 2004, Republicans ran hard on social issues and the courts — and scored victories at every level of politics. In 2006 and 2008, they left those issues off the table, and got walloped. It follows, naturally, that the social issues are to blame for the Republican defeats.

At least, that’s the conclusion that a chorus of commentators has reached. They are attempting to persuade Republicans to soften or downplay their party’s social conservatism and hide its social conservatives in order to resume winning elections. About this campaign to sideline the social Right, three things can be said with a fairly high degree of confidence: It is predictable; it will fail; and it is wrong.

The impulse to blame social conservatives arises nearly every time Republicans fail. They were blamed for the elder Bush’s 1992 defeat, as though he would have won if only Pat Robertson had not spoken at the Republican convention. They were blamed for losses in the House in 1998. And now they are being blamed for McCain’s rout.

Republicans’ social conservatism provokes more intense and angry opposition than their positions on other issues do. In some parts of the country — places where political writers tend to congregate, for example — social conservatives are so thin on the ground that it is easy to underestimate how widespread their views are. So it is understandable that many people would leap to the conclusion that Republicans would have more support if they backed off on social issues.

Yet there is no real likelihood that the party is going to abandon or reduce its opposition to abortion in particular or kick aside the social conservatives in general. Social conservatives are, for one thing, too woven into the structure of the party to be ejected. In 2004, the Republican convention showcased pro-choicers such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudolph Giuliani, George Pataki, and Colin Powell. So far, the only candidates anyone is mentioning for 2012 are Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, and Tim Pawlenty. All are pro-life.

Read the whole thing. When the GOP emphasizes conservative issues (whether social or otherwise), they win and often win big. When they decide to run to the center to appeal to the great unwashed "moderates", they fail.

Just look at Georgia. Saxby Chambliss is a McCain-type Republican. In the general election he led by only 3%. Many social conservatives voted for the libertarian candidate in the general election. Introduce social conservative Sarah Palin into the campaign to spark interest on that side of the party (and eliminate the libertarian who came in third in the general) and Chambliss wins by 15%.

The pointy-headed GOP Beltway crowd loves to blame the evangelicals or social conservatives for the party's electoral failures, but it's the failure to appeal the issues that social conservatives value that has actually hurt them.