2012 US Senate candidates Todd Akin (R-MO and Richard Mourdock (R-IN) advanced in the General Election for those seats with the certainty of winning, but they ended up losing over stray remarks over abortion. So goes the political thinking of our time. Granted, they needed to think through their views before voicing them. The notion that their staunch limits on abortion alone did not ruin their chances. Presidential candidate Herman Cain also supports abortion only in the case of the endangerment to the life of the mother, but he never made it an issue, and did not dwell on it as Akin and Mourdock did.
Those two Senate candidates deserve a vote of thanks from the fiscal conservatives of their party, even if their poorly phrased comments pointed out the divergent views of the GOP's stance on abortion. Beyond the poor use of the phrase of "legitimate rape", Akin outlined a policy of "optimizing life." In the cases of tubal pregnancy, he supported an emergency abortion. He also lauded our military in the Middle East and applauded our peace officers who risk their lives to save. As for Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, he never suggested that rape is "sometimes God's will". The truth is that God takes the worst actions of man and by His grace transforms good out of it. As a specific example, James Robison of "Life Today" was conceived in rape, yet he has done masterful good for the world through his ministry on television and throughout the world. Sadly, Twitter, Facebook, and Internet-media took the childish "telephone game" to the extreme and distorted his statements beyond recognition.
Unfortunately, pundits like firebrand Columnist Ann Coulter were implacably unforgiving toward her two Republican colleagues, claiming (without any evidence) that the two candidates were preening for the votes of the religious right. Ironically enough, liberal-leaning Gwen Ifill of PBS championed Mourdock and Akin for their integrity views on life at conception. Rather than deeming them extreme, she esteemed them, which reflects a principled view of life and the role of government in preserving life. Now, whether those views or not is a matter for government is another matter altogether.
Beyond Akin and Mourdock's misstatements about abortion and life, the fearful recriminations of the left played up their support for the drastic reduction in government. Their losses should not shame the Republican Party into moving away from its principles, but toward a more principled platform for making their case without losing it to poor messaging.
Akin openly criticized the government's role in setting prices and wages, a policy which businessmen across the country agree on. He indicted the federal student loan program as a "cancer of socialism" because government subsidies create inflation, which pushes up tuition, followed by the costly debt weighing on graduates who cannot find work because interventions like minimum-wage laws discourage businesses from hiring. These terrible economic policies resemble "musical chairs", minus the entertainment value.
Mourdock’s opposed Obama’s auto bailouts (so did Romney). Why? Because they robbed pension funds from Indiana's teachers and police officers. Those secured bond-holders were denied the protection which they were entitled to in federal bankruptcy court. Such legal wrangling on behalf of educators and peace officers does not fit in a Twitter feed.
Mourdock also pledged that as a Senator, he would not to budge on revenue unless Congress enacted real spending cuts. Current Washington bipartisanship, according to Mourdock, has ended up like this:
"One side has said 'Let's spend $100 billion' while the other side has said, 'Let's spend $50 billion'. Both sides then compromise on spending $75 billion and drive this country deeper in debt."
Mourdock rejected this kind of "bipartisanship". Of course, headlines with "Mourdock wants cuts" or "Akin cares about entry level workers" do not sell papers spur website views.
The two candidates' attention to fiscal realities and real reform set them up for opposition in their senate races. Instead of talking about rape, the life of the mother, and the decision to terminate a life, Akin and Mourdock needed to focus on the rape of government spending which is hurting American mothers and their children ( those born and unborn) for years to come. They were selling this message pretty well to their conservative constituencies. Small wonder that their "Big Government" Democratic challengers pounced on stray remarks rather than offer a differing economic policy, since they never had one.
Aside from their social views, Akin and Mourdock should be honored for their commitment to fiscal discipline at all costs. Let's hope that the GOP accents the fiscal message while moderating the delivery of the social message in elections to come. Even Presidential candidate Mitt Romney agreed that a platform of “no choice” is not acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment