Kunal Patel: Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act alienates potential voters

Indiana Gov. Michael Pence’s feigned ignorance of potential discrimination toward the gay community from Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act fooled no one.

Pence repeatedly claimed that the law would not discriminate toward any member of the LGBT community. However, due to the broad language of the law that allowed staunch protection of religious beliefs, Pence’s reassurances were ultimately meritless. Less than a week after the bill was signed into a law, the owners of an Indiana pizzeria, Memories Pizza, refused to cater to a same-sex wedding. The owners said that they would refuse to cater a same-sex wedding because their religious beliefs conflicted with gay marriage. However, they said that they would not deny service to gay individuals at their restaurant.

While the conservative bloc has gained trivial victories in what is a losing battle toward denying basic rights to members of LGBT community, such support of the law only reinforces the perception that members of the Republican Party are divisive and deplorable. Potential Republican presidential candidates such as Jeb Bush and Scott Walker have both publicly supported Indiana’s Freedom Religious law. While such actions may endear them to the conservative bloc, they alienate them from the rest of the more moderate country.

But more importantly to the Republican Party, continuing to let the hyper-conservative bloc control the political conversation will make Republican presidential victories nearly impossible. During recent presidential election cycles, the hyper-conservative bloc in midwest states – Iowa, Ohio and Indiana – hijacks the early Republican presidential candidate conversation. The bloc then frames anti-gay and anti-feminist conversations under the syllogisms “defense of marriage” and “pro-life,” respectively. Because Republican candidates have to appeal to the hyper-conservative bloc to secure their party’s nomination, it is politically risky for those candidates to state their honest positions on these issues.

After appealing to the hyper-conservative bloc in an attempt to secure their party’s nomination, the nominee becomes an unappealing presidential candidate to the rest of the country. Furthermore, when the Republican presidential nominee attempts to backtrack their statements made in midwest states, they are criticized for flip-flopping.

This process is unbelievably convoluted. The Republican Party should realize that by continuing to support the rhetoric spewed from their hyper-conservative block, they are making winning presidential elections easy for Democrats. The party will continue to lose presidential elections if they continue to sideline moderate Republican candidates that have a strong national appeal.

Currently, Republican candidates that appeal to both Democrats and Republicans have no chance in securing the Republican nomination if the GOP continues to cater and defend the conservative bloc

Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman Jr. was such a candidate during the 2012 election cycle. Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina viewed Huntsman Jr. as a “very tough candidate” to beat if he had secured the Republican presidential nomination due to his moderate positions and track record. Huntsman Jr. had served in five presidential administrations, left the Governor of Utah’s office with an 80 percent approval rating and won an award for best managed state. However, because Huntsman did not appeal to the conservative bloc, his attempts to secure the nomination was a losing effort. He secured 0.6 percent of the vote – dead last – in the Iowa Caucus. However, he fared much better outside of the midwest, securing 16.9 percent – third place – of the vote in the New Hampshire primary.

If the Republican Party wants to regain a presence in the White House, the GOP should gear efforts toward adapting to voters nationwide instead of alienating them.