There has recently been a great deal of tension between social
conservatives and social moderates within the Republican Party.
Former Republican Senator John Danforth has published a book,
“Faith and Politics,” urging the Republican Party to
move away from using religious beliefs in the drafting of policy,
because of the divisive and private nature of religion.
For similar reasons, conservative campus groups ““ such as
the Bruin Republicans ““ which have moved in the direction of
pushing religious morality, should distance themselves from
adopting positions that are primarily derived from religion.
According to Marty Cohen, UCLA political science professor and
an expert on the religious right, this is a contention that has
shaped the political landscape.
“There’s always been a strong libertarian element in
the Republican Party. In recent decades it’s been
overshadowed by the more traditional people that believe in using
the government to protect (private) morality,” he said.
BR hosted a Calvinist pastor to speak on the topic, “Can a
Christian be a liberal?” for its kickoff event of the year.
This speech focused entirely on religious positions instead of
tackling the larger ideological issues and stances shared by all
conservatives.
The event seemed to support the stance that there should be no
distinction between private religious beliefs and public political
beliefs. For example, the speaker discussed the religious morality
of abortion and homosexuality. These theocratic stances are clearly
controversial within the club.
Political clubs should not use religious arguments, as they do
not lend themselves to persuasively supporting political positions.
Religious scripture lends itself to a variety of interpretations; a
devout Christian may interpret the same passages touted by
religious conservatives to support liberal politics.
According to BR chairman Greg Moeck, the purpose of the event
was to sway religious liberals over to conservatism, appealing to
their religious consciences.
He also remarked, “The first event of the calendar year is
usually a recruitment event.”
While his recruitment would disproportionately attract members
with strong religious leanings, BR has traditionally been a big
tent club; it would proudly count both libertarians and social
conservatives among its members and leaders.
This first event constituted a departure from the big-tent
approach of years past and step towards endorsing the religious
right.
Vice chairman Katya Balan acknowledged a problem, saying:
“There needs to be a change of direction. The club needs to
plan events that appeal more to libertarians.”
While it is true that conservatives ““ even at the college
age ““ tend to be socially conservative at the national level,
UCLA seems to be an exception to the rule.
According to Cohen, this may be due to UCLA’s location.
Chairmen of the Bruin Republicans have even been libertarian
atheists, something unheard of for conservative clubs in other
parts of the country. For any particular issue the club may take a
divisive stance on, the drawbacks resulting from the risk of
alienating members greatly outweigh any conceivable benefits.
There are already avenues for students seeking to promote the
more divisive social issues on campus, such as pro-life groups, in
addition to various religious clubs.
These specially tailored groups can advocate for these issues
far more effectively, and without sacrificing the integrity of the
political club, which ought to appeal to the whole range of
conservatives.
Religious right activists will find that they will not be able
to make much headway on enacting their goals in any practical sense
on campuses.
Unless they planned on appointing Supreme Court Justices at the
next Bruin Democrats debate, those Bruin Republicans hoping to ban
abortions at the UCLA hospital will find little chance of
success.
On the other hand, they may find themselves unable to protect
academic freedom without the libertarians who make up a good bulk
of the club, and who would be alienated by a move to the religious
right.
On the national level, if social conservatives succeed at
redefining who is considered a conservative, the ideology would
appeal to a much smaller group. One should keep in mind that
prominent conservatives have included those wary of the influence
of religion.
Let us not forget that it was Barry Goldwater, considered the
founder of modern conservative, who said, “There is no place
in this country for practicing religion in politics.”
Conservatives are at a crossroads of sorts. This comes at a time
when Republicans come under intense pressure in the lead-up to the
midterm election.
For the sake of common causes ““ such as preserving
capitalism and enacting a strong foreign policy ““
conservatives ought to turn towards a consensus-based approach,
despite the lure of pushing certain issues.
If Pat Robertson gives you nightmares, e-mail Lazar at
dlazar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.