If we really want to see the Republican party become more responsive to conservatives, we can’t jump ship. We have to stay in the party and work to keep them accountable for their actions. Conservatives haven’t won a lot of victories from the fighting we’ve been doing with Republicans in Congress and with the Bush administration. But we won’t get any more victories, even of the minor variety, if we give up and stop fighting for what we believe is the best direction for our country. Even the smallest spark can start a fire. We got the immovable to move when we stopped the nomination of Harriet Miers. Another “success” of the conservatives could be the furious debate we had about the Dubai ports deal. If we get enough people to care enough about the direction of this country and the direction of our party and to speak up about it, eventually Washington politicians will pay attention.
The leadership of the Republican party knows that there is no place for social conservatives in the Democratic party. They are confident that small-government types won’t find much to like about the Democrats’ approach to social programs and spending. They also know that what conservatives find lacking in the Republican party can’t be found in the Democratic party right now. They take us for granted, because they can. If our senators do not understand that a majority of Americans want a commitment to border-enforcement first before any concessions to illegal aliens are made, then they need to start paying more attention to what their constituents have been telling them. Maybe this immigration debate will cause more people to start paying attention to what Congress is trying to do, and at least some good will come out of this flawed legislation. Speak up. Speak louder. We have the attention of Congress at this moment. Let’s see what we can do with it.
When you compare the history of the past few decades to the history of the 1840s and 1850s, there are a *lot* of parallels. The Democrats were firmly pro-slavery. Abolition was a Christian issue (the abolitionists were the same ones who passed the laws outlawing abortion that came out around that time), and Democrats said, “They want to establish a theocracy.” Whigs were divided between evangelical Christians and wealthy capitalists (what we’d now call “Rockefeller Republicans”). The GOP was formed by what we’d now call “social conservatives” exclusively, no “big tent,” no coalition. The pro-slavery vote was split between two parties in 1860, and Lincoln won with a solid abolitionist vote.
I don’t think that social conservatives have as much control over the Republican party as they used to. SoCons are still a significant voting bloc in the Republican party, however, and our nominee would be wise not to write them off.