Denver Post OpEd: "How the GOP Lost My Vote"

[Paul Hsieh]

The Denver Post has just published my OpEd urging the Republican Party to shed the Religious Right and instead support individual rights and capitalism. -- PSH

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10976789

"How the GOP lost my vote"

Paul Hsieh

Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 04:44:31 PM MST

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?"

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Instead, the government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.

The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.

In his October 24, 2008 radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party. Many of us have already taken his advice and changed our affiliation to "independent."

The Republican Party stands at an important crossroads. The Republican Party could choose to follow the principles of the American Founding Fathers and promote a limited government that protected individual rights but otherwise left people alone to live their lives.

This includes affirming the principle of the separation of church and state. If they did so, I would happily support it.

Or the Republican Party could instead choose to become the party of the Religious Right and seek to forcibly impose the religious values of one particular constituency over others (thus violating everyone else's rights).

In that case, it will continue to alienate many voters and lose elections -- and deservedly so.

Even though I no longer regard myself as a Republican, I definitely regard myself as a loyal American.

My parents immigrated legally from Taiwan to America over 40 years ago. They had very little money, but they worked hard, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement.

Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream. America is a beacon of hope to millions of people around the world precisely because our system of government allows honest, hard-working people to prosper and thrive.

Our system is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.

This is the America that brought my parents from a ocean away in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. This is the America I want to live in. And this is the America I want the Republican Party to stand for.

Paul Hsieh is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and co-founder of

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)

. He lives in Sedalia.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Paul Hsieh

[D'kian]

You op-ed made it to Little Green Footballs:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31...On_Losing_Votes

610 comments and counting

[Mammon]

You op-ed made it to Little Green Footballs:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31...On_Losing_Votes

610 comments and counting

Over 1,000 now.

I'm on comment #40 and purely disgusted with what I've seen so far. I think everyone on this site should read the comments and take note, this is how we are recieved by them...

Edit: Also notice how he never said who he voted for, other than it wasn't the the Republicans and a lot of the comments say "You voted for Obama" or "You got Obama elected"

Again, if you're not X then Y and Y is always bad.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Mammon

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The thrust of about 95% of the comments in my random sample was "you 'tard I hope you enjoy Obama." About 10 percent actually paid attention to what Paul said and basically said, tough, the religious right *belongs* in the Republican party. (The fact that my two numbers add up to over 100% is explained by the fact that some responses said *both* things.) The old argument that if you didn't vote for X you voted for Y, which has been pulled out by the Dems against those who supported Nader, and by the Republicans against those who vote Libertarian. (Never mind the fact that many of the Libertarians I knew would vote for the Dems if they *had* to choose between Tweedle-D and Tweedle-R--the Republicans like to assume that every vote for a Libertarian is "stolen" from them).

In fact, at *most* you could claim it's worth 1/2 of a vote to Obama if you abstain or vote for a third party. Consider a situation with ten voters, 5 vote for Obama and 5 vote for McCain. If one voter switches it's 6-4 (or 4-6), a two vote difference yet everyone only has one vote. If instead, one abstains or votes for Joe Schmoe, it's 5-4 (or 4-5). Half as much effect as a one vote switch gets you, therefore an abstention is mathematically equivalent to 1/2 a vote for the party you *weren't* flatly refusing to vote for. Of course *which* party that would be conjectural. It's entirely possible Paul abstained but was more anti-Obama than anti-McCain. (I know him personally but do not know his opinion on this.) The fact that he would bother explaining to the Republicans what they are doing wrong, in fact, could be taken as evidence of this.

[KendallJ]

Tell you what there Mammon. Why don't you try a similar experiment with an op-ed to the left and see what you get.

[D'kian]

I've been following Little Green Footballs since 2004 when Charles Johnson (the blog's owner) exposed the fake memos about Bush (the infamous Rathergate). Overall Mr. Johnson seems to be socially liberal, fiscally conservative (to use the common terms in political debate) and strongly for national defense.

In 2004 he favored Bush over Kerry mostly for national security reasons. This year he was against Obama for numerous reasons (the Rev. Wright, William Ayers, the empty rhetoric, links with shady organizations like ACORN, etc), but didn't support McCain. He did back McCain and Palin when he perceived they were unfairly treated by the media, and he made much of the MSM's bias in this election cycle (and overall, too). Oh, he's also dead-set against "intelligent design" in all its forms.

So he can be fairly described as independent, perhaps leaning Republican for national security.

On the liberal blogs he's described a right-wing extremist.

[Mammon]

Tell you what there Mammon. Why don't you try a similar experiment with an op-ed to the left and see what you get.

You'd probably get something similiar hence, the Passing Thought.

I think it might be beneficial to post this particular op-ed on a "left" leaning website because I think it would appeal to them, and so them that not all people with those positions are palling around with the Republicans.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Mammon

[softwareNerd]

I think it might be beneficial to post this particular op-ed on a "left" leaning website because I think it would appeal to them, and so them that not all people with those positions are palling around with the Republicans.

You might have something there... but for a different reason: it might get more people on the left to criticize the GOP for the right reasons. Edited November 17, 2008 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

Are you really surprised by the comments on LGF site? Many of the critical but thoughtful responses are in line with my views expressed here before the election on this topic.

I do not think that Republicans lost due to their social conservatism. California of all places voted to ban gay marriage. Many things like race and wanting to make history played a role in this election (also Republican's failing at fiscal conservatism was a very significant factor).

One anecdote: While interviewing random people on the streets of Harlem Howard Stern ascribed to Obama positions of McCain (like being pro life and having Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick) - yet people still supported Obama and some even said that those were THE reasons they are voting for Obama.

I agree that their social conservatism is their problem but it will be hard to convince them of it.

Edited November 17, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[softwareNerd]

Sophia, I agree with you that the GOP did not lose primarily due to their social conservatism. However, this cannot be concluded from the comments of people on LGF and other GOP-leaning sites. The election was not lost primarily because pro-GOP folk did not turn up. Instead, one has to look to "independents" to understand what happened. To my mind, the primary reason the GOP lost is that McCain could not articulate a positive plan, even at the vague, abstract level that Obama did.

I do think the social conservatism hurts the GOP a little bit with the "independent voter", but not primarily. The ones I know complain that the GOP seems so obsessed with abortion, and guns, and the like. However, at the same time, they will vote for the GOP if they think they're offering a better alternative on "issues that really matter", and with the Dems if they think they are doing so. I think that McCain could have lost even more independent votes if he had ramped up his religious rhetoric. On the other hand, if someone like Huckabee had been running and was articulating a better bread-and-butter counter-attack to Obama, my guess is that he would have got more of the independent vote than McCain.

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, I agree with you that the GOP did not lose primarily due to their social conservatism. However, this cannot be concluded from the comments of people on LGF and other GOP-leaning sites. The election was not lost primarily because pro-GOP folk did not turn up. Instead, one has to look to "independents" to understand what happened. To my mind, the primary reason the GOP lost is that McCain could not articulate a positive plan, even at the vague, abstract level that Obama did.

I do think the social conservatism hurts the GOP a little bit with the "independent voter", but not primarily. The ones I know complain that the GOP seems so obsessed with abortion, and guns, and the like. However, at the same time, they will vote for the GOP if they think they're offering a better alternative on "issues that really matter", and with the Dems if they think they are doing so. I think that McCain could have lost even more independent votes if he had ramped up his religious rhetoric. On the other hand, if someone like Huckabee had been running and was articulating a better bread-and-butter counter-attack to Obama, my guess is that he would have got more of the independent vote than McCain.

I agree.

[fletch]

One anecdote: While interviewing random people on the streets of Harlem Howard Stern ascribed to Obama positions of McCain (like being pro life and having Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick) - yet people still supported Obama and some even said that those were THE reasons they are voting for Obama.

You can hear that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg...feature=related

[softwareNerd]

Conservative George Will just wrote an article criticizing the GOP for their growing statism in economics.

One problem here is that what the GOP understands as free-market is often actually half-hearted deregulation, that sometimes has the potential to cause more problems than it solves. The neo-cons still have the common-good as the goal of government, not very different from the centrists among the Democrats. They differ only in trying to use a "market-mechanism" to help government.

What this means is: even though calls for a move to "free-markets", will have more sympathy from across the GOP than a call to move away from religion, the specific type of call toward Capitalism that Objectivists would make does not have that much sympathy.