Education, advocacy responsibility of interest groups, not political parties

Pigs and Pearls

Rather than appear unorthodox in the party of unorthodoxy, I would like to expound upon my theories concerning the role and purpose of political parties. Basically, they exist to win. After all, the great Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi was right, "Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing."

In order to win, parties and candidates assemble coalitions of groups and individuals that yield them more votes on Election Day than their opponents. Again, Lombardi: "If it doesn’t matter who wins and loses, then why do they keep score?" The problem is when parties do the education and advocacy work of their constituent groups.

The Republicans, especially the moderates, are beginning to see that Karl Rove’s Midas touch may actually hurt the party in the long run. Once the fundamentalists Rove courted seize the microphones and the money of the Republican Party, electoral success will disappear. It’s as certain as a televangelist sex scandal.

Yet the Republican Party, for all its demagoguery, never went out and convinced people that same-sex marriages are wrong, nor did they promote the removal of the estate tax or champion the idea that life begins at conception. All of these now very political concepts began in and were fostered by independent groups.

These groups, be they Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation or all of William F. Buckley’s various endeavors, all have laid the groundwork for the razor-thin majority on which the Republicans are sitting. The Republican Party has not had to lift a finger to make any of this come about.

The Democrats have similar groups. Pro-choice supporters, labor unions, African-Americans, Latinos, Catholics, Jews and the GLBT community all are associated with the Democratic Party.

Not all the members of each group vote for Democrats, however. This explains the Log Cabin Republicans, who — other than the fact that they’ve come out of the closet — are in more denial than the Flat Earth Society. Blog that, Andrew Sullivan.

It is not, however, the Democratic Party’s mission to convince voters that any one of their constituent group’s agendas are good for the country. It is the responsibility of each of those groups to convince the country that what they want is in the general interest.

Pro-choice supporters have the responsibility to educate the public and make choice a national issue so that Republicans honestly fear the repercussions of voting against a woman’s right to choose. That is not — and has not — been the case for many years.

Responsibility lies with the GLBT community to educate the public about civil unions and same-sex marriage. It is not the Democratic Party’s responsibility to protect the gains made in the courts.

If a woman’s right to choose is not a winning electoral issue, then Democrats would be fools to continue to champion it. The same goes for civil unions, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, et cetera.

I know that none of those will win someone an election in Virginia, or anywhere farther south.

I am as frustrated as anyone else with how people can vote against jobs, healthcare and national security in favor of denying civil rights to gays. It makes Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs seem skewed.

But in the end, what people should do doesn’t matter. It’s what they actually do that is important, and people actually do vote on moral issues, especially abortion and homosexuality.

The danger is that the Democrats will — or have — developed a brand identity that is anti-Christian or anti-morality among many people in the South and Midwest. Unfortunately, removing that association may take decades and many additions to southern cemeteries.

Adam M. Sharp is a junior history major who would appreciate thoughts and criticism at sharpam.