When I would vote for a Republican president

There is a problem with the modern Republican party, I've talked about it a lot and firmly believe it. The current politics of the Republican Party do not represent the conservative values espoused by their own rhetoric. We see it most clearly in the campaigns for national office among the varied districts around the country: Conservative Christian social values issues trump economic and domestic policy issues. When the races get close or competitive, Republicans fall back on those old wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and separation of church and state.

Now, just to get this out of the way, the separation of church and state is fact, it is irrefutable by any thinking rational person and has repeated precedent over centuries of law. There is no turning away from that even with a neo-con dominated high court. The values of freedom of religion is so fundamental to this nation, it was one of the primary reason for immigration to this country in the first place. All those people who deny outright the separation of church and state or insist that it isn't what the founders intended are either deluded to the point of lunacy or they are playing so far to the right that they may as well be playing to a fascist party. Yet, in a crazy election year like this, we see it among far too many candidates.

As for those others, they are part of the rhetorical 'Guns, God and Gays' routine that Karl Rove designed as the presidential and national Republican strategy for the 2004 election. Notice, however, that the election in 2006, possibly a part reaction to that election, saw a sweeping wave of Democratic candidates elected into office. It is also a device that played strongly to the Christian elements of the Republican platform by bringing evoking their fears of a secular nation that turns away from faith and even persecutes those of faith, the supposedly warring sides of what Bill O'Reilly terms the 'culture wars'. Those advocating this kind of conflict then become the 'culture warriors'.

The hypocrisy then becomes the parallel messages of 'freedom and liberty' used by conservative candidates matched with socially conservative message of restricting rights for all minority people. It is the blending of the message of an overreaching government infringing upon the private lives of citizens while espousing the exact same infringement the conservative movement is against, only against the groups they purposefully exclude from full citizen-hood. As long as groups agree with their ideological stance, they are represented by the conservative message, those who disagree are deemed un-American and enemies of freedom.

What that message effectively does is pit those people who have strong Christian faiths, notice they are never reaching out to other people of even similar faiths such as the Jewish community, while at the same time purposely courting the 'white vote' by excluding minority people of conservative Christian faiths, i.e. African Americans and Latino people. Those groups, from a conservative faith perspective, should be sympathetic to the Christian Republican cause on many social issues, yet they largely and historically voted Democrat. What about that rationale makes sense ultimately boils down to the 'white vote' and institutionalized racism. They hate being called racist and fight against that name, but when they campaign on the principles of exclusion in part by using what Rachel Maddow identifies as the 'Southern Strategy' employed during the 1960's and inciting fears of white people, there really can't be any other name for it.

Ultimately the effect of this strategy and this type of rhetoric is the denial of full citizen-hood to many minority groups. They play on the fears of less educated and less affluent white people, particularly in South and the Western United States, fears of becoming the minority in this country, of preferential treatment to racial and ethnic minorities to the detriment of the rights of white people, and to the enforcement of 'socialist' values such as 'wealth redistribution'. It is the same rhetoric that would have denied African Americans the right to vote and enforced segregation in schools and public places. It is the same rhetoric that on a non-superficial level enforced the idea that somehow people of darker skin were less-human and less deserving of the rights enjoyed by a white majority.

But the messages of the conservative white Christian political movement are not ultimately compatible with the message of 'freedom and liberty'. What it is conducive to is the politics of exclusion, of the continued institutionalization of 'freedoms and liberties' for white people, a principle which can't be construed as anything but outright racism and homophobia. It is also a message that numerous 'liberal' or 'moderate' Republicans are against. While many of these Republicans are conservative on fiscal issues, they are at least moderate on social issues. They are also often Republicans from historically Union states. By Union, I am referring to the label of the northern states during the Civil War. Yes, it is ludicrous, but the rift between these two cultural ideals goes further back even than that. Many people from the South are proud of their Confederate roots, roots they see as upholding the principles of freedom and states' rights. They see themselves as representing an oppressed group rebelling against a tyrannical federal government, romanticizing the culture of that time, and ignoring the rampant hostility toward and racist treatment of African American people. It is a sentiment that still supports outright and institutionalized racism in parts of this country and it is a belief system many conservative political candidates court while running for office.

Given the current political climate, and particularly the recent issues that the LGBT community is having with President Obama, although it is extremely unlikely, if there was a Republican candidate who was even moderate on social issues, I would have to strongly consider whether or not to vote for them. I, of course, voted for Obama in 2008. Unlike many of the progressive young people who voted based on the idea that he would radically change the way that Washington operates, my family has been involved with politics for a long time, I knew that the fundamental machinations are almost impossible to change. I said to people at that time and continue to believe that the most important thing that has happened with President Obama was that we finally had a president who moved the rhetoric and policies of this country out of the realm of the conservative Christian movement and back to the mainstream. We finally had a president who was openly supportive of the rights of LGBT people and still is a very vocal advocate for the recognition of our civil rights. Unfortunately parts of his record, especially of late, do not match his words. And given the almost certain climate of Washington in the near future, which is going to gain more conservatives in Congress, it will be almost impossible for him and the progressive base to have any movement forward through legislation, it is going to have to be through the courts. Unless the Senate is able to sway some of the moderate Republicans after the elections are over, and especially after the military study is finished, to end the filibuster on the Defense Authorization Bill with the provision on Don't Ask, Don't Tell included, Obama's appeal of the current case overturning the decision will end any possible repeal of that policy in the near future. If a Republican wins the White House in 2012, it will almost certainly be another decade before that policy is repealed. How, then, can we support a president, however vocal he is about his support for the LGBT community, when in the hour of critical success for our rights, he decides to turn his back on the best chance for that policy to end.

I don't want to vote Republican ever. I disagree with so many principles of their agenda. It is also likely that it will be dangerous for the progress of this country to vote for the candidate who receives the nomination in 2012. It will, however, be a hard decision if a socially moderate candidate is put forward and the economic plan of the progressives in Washington are not successful. Lowering taxes is clearly not the answer, which was evident during the first six years of the Bush presidency when the Republicans controlled Congress and he instituted huge tax breaks that ultimately only stimulated an even further (upward) redistribution of wealth toward the super rich. If the future president is able to institute some of the public works projects, projects that were enormously successful in the past and are proven ways of getting much of the labor industries back to work, than it might be worth it to see a change from a president who overall has, in an attempt to make genuine bipartisan policy decisions, shown a disheartening lack of leadership. As Rachel Maddow has said, it became obvious early on that the Republicans were going to prove a huge roadblock toward every major piece of legislation introduced on behalf of the president, so why didn't he go all out and just go for the full on progressive agenda like a public option in the health care act? It may be time to find a new candidate.