Republicans should move left? Or is it right?

Here were my promises from the previous post:

"Next post I'll talk about why the GOP should return to some of its Goldwater roots. I'll also explain why I think this will win some independents, some Democrats, and how this will resonate, in some respects, with many evangelicals. I will also explain how the GOP can spin this to the evangelical base in order to retain it, and why the evangelical base should embrace the move as more in keeping with their commissions as followers of Christ."

Wow. Did I promise all that. Alright, here goes:

By "Goldwater Roots", I mean small unintrusive government. In a nutshell: libertarianism. Every conservative would rally behind a Republican candidate that really supported fiscal discipline (lower taxes and less spending), so I'm not going to go into that. The question is, how would the country respond to a GOP that moved left (or is it right?) on social issues? Especially since this has been the GOP's bread and butter as of late.

When it comes to the culture war, I believe that conservatives are primarily motivated by one thing: they want to be left to live as they see fit and raise their children as they see fit. If, however, the government is intent on running their lives and raising their children, then it darn well better do it the same way they would. For example, If parents can't afford to send their children to Christian schools because they are already paying thousands of dollars a year to fund the sub-par public school, then that public school better be teaching them in a way that is consistent with their beliefs.

I believe that conservatives are proponents of "either/or" when it comes to politics. "Either you let me live my life as I see fit, or you bend the system to suit my preferences". Since the government is determined to provide a one-size-fits-all government sponsored solution to all of life's problems, then conservatives will always be forced to fight so that "one-size" fits their beliefs.

The GOP ought to be the party that seeks to empower the individual. While I do not think that the GOP should change it's positioning on the issue of abortion (since this would still be considered an issue of personal freedom on behalf of the unborn), there are a number of issues where the GOP is unnecessarily cornering itself: homosexual marriage, pornography, drug use, flag burning, prostitution, public school curriculum, and capital punishment. I believe that a lot of conservatives would be willing to concede on some of these issues if the government reduced its role in the lives of Americans and made them free and responsible unto themselves. In this way I do not believe that the GOP would necessarily lose its base, so long as it aggressively pursued the cause of freedom and reduced the size and scope of government interference.

I think it is obvious that the GOP would also pick up more self-described libertarians that currently call themselves independents or Democrats.

On to the last point: evangelical Christians. I believe that more evangelicals ought to be putting their hope and faith in Christ and the church, and not in the United States Government. The only tool the US Government has at it's disposal is the sword. It's revenues are supplied through extortion. It's laws are carried out through violence. If it is unacceptable for the church to pursue it's ends through violence and extortion, why is it deemed acceptable to outsource it to the government. If the church cannot convince enough congregants to donate to a food drive, and it is not acceptable to hire goons to break kneecaps in order to cover the shortfall, why would it be acceptable for Christians to support the U.S. Government to do the same? It would be universally condemned if Presbyterians tried to restrain Episcopals from blessing same-sex marriages, so why is it acceptable to try to restrain a judge from issuing a civil union? Isn't a marriage proclaimed in God's name more important than a marriage proclaimed in the name of the state? The duty, as I see it, of the church, is to offer the Kingdom of God as a spiritual alternative to the present authorities of this world, not to ramrod our beliefs down the throats of the public using the present authorities.

Obviously, I'm not able to explain a position on every contentious issue in America's culture war with a couple of rhetorical questions. Each would require a post in and of itself. However, I will say that as Christians I believe we should pursue the course of freedom whenever and wherever possible lest we give the state the very power which they one day use to restrain us. It would be better, in my opinion, to champion the cause of freedom, to uphold the virtues of Christ, and lose the culture war than it would be to win the culture war using the sword of the state. The sword of the state ought to be reserved for administering justice, for protecting freedom and property, for preventing harm, and for punishing those that have harmed others. To put it simply, the state ought to enforce the negative aspect of the Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". The role of the church is to carry out the positive aspect of the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") while obeying the negative.