If we learned anything from the recent midterm elections—and we should have learned a lot—it should be that “social issues” are not the third rail of politics. The claim that they are the third rail is a manipulative lie told ad nauseum by RINOs who are so foolish they don’t understand that the social issues are essential for the health of any society.

From the midterm elections, conservatives should have learned that Republicans won elections from coast to coast in part because they have been “leaning in” to the “social issues” rather than fleeing from them. And we should have learned from the bellicose responses of Leftists that their only defenses are calling names and lying.

Republicans won in part because they justifiably worry about inflation and crime, both the results of doctrinaire leftist Big Government, pro-criminal, globalist policies. Republicans won also because they were disgusted with and animated by the usurpation of public education by leftist change-agents who use their jobs to promote their social, moral, and political ideologies on sexuality—including abortion—and race.

Taxpayers are fed up with obscene, profane, and age-inappropriate materials being presented to their children.

Taxpayers are fed up with divisive, exclusionary, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, misanthropic, anti- science beliefs that leftists identify as unifying, inclusive, anti-racist, philogynist, philandrist, humanitarian, and scientific.

Taxpayers are fed up with paying the salaries of leftwing propagandists who identify as “educators” and “experts” who believe they should have absolute autonomy over the curricula they teach to other people’s children.

Taxpayers are fed up with children being taught that whites are racist oppressors by virtue of their skin color, that masculinity is toxic, that homosexuality is ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, that all family structures are equivalent, or that boys can be girls–none of which are true.

Taxpayers are fed up with the sexual integration of private spaces and girls’ sports.

Taxpayers are fed up with the Orwellian de facto suppression of First Amendment speech protections as evidenced in speakers being canceled and jobs being lost.

They’re fed up with leftists screeching that conservatives are racist, homophobic, and transphobic when conservatives express their moral or political views with the clarity and confidence that leftists express their deluded, destructive views.

They’re fed up with the lie that conservative moral beliefs about homosexual acts, or same-sex “marriage,” or cross-dressing constitutes hatred of persons who identify as “gay” or “trans.”

I hope conservatives are learning that addressing the social issues is not only critical to winning elections but also that the “social issues” are critical to the health and future of any society. Dave Rubin, Guy Benson, and Tammy Bruce may be smart, articulate, and right on many issues, but embracing their views on homosexuality and marriage will be a political and humanitarian nightmare for the GOP and America.

It’s not just leftist ideas about sexuality that will destroy. Embracing ideas found in critical race theory (CRT) or allowing our children to be taught those ideas as inarguable truth out of fear of being called “racist” will be equally destructive.

Now that many more Republicans have raised their voices against the racist ideas embedded in CRT, leftists are screaming “racist” with increased volume. They feel the wind changing. Their con has been revealed. Their jig is almost up. Well, it will be if Republicans remain unified and fearless.

Not only are leftists shrieking “racist” louder, but they’re also making the disingenuous case that public schools “don’t teach critical race theory.” What they’re not saying is that the ideas promulgated in public schools on race, race relations, and American history are the same ideas on race, race relations, and American history promulgated by CRT and by both the ideologies that preceded CRT and the many money-making operations promoting CRT-derived ideas.

Leftist ideas about identity groups, “systemic bias,” and “systems of oppression” come from numerous ideological frameworks, including critical theory, critical pedagogy, and CRT. Thinkers associated with these theoretical frameworks include Paulo Freire, Herbert Marcuse, Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux, bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, and Peggy McIntosh.

Anyone who wonders whether schools teach CRT should spend some time reading what these ambitious scholars promote and then read the resources their local schools provide to students or teachers on institutional racism, intersectionality, oppression, education, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

All the indignant claims from school administrators that they don’t teach CRT are now stinking red herrings tossed out in a frantic attempt to distract opponents from all that inconvenient opposing.

Sure, schools and the organizations that profit from promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in schools may not technically teach CRT and may not use the term CRT. Instead, they extract CRT’s assumptions and repackage them to make them seem less controversial, less scholarly, and more palatable to the gullible among us. For the outside organizations that profit from keeping racism alive, the goal is to make repackaged CRT more marketable to government schools.

From this election, conservatives should have learned that name-calling and lies rather than logic, reasons, and evidence are the chief weapons in the leftist arsenal. They should have learned that courage, boldness, unity, and perseverance in the service of truth are powerful. And they should have learned from the ideological corruption that is now systemic in schools that we must be committed to seeking and speaking truth in the public square even if they have to do it alone and even when doing so is costly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Social-Issues-Are-Not-the-Third-Rail.mp3

I’m a Bible-believing Christian first, a conservative second and, sometimes, with rapidly dwindling frequency, a Republican third (but only when the Grand Old Party is behaving itself).

Although the GOP’s RINO establishment still controls its legislative reins, I’m mildly encouraged by some recent developments at the Republican National Committee (RNC) level. It seems that under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, the party is moving – at least to some degree – back toward its historical conservative platform moorings.

It’s a popular refrain among “moderate” Republicans and libertine libertarians that the GOP “must give up the fight on ‘social issues’” (i.e., gun rights, religious freedom, protecting life and defending legitimate marriage and the natural family).

If the GOP follows through and abandons these transcendent conservative values, it’s done once and for all. The Republican Party had better run, not walk, back toward these conservative platform principles; otherwise Democrats will rule in perpetuity. The “progressive” juggernaut will finish off an America it has already maimed beyond recognition.

As I’ve noted before, Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds what I call “complete conservatism.” The legs symbolize a strong national defense, strong free-market principles and strong traditional social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issue – such as abortion, homosexual activism or the Second Amendment – is not a complete conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Karl Rove represents the embodiment of this kind of mushy moderate false pragmatism – a Democrat-lite mindset embraced by the GOP’s socio-liberal establishment. If you run into Karl and his ilk, don’t forget to thank them for President Bob Dole, President John McCain and President Mitt Romney.

Indeed, if the Republican Party ever hopes to occupy the Oval Office again, it’s going to have to nominate a complete conservative and adopt a legislative agenda that reflects the values shared by the tens-of-millions who make up the GOP’s complete conservative base. I don’t mean by simply paying empty lip service either. I mean through unwavering legislative practice.

As Mitt Romney might tell you, if the base ain’t fired up, the base ain’t going to the polls.

In 2012, the GOP approved a platform that, at least in writing, re-established a firm position on – as they say – “guns, ‘gays’ and abortion.” It’s now time for the Republican Party to stand firm atop that platform. As a complete conservative who shudders at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton, I’m cautiously optimistic that some in leadership are beginning to scale the platform once more. The RNC, under Priebus, has recently taken steps that seem to indicate the message of the GOP’s majority base is finally getting through.

For example, the Washington Times recently reported: “In an unprecedented show of opposition to abortion, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is delaying the start of the party’s annual winter meeting so he and other committee members can join the (Jan. 22) March for Life on the Mall. …”

“‘I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the Rally for Life,’ Mr. Priebus said in an email to the Times. ‘This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles,’” he said.

Moreover, this past Thursday was National Religious Freedom Day. In recent years we’ve seen religious freedom under attack at unprecedented levels through things like the HHS abortion mandate, so-called “gay marriage” and “sexual orientation” laws that target religious business owners. The RNC released the following statement indicating that the GOP intends to defend religious freedom:

“Today we celebrate National Religious Freedom Day and honor the vision of our founders, who ensured every American would have the right to ‘the free exercise’ of his or her faith. As a party, Republicans are committed to preserving and defending the protections enshrined in the First Amendment so that future generations will always enjoy religious freedom in America.”

This move back toward the GOP’s conservative platform has made some socio-liberal Republicans unhappy. In fact, it recently drove homosexual RINO Jimmy LaSalvia, the founder of GOProud, a tiny “gay activist” outfit, to announce that he was defecting from the party.

LaSalvia told Time magazine that, “he could no longer take his own party’s refusal to stand up to bigotry: he was leaving the Republican Party and had registered as an Independent.”

By refusing to “stand up to bigotry,” of course, LaSalvia, like all “gay” activists, means that he can no longer abide the Republican platform’s support for religious freedom and pro-family values.

LaSalvia’s frustration and defection bode well for the Republican Party in general. It means that the GOP is moving slowly – ever so slowly – back toward its conservative roots. This is good news indeed. The more conservative this prodigal GOP becomes; the more successful it will be going forward.

Keep it up, Mr. Priebus, and in November your base just might grill up the fatted calf.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Earlier this week, we sent you an article by Laurie Higgins regarding the controversial statement by Governor Mitch Daniel (R-IN) to the Weekly Standard that “‘the next president, whoever he is, would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while, until the economic issues are resolved.” Laurie did a fantastic job pointing out the naivete and ignorance of such a proposal, and that our “progressive” friends on the radical Left will not observe such a truce. (See Weekly Standard article HERE.)

Unfortunately, this is not the first time a conservative leader has made such a statement, and the sentiment that the social issues are not important is shared by too many of our fiscally conservative friends. While I don’t want to belabor the point, I think it is extremely important that we consider the fact that the social issues are inextricably woven into many of the economic issues. To ignore the social issues will only perpetuate the fiscal problems the states and nation face.

Yes, fiscal responsibility is very important now,but the social issues — and the morality and personal responsibility that are at the center of the debate on social issues — play a significant role in out-of-control government spending and intrusion in our lives. Here are some examples of how social issues are costing taxpayers and contributing to the fiscal problems we now face:

Abortion:

Taxpayers are directly subsidizing the abortion industry. Abortion- providers such as Planned Parenthood continue to receive millions of tax dollars every year under Title X, which subsidizes their overhead for promoting abortion, giving them the ability to divert more and more resources toward the killing of the unborn.

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reveals that over the past eight years, nearly $1 billion has been given to “family planning organizations” (read abortion providers). Planned Parenthood Federation of America received $657.1 million in taxpayer dollars from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. The largest source of these funds ($342.1 million) was the Title X family planning program.

From the 105th through the 107th Congress, Planned Parenthood abortion services generated a net profit of $300 million. All the while, it cut back on non-abortion-related programs like adoption, breast cancer screening and infertility treatment.

Yet taxpayer funds doubled to so-called “family planning” programs, of which Planned Parenthood is a major beneficiary.

And here in Illinois, despite a ban on taxpayer- funded abortions, hundreds of Medicaid abortions are done every year. (Read more HERE.)

Then there is the issue of embryonic stem cell research that Illinois taxpayers fund — experimentation done on the tiniest of humans, resulting in their deaths. (Read more HERE.)

Homosexuality:

Just this past Sunday, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) signed an executive order to extend family and medical leave benefits to domestic partners. That is in addition to the taxpayer-funded health care benefits that the state of Illinois already gives to homosexual state employees and their partners, which was enacted unilaterally by then Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) in 2006. These benefits include medical, pharmacy, dental and vision. Taxpayers are footing the bill for this.

And there’s the $10 million of state tax money for the construction of the “Center on Halsted” which opened in 2004. The Center, located in the heart of Chicago’s affluent homosexual, bisexual, and “transgender” community, is used to push for “gay marriage” in Illinois and other homosexual lobby goals. According to Americans for Truth, the Center on Halsted has been the host of incredibly perverse sadomasochistic events. There are other similar “gay” centers in San Diego and other cities.

Lest you think that was a one time expenditure, this year taxpayers are giving $475,000 to the Center on Halsted to provide programs for homosexual and transgender seniors.

Gambling:

The state of Illinois now has 9 casinos operating, with a 10th being built in Des Plaines. Add to this the fact that Illinois is poised to have mini-casinos in every neighborhood thanks to a new law signed last summer by Governor Patrick Quinn (D) which allows any establishment serving liquor to have up to five video slot machines. (Thankfully some counties and municipalities have opted out of this predatory mugging of its citizens.)

In his book, former senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Earl L. Grinols, points out that the social costs of gambling, such as increased crime, lost work time, bankruptcies and financial hardships faced by the families of gambling addicts, have reached epidemic proportions, costing the economy as much as $54 billion annually (See “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” by Earl L. Grinols.)

Casino gambling causes up to $289 in social costs for every $46 of economic benefit, according to Grinols. “In 2003 dollars, the cost to society of an additional pathological gambler is $10,330, based on studies performed in the mid-1990s, whereas the cost to society of an additional problem gambler is $2,945,” he wrote. “Accounting for the cost of raising tax dollars to cover some of these costs raises the totals to $11,304 and $3,222, respectively.”

University of Illinois Professor John Kindt has studied this issue exhaustively, and says that “every video [slot] gambling machine takes $60,000 out of the consumer economy.” Kindt asserts that “for every dollar of revenue generated by gambling, taxpayers must pay at least $3 in increased criminal justice costs, social welfare expenses, high regulatory costs, and increased infrastructure expenditures “

Legalized gambling in Illinois and across this nation is contributing to our fiscal problems. Kindt argues that “gambling is a catalyst for economic downturn.”

Pornography: 

I do not need to tell you how pornography and obscenity has saturated the culture in recent decades. It is almost impossible to avoid being visually assaulted by pornography’s sinister message. Billboards, magazine covers, mall displays, television, the Internet and even the lyrics of popular music proclaim and glamorize elicit sex.

What is the link between pornography and our tax dollars? Pornography contributes greatly to the high number of sex crimes we see today. Dr. Mary Anne Layden specializes in the treatment of victims and perpetrators of sexual violence and sexual addiction. She has testified before the U.S. Congress on five occasions on the topic of sexual violence, the sexual exploitation industry and the media. A few years ago, she made this telling statement:

I began my work as a psychotherapist working with individuals who had been raped, who had experienced incest and sexual violence of all sorts, but I came to realize that after 10 years of working with these individuals, that there were certain things that were clear to me. One is that in the first 10 years I noted – now, I’m not a fast learner, but I noted that there was not one case of sexual violence that didn’t involve pornography. Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to say something is going on here, because there was no other common factor in all the cases that I was treating. This one stands out. [Emphasis added.]

Her expertise and experience seem to back up the AP’s analysis:

Experts say certain trends emerge among the cases of children charged with sex crimes against other children….42 percent have been exposed to hardcore pornography, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a 2001 report.

There is a growing body of research which suggests that the habitual use of pornography — especially Internet pornography — can damage people of all ages and both sexes, negatively impacting their relationships, productivity, happiness and their ability to function in society. These are among the social costs of pornography, according to The Witherspoon Institute at Princeton, New Jersey.

There is a well-documented link between child pornography and child sexual abuse. A study done by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons found in confidential studies with convicted child pornographers — while only 26 percent were convicted of molesting children — 85 percent admitted abusing at least one child.

Millions upon millions of tax dollars are spent every year on law enforcement and in criminal justice fighting sex crimes surrounding pornography.

There are other intangible consequences of not dealing with social issues: fatherless children, the explosion of STDs, child abuse and abandonment, high school dropouts, drug and alcohol addictions, increase of crime, gang problems and many others. All of these consequences contribute to the breakdown of the family and will result in a growing demand for bigger government and the nanny state. And someone has to fund a bigger government: you, the taxpayer.

In tackling the severe financial issues that we currently face, we cannot afford to lose sight of what’s important. Social issues matter. Morality and personal responsibility matter. Faith and family matter.

John Adams said,

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress:

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

Robert Winthorp, an early Speaker of the House of Representatives:

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or a power without them. Either by the Word of God or the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet.”

In the absence of strong families and vibrant faith, the role of government must expand. If self-control and personal responsibility are not taught and fostered by the family and exhorted by the church — the government will necessarily become coercive. This is why we need to stand for good public policy — for both fiscal and social issues.

The breakdown of the family — no-fault divorce, the redefinition of marriage, the utter disregard of human life in abortion and euthanasia, the legalization of gambling to increase state revenue, the widespread approval of pornography and obscenity — all contribute to the breakdown of the family, the marginalization of faith and the growth of government.

If fiscal conservatives really want to see a return to limited government, they simply cannot afford to set aside the social issues.

In recent weeks, I have had several conversations with friends regarding the relative importance of the social issues when making voting decisions. These conversations intensified following some statements made by Indiana governor and rumored presidential aspirant, Republican Mitch Daniels, who has called for a “truce” on the social issues.

Lest anyone think Daniels regrets his words or has reconsidered his position, Washington Examiner writer Mark Hemingway assures us that Daniels stands behind them:

I got a call this morning from Indiana Governor and rumored presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. In my column yesterday on his remarks about a “truce” on social issues, I left the door open to the possibility that the Governor’s remarks may not have been a “rhetorical misstep.”

…Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”

He’s emphasized the need to focus like a laser beam on the existential threats facing the country — the two big issues he’s previously identified being the war on terror and the country’s precarious fiscal position.

For some time I have held the view that supporting a candidate who abandons the social issues but supports a strong national defense and responsible spending was the lesser of all available evils. I held this position even as conservatives grew ever more silent on legislation pertaining to abortion and homosexuality. I hoped without evidence that those who claim the mantle of conservatism would eventually regain a moral sensibility and a spine. What a naïve dupe I’ve been.

I was also unduly influenced by rhetoric coming from the mainstream media; the woefully misnamed “progressives”; and the equally misnamed “moderates.” These groups characterize as “extreme,” “fringe,” and “far right” anyone who believes that the slaughter of the unborn, sexually complementary marriage, and the natural family are critical issues. Hearing these ad hominem epithets, I felt embarrassed and doubtful about my views.

Then the inestimable Richard Weaver slapped me upside the head through his transformative book Ideas Have Consequences.

Whoever argues for a restoration of values is sooner or later met with the objection that one cannot return, or as the phrase is likely to be, “you can’t turn the clock back.” By thus assuming that we are prisoners of the moment, the objection well reveals the philosophic position of modernism. The believer in truth, on the other hand, is bound to maintain that the things of highest value are not affected by time; otherwise the very concept of truth becomes impossible. In declaring that we wish to recover lost ideals and values, we are looking toward an ontological realm that is timeless.

The contemporary claim that opposition to abortion and affirmation of homosexuality are fringe positions reflects the moral relativism against which Weaver warns. Conservative views are only extreme to a society that has rejected the idea of objective, transcendent moral truth. Remember, fewer than fifty years ago, support for abortion and affirmation of volitional homosexual acts would have been viewed as radical, far-left, extreme, fringe positions; and a “truce” on the promotion of these views by politicians would have been unthinkable.

Governor Daniels reveals a troubling ignorance about what constitutes an “existential threat” to our country when he implies that legalized killing of the unborn and destruction of the natural family and traditional marriage do not pose a threat to the continued health, strength, and even existence of this country.

I wonder, if one of the “social issues” that divide the country were not the slaughter of the most defenseless but were instead the enslavement of African Americans, would these same immoderates, including Mitch Daniels, be chastising conservatives for refusing to subordinate social issues to fiscal issues?

Meanwhile, as too many purported conservatives turn their fear-filled, feckless gazes away from the unborn, marriage, parental rights, speech rights, religious liberty, and the rights of children, “progressive” activists, smirking gleefully at our naivete and cowardice, seize the legislative day.

While we abandon the social issues, “progressives” forge frenetically ahead, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Hate Crimes legislation, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, the Freedom of Choice Act, federal funding for abortion through Obamacare, the defunding of abstinence education, increased funding for Planned Parenthood, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Apparently, the financial crisis and the threat of radical Islamic terrorism have not similarly compelled “progressives” to abandon the social issues. No, siree. While some “conservative” leaders and their acolytes tremble and retreat from critical moral and political issues, “progressives,” as Rahm Emmanuel explains, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. ” They view crises as “opportunities to do big things.”

Is the reasoning of these flee-from-the-social issues faux-conservatives sound? Do social conservatives actually believe that once our 13 trillion dollar debt problem is solved, our elected, rubbery-spined representatives will bravely and implacably turn their attention to abortion and homosexuality? If they do, I’ve got beachfront property in Louisiana to sell them.

If conservatives en masse would reject any candidate who waves the white flag on social issues, maybe, just maybe, we would be blessed with better candidates — ones for whom we could vote without holding our proverbial noses.

We must restore fundamental conservative principles to the public square and the political process, especially as they touch on the “social issues” that Governor Daniels seeks to abandon. We would far better serve the “existential” needs of our country by taking to heart the words of Ella Wheeler Cox: “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”