By staying focused on the pro-life issue. Granted, there may be little that can be done AT the local issue, other than vote against zoning for Planned Parenthood clinics (et al), and voting against Planned Parenthood sponsored sex education classes (if you’re on the school board). I do agree that at the local level, the party wouuld look quite like the Republican Party, with the difference being, no tolerance for those who wear the party uniform, but don’t play by party rules (like Rudy Guiliani, Susan Collins, and Arnold, et al.) It would be a truely conservative party. I think that the RNC should move to the center (where it really is), and blue dog democrats like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman can join it. True conservatives, like Rick Santorum would be best represented by a truely conservative party. Then the Social Elitist Utopian Utilitarians, like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and Barbara Streisand can maintain their standing in the morally defunct DNC.
The problem is, this party will have to win elections. That means the primary focus at the grassroots level must be on things that matter in local elections. Other parties can do those things as a secondary platform, and beat the Pro-life Party on two fronts – first by dealing with bread-and-butter issues, and secondly by actuall accomplishing what the Pro-life Party says they would accomplish, if they could get elected.
We can just as easily work within the Republican Party. We can never ‘purge’ the party – because that would drive people who would otherwise support us into the opposing party.
This is the reason why I often note that there are many places in which working within the Democratic Party is actually the best route for pro-lifers. It’s the same concept as what Vern is talking about in how what really matters to people at the local levels is bread and butter. And you need a strong party at the local levels in order to support a national party. The reality of politics is that certain areas are expected to be Republican and elect pretty much only republicans and others the same for Democrats. Relatively few areas swing to elect candidates of the other party much. It is a generally accepted reality by both major parties and while each of them will jostle to redraw maps to benefit their side, neither seriously tries to enter the controlled realm of the other. As such, the best route for people who live in a Republican area is generally to work within the Republican Party to strengthen it with electing truly dedicated people to the pro-life cause who can also handle the bread and butter. Likewise, people who live in Democratic areas should do the same in electing good Democrats who will insist upon supporting only candidates for higher office who also are pro-life. Such is the most effective plan of political action for pro-lifers.
The problem the Democratic Party faces is that at the national level its leaders are so virulently pro-abortion. Po-life Democrats really have their work cut out for them, and often face the quandary one Democrat on another thread succumbed to – how do you be a Democrat and NOT support the national party leadership?
Indeed it is. Both parties must work to send a message to their leaders, support life, or lose our support.
There’s no doubt that it’s a long, uphill battle from this point. Due to the reorganization in the 70s of the party which enabled radical feminists to take greater control, combined with the more traditionally conservative elements in the party politely succombing rather than taking a stand, the national level of present party control makes things quite difficult for the matter to be pushed as strongly as is needed nationally. Nonetheless, it still isn’t uncommon for pro-lifers to get elected as Democrats at the local (and even congressional house) level. Some could probably even get elected at statewide levels to a certain degree. The key problem seems to be in getting those who hold office at the lower levels to actively advocate for and support pro-life candidates at higher levels, while at least minimally becoming passive about rather than active in the campaigns of pro-aborts. Basically, if the message from those who control the politically organized foot soldiers is that you won’t receive the support you need to get elected to higher office unless you’re on the same page with us, then those seeking such offices will get the message and things will begin to change.
My hat is off to you – you’ve got a long, uphill battle, and it will take courage to stay the course.
It would not be a single issue party. It would be a party that focused on many issues but was grounded in core Christian values. That is why I said we should not call it a pro-life party.
Waah!:crying: I couldnt’ vote!http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/smily084.gif