There has recently been a great deal of tension between social conservatives and social moderates within the Republican Party.
Former Republican Senator John Danforth has published a book, “Faith and Politics,” urging the Republican Party to move away from using religious beliefs in the drafting of policy, because of the divisive and private nature of religion.
For similar reasons, conservative campus groups – such as the Bruin Republicans – which have moved in the direction of pushing religious morality, should distance themselves from adopting positions that are primarily derived from religion.
According to Marty Cohen, UCLA political science professor and an expert on the religious right, this is a contention that has shaped the political landscape.
“There’s always been a strong libertarian element in the Republican Party. In recent decades it’s been overshadowed by the more traditional people that believe in using the government to protect (private) morality,” he said.
BR hosted a Calvinist pastor to speak on the topic, “Can a Christian be a liberal?” for its kickoff event of the year. This speech focused entirely on religious positions instead of tackling the larger ideological issues and stances shared by all conservatives.
The event seemed to support the stance that there should be no distinction between private religious beliefs and public political beliefs. For example, the speaker discussed the religious morality of abortion and homosexuality. These theocratic stances are clearly controversial within the club.
Political clubs should not use religious arguments, as they do not lend themselves to persuasively supporting political positions. Religious scripture lends itself to a variety of interpretations; a devout Christian may interpret the same passages touted by religious conservatives to support liberal politics.
According to BR chairman Greg Moeck, the purpose of the event was to sway religious liberals over to conservatism, appealing to their religious consciences.
He also remarked, “The first event of the calendar year is usually a recruitment event.”
While his recruitment would disproportionately attract members with strong religious leanings, BR has traditionally been a big tent club; it would proudly count both libertarians and social conservatives among its members and leaders.
This first event constituted a departure from the big-tent approach of years past and step towards endorsing the religious right.
Vice chairman Katya Balan acknowledged a problem, saying: “There needs to be a change of direction. The club needs to plan events that appeal more to libertarians.”
While it is true that conservatives – even at the college age – tend to be socially conservative at the national level, UCLA seems to be an exception to the rule.
According to Cohen, this may be due to UCLA’s location. Chairmen of the Bruin Republicans have even been libertarian atheists, something unheard of for conservative clubs in other parts of the country. For any particular issue the club may take a divisive stance on, the drawbacks resulting from the risk of alienating members greatly outweigh any conceivable benefits.
There are already avenues for students seeking to promote the more divisive social issues on campus, such as pro-life groups, in addition to various religious clubs.
These specially tailored groups can advocate for these issues far more effectively, and without sacrificing the integrity of the political club, which ought to appeal to the whole range of conservatives.
Religious right activists will find that they will not be able to make much headway on enacting their goals in any practical sense on campuses.
Unless they planned on appointing Supreme Court Justices at the next Bruin Democrats debate, those Bruin Republicans hoping to ban abortions at the UCLA hospital will find little chance of success.
On the other hand, they may find themselves unable to protect academic freedom without the libertarians who make up a good bulk of the club, and who would be alienated by a move to the religious right.
On the national level, if social conservatives succeed at redefining who is considered a conservative, the ideology would appeal to a much smaller group. One should keep in mind that prominent conservatives have included those wary of the influence of religion.
Let us not forget that it was Barry Goldwater, considered the founder of modern conservative, who said, “There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics.”
Conservatives are at a crossroads of sorts. This comes at a time when Republicans come under intense pressure in the lead-up to the midterm election.
For the sake of common causes – such as preserving capitalism and enacting a strong foreign policy – conservatives ought to turn towards a consensus-based approach, despite the lure of pushing certain issues.
If Pat Robertson gives you nightmares, e-mail Lazar at dlazar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.