By Gabriella Ciuffetelli Editorials Editor
If there is one thing that I am tired of as a young, female, nonreligious Republican voter, it is the fact that a politician’s stance on abortion has somehow become the ultimate litmus test of one’s devotion to conservatism.
While this may be because I’m one of the few anomalous Republicans who are actually pro-choice, I genuinely believe it is ridiculous to boil anyone’s record or political standing down to a solitary issue, regardless of what that issue may be.
Look, I get it. Abortion is an issue of values, and, as such, it spurs the most heated possible responses from proponents of either side of the debate. But can anyone justifiably argue that it is fair to reduce the complexities of conservatism or liberalism, to one single issue?
Speaking personally, I can fully attest to the fact that it is in fact possible to believe in specific ideals of Traditionalist Conservatism (like limited government, responsible spending, individual liberty and low taxation) while also being pro-choice or more lax on social issues. Assuming otherwise is not only ignorant, but also dangerous.
The greatest modern example has to be the first 2016 Republican presidential debate in which each candidate was asked point blank whether or not they support abortion for any reason, including in the cases of rape/incest or danger to the mother’s life. For many, if not all of the candidates on stage, giving any answer other than “no” could be seen as an early end to a campaign that had barely even started.
Forcing candidates to pass this sort of litmus test not only perpetuates this idea that conservatism doesn’t fall on a spectrum, when it very much does, but also keeps candidates who may not be totally against abortion from saying so as they fear being labeled a “RINO,” (Republican in Name Only), by members of their own party.
How, as a party, are Republicans to ever breach our differences, of which there are many, when we are too busy vilifying each other over singular issues? If we want to change the narrative of the GOP being a divided party, the first place to start is with ourselves.
Of course, this is not an inherently Republican problem either. In fact, this election cycle also brought scrutiny on the Democratic side to Senator Jim Webb for being “too Republican” because of his stances on homeland security. Webb received vilification of his own from the media and from voters for being too far to the right simply because he disagreed with his base on a particular facet of policy.
What we must remember as a populace is that there is an inherent difference between ideologies and political parties. Ideologies will always continue to exist, and always exist in varying degrees, with or without the formal framework of a party around it. As such, I think there is no single issue so great that it deserves to strip away someone’s political affiliation, whether they’re a private citizen or a politician.
Instead of looking for “the perfect candidate” and discounting members of our own parties for disagreeing on singular issues – even if they’re important ones – we must instead take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
If we continue to create an environment in which we refuse to compromise with our elected officials, how can we expect our leaders to compromise with their peers or with their coworkers across the aisle?
Being a hard-liner, no-compromise Republican or Democrat may be great for winning primaries, but it is terrible for actually getting things done.
This editorial was originally published on Degree180.com
The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.