The uproar continues among social conservatives regarding the GOP’s proposed new party platform. The new document diverges in notable ways from past Republican platforms on abortion and traditional marriage, which reaffirmed the party’s commitment to pro-life policies and pushed to legally define wedlock as between one man and one woman.
Social conservatism used to comprise an essential element of the Republican Party. It rose to prominence in the party during the 1980s and has played a critical role in many election cycles since. The GOP’s success in the 2004 election, for example, was buoyed by state ballot initiatives defining marriage as only a heterosexual relationship.
Abortion, in particular, has dominated GOP presidential politics as late as 2016: a large number of voters cast their ballots for former President Donald Trump in hopes that more Supreme Court nominees would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Social conservatism has had successes and failures over the past 40 years. On marriage, it failed to maintain legal or cultural fidelity to traditional, biblical views. America now has an entire month dedicated to celebrating the very lifestyles and relationships social conservatives opposed. On life, the same movement achieved much greater success, culminating in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s overturning by the Supreme Court in 2022.
But that decision seems more like an expiring breath than a sign of vigor. It was followed by a string of electoral defeats for the pro-life movement that showed a country much more committed to legalized abortion than many conservatives previously thought.
And if you didn’t think social conservatism was dead before, then you can’t really deny its demise after the past week. The proposed changes to the Republican Party platform’s marriage and abortion language for the 2024 election show how social conservatism now stands as a pale shadow of its former self.
On abortion, the new platform language removes any call for a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn. It even omits advocacy for statutory restrictions by the national government.
The platform does affirm that states can pass laws protecting all persons’ life, liberty, and property. The context of that statement clearly relates to abortion. However, the platform only explicitly mentions abortion in opposition to late-term procedures.
Some may argue that this new language seeks to push for what is possible given the current political environment. Yet this is too charitable. This platform leaves to the states the decision, which generally should be the case under the current circumstances. But that it does so, as well as how it does so, is a failure to pro-life principles.
First, the platform errs by implying the national government has no role regarding abortion regulation. The states certainly hold most of the power on this front. However, abortion does reach into matters under the regulatory power of Congress and a truly pro-life party would advocate national laws protecting life to the extent possible in that sphere.
Second, the GOP fails to make the moral case against abortion with anything like requisite clarity. It lacks a clear definition of when life begins. It muddies the extent of the right to life by only mentioning abortion in the context of late-term instances.
Those wishing to protect the unborn can no longer hide behind the judiciary. We wanted judges largely out of policing abortion regulation because their doing so hindered the cause of life, limiting how we could pursue the protection of unborn children’s natural right to live.
With the Supreme Court returning abortion policy to the elected branches, we do not take a stand of indifference. We just have a different primary audience. We now must make our case to the voters and their representatives. It is at this moment, then, that our leaders should make the case in more forceful and clear language than in the past.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
With marriage, the new platform also removes any commitment to the traditional definition of the institution. Perhaps this omission merely admits the defeat that has cemented over the past decade. However, as citizens increasingly question attempts to downplay or change biological sex, we need leaders to articulate a broader view of what it means to be human as well as either male or female within that humanity.
As with life, we can’t look to the GOP now for the needed moral courage or intellectual clarity. It may not be a surprise given the current state of the party. But it is a shame.
Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.