“Our differences are policies; our agreements, principles.” -President William McKinley

In a party that seems to endlessly be looking for a new figurehead to able to “lead the party out of the political wilderness”, GOP members must force themselves to tear away from the idol worship of Ronald Reagan as the seemingly only Republican president to have served and turn the pages and read further into past history at the many figures who made up the party from its conception. Abraham Lincoln who is frequently in the top 5 of the greatest American presidents if not considered by many to be the greatest American president for having the ideological vision of the nation as one and of freeing the slaves, creating the groundwork for an industrial America and being the first major leader of the new Republican Party, is probably a good person to look over in political retrospect. His ability to stand for principles and weave together real world pragmatics and his anti-slavery ideals to bring them about is therefore a natural cornerstone of what the party of today should strive to be like. The emphasis on Lincoln in the first part was necessary to remind those on the far-right who have woefully forgotten or abandoned the original principles of the party and how past Republican history set precedents on how these principles were to be stood for.

It is important to point out that the history of the Republican Party since its conception in Ripon, Wisconsin is full of ups and downs. It has had times of massive victories and defeats, of corruption and of righteousness, the proverbial triumphs and tragedies that are not limited to our party or party members alone. The GOP in the time period right after the civil war pushed hard for and passed the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery and in the case of woman’s suffrage was absolutely instrumental in fighting for the rights of women in society. In 1896, the Republican Party was the first major party to favor women’s suffrage and when the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. With the first woman elected to Congress being a Republican from Montana in 1917, it can be said that the party was very much a forward thinking and innovative one standing for the very principles that this nation was founded upon.

The period right after Lincoln’s assassination and into the 20th century was marked by a massive move towards industrialization and urbanization, a time period of prosperity marking the creation of the modern industrial economy along with national transportation and communication networks. Corruption and self-serving special interests is something that becomes evident in both parties over time and is not something that can be pinned down onto one party alone and it took members of both parties to stem the tide of corruption that identified those times. The administration of Grant during Reconstruction, state governments, and the appropriately labeled Gilded Age correctly showed how corruption became evident anywhere regardless of political identification. In those years, government was being horribly mismanaged, and corrupt party machinery like Tammany Hall with Democratic machine Boss Tweed was making infamy. This set the stage for an anti-government mentality to take hold that believed federal or state intervention in the economy inevitably led to the favoritism, bribery, kickbacks, inefficiency, waste, corruption and that it was simply better to keep government out rather than try face and fight these problems. That such a standard in both parties was set would set the stage for the dramatic showdowns and triumphs of Republicans who saw the mismanagement as something to be fought against within their own party as well as to then carry forth their beliefs in the Republican line of thought that government at least has an important role in being part of the solution to the problems facing the nation even if it is not to become the sole answer.

Neither party was free from the wrongdoings of the time as the Whiskey Ring scandal infamously demonstrated for the Republicans while Boss Tweed along with countless others demonstrated for the Democrats. Both parties were very much in the “big business” mentality and corruption was not totally free from either one as political machines and their special interests many times ran the show to a degree that even today’s special interest meddling cannot quite live up to. The conservative libertarian belief system of laissez-faire that was popular in the latter half of the 19th century was, unlike today, to be found in both major political parties as the Gilded Age was in full swing.

Issues such as the spoils systems was tackled by a factionalized Republican Party, one that had split among those who encouraged the cronyism of the system where the cabinet positions in government went to those who helped out the victor the most, against those who believed that job positions must and should have been based on merit. It is true that Republican had been split on this issue but in the end the merit system republicans won out and finally with the strong push by congressional republicans and Republican president Chester A. Arthur, the Pendleton Civil Service reform act was put into writing in a strong effort to rid the nation of the crookedness and fraud within government that made up part of the Gilded Age. Many reform minded republicans also saw how the explosion of industry after the civil war was presenting complex and sometimes troublesome scenarios. The nation’s GDP was growing and the country was coming back from the dark days of the Civil War and the industrial prowess it commanded was well on its way to achieving levels of other industrialized nations. With this new progression in technology and innovation along with societal progress since Lincoln’s tenure came problems that had not been seen before. Some of the most notable problems that this era brought forth included most notably the mass robber-baron attitudes of the wealthy along with their monopolizing corporations.

Reform Republicans and those with similar stands in the Democratic party stood side-by-side and fought the cronyism and corruption that seeped into parties and governments after the Civil War along with Grant’s badly run administration and actually led the way to lay the groundwork for future efforts to curb the corporate and elite excess that were being made at the expense of the hard working American. Many Republicans fighting the corruption within their own party also rejected the obviously failed hard-line laissez-faire conservative ideology within both political parties and whose goals to bring the party back towards centrist policy thinking that would protect the very principles that this party and nation was found on. Principles that called for an active and flexible government with new ideas to protect them from those that do not care about the average American and what the party originally stood for.

These beliefs and the collapse in effective governance of the conservative Democrats would eventually lead to the era of one of the most influential figures of American history. This was a man who would come to realize the changing and growing complexities that society was experiencing and would move to make the government act accordingly to this change. This was a figure whose beliefs that the Republican Party was and should continue to be a force of good common sense centrist governing clashed with others in his party who wished to bring it further to the right and away from the tenets that Republicanism in its creation and its best implementations to that point espoused as a tool for America. Teddy Roosevelt; a president who like Lincoln saw how an active and robust government could be used as a force of good in for society but who also saw how government is incapable of being the end all for any and all problems that come up and that a distinction must be made between the government being a tool to create opportunity and that of a bottomless hole where problems are not fixed but only patched up with taxpayer dollars.

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.” – Abraham Lincoln

In trying to find out who we should be as Republicans we must first look back in history to see what the party stood for. Many in the party, hard-line conservatives for the most part, are calling for a return to the roots of the Republican Party. Fair enough. I think that is precisely what we should do. And to do this, the facts that can be bothersome to some must be brought to the forefront of this internal debate. The roots of the party of course, must be from the very beginning of its conception.

The Republican Party was formed in the late 1850’s in large part as a response to the Democrats whose general views supported the expansion of slavery into the new territories, of which the new party was vehemently opposed to. The party was from the beginning a progressive party, using a rather different use of the word than today’s political connotation of far-left statist governance, and it was by no means a party of a singular strict ideology. It was a party that sought to modernize the country, not to keep the status quo especially if this was not working for Americans. It sought to modernize the country by supporting higher education, free homesteads to farmers (a rather non-conservative thing to do), free soil policies against slavery, banking, railroads, industry and cities.

This was a party that not only was aiming for the rural vote via homesteads, but also one that had a heavy lean towards urban America. This is again something that is obviously not apparent with today’s conservative controlled Republican Party. It was a party that believed industry and free markets were superior to slave driven ones and would not only be a moral replacement to a slave driven industry, it would benefit the rest of the nation as well. Taking into account these founding ideas must also include Abraham Lincoln himself who was a man of principle as well as pragmatism in being the first iconic leader of the Republican Party. Lincoln from his early years warned against the slave holding southerners continuing power growth of the government.

The Act has a… covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world – enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites – causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty – criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

- October 16, 1854, “Peoria Speech” Abraham Lincoln

It is important to acknowledge both his idealism as well as pragmatism when it came to slavery. Some in today’s community have been seeking to draw a Lincoln that although gave the Emancipation Proclamation, did so only because of expediency and because it would be a useful tool and as a result basically seeking to diminish his role as a major leader of civil rights in America and one who stood for a party that strongly stood for civil rights. His above speech made years before he even became president and many others before and during his presidency show that he was indeed a man of principles in belief of slavery being a gruesome affront to Americanism.

This does not contradict at all with his statement years later about slavery when he stated that he would try to keep the Union intact by outlawing slavery or not. He realized that even in the north, slavery existed and while he believed it to be an abomination it was not something that could be done in a sloppy fashion without prudent forethought. Social changes need to take into account society’s current stance on the issue itself. His delivery of the Emancipation Proclamation was perfectly timed to accomplish many things, one of which was to capitalize on the major Union victory of Gettysburg and the renewed sense that the war could be won. The president sensed the opportunity to get the ball rolling towards getting the public to support the war in trying to reunite the Union as well as using it as an opportunity to start leading the nation towards freedom and justice for all.

All of this is necessary so as to show how principles and pragmatic thinking can be intelligently intertwined to create a powerful voice of reason and justice. With Lincoln and his “pragmatic idealism” being at the beginning of the Republican Party’s creation, we can now have a template of governance on how the party basic thinking should be and how it once was as well as how it can return to its actual roots that we have slowly abandoned over the years and that we centrists as the “true” republicans must realize and stand up for. The party was a party that stood against slavery because it easily recognized the obvious evil of human enslavement, but also easily recognized the potential of industry to transform the nation towards progress and to end the inefficient slave driven agriculture of the south. This would have the potential therefore, to not only do a great good for a people suffering injustice but also to possibly lead America down a path of modernization and prosperity never before seen before. It would lead to a prosperity that would be aimed towards all Americans and not merely for a small percentage to profit from, as the slave-owners profited at the expense of an entire people.

With Lincoln at the beginning and at the helm of the GOP for those important years, he along with the other Republicans set the stage at the beginning for the party to push for progress, prosperity and justice and to do so with the needed flexibility and realism to accomplish this numerous times with various Republican congressmen and presidents to come.

With the coming of President Obama to the university of Notre Dame there has been some light shed upon the ever divisive issue of abortion. Actually, although maybe the past has shown divisiveness towards this and many other differences of thought that came about in the 60’s and 70’s, there seems to be a large majority consensus on what should be the general take on this subject.

The recent news media headlines such as “majority are now pro-life” this is therefore a subject that must be addressed rather than ignored as progressive republicans. It is an issue that has divided those in the party as well as the public for the past many years. The Gallup Poll results do show for the first time in many years a majority of Americans, if having to choose between the pro-choice and pro-life label, choose to be considered “pro-life”. While this is a major change as the charts show the gradual closing of the gap between pro-choice and pro-lifers, all of this ignores the data from the poll that is actually more precise in getting to the actual mindset of the large majority of Americans.

Using the actual website quote, “Gallup also found public preferences for the extreme views on abortion about even — as they are today — in 2005 and 2002, as well as during much of the first decade of polling on this question from 1975 to 1985. Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.”

This part of the data findings does much more the headline making splashes of the dualistic poll cited in the beginning. While there are an equal amount of people who either want abortion fully opened without question or completely shut down and made illegal, there are a huge majority of Americans that are not new to the more centrist option of limiting abortions except where needed. Undoubtedly while even within the middle ground there may be some slight differences on the exact limits of when and under what circumstances, they undoubtedly believe, like many Americans that while there are ethical ramifications to abortion and the current policies should be therefore carefully reviewed, there nevertheless is present the safety of the potential mother.

I should put forth now that my opinions are not nor do not necessarily representative of the progressive republican community including those esteemed colleagues who contribute to this website. This is merely my take on the issue of abortion that has been brought up with the current president’s visit and the subsequent and obviously overblown view of these few pro-life protestors and the pro-life and pro-choice communities within the Republican Party.

I will start with my own take on this subject, and according to the poll and the above quoted information, I am not at all alone in my thinking. I see the problem of abortion. I do think there are serious ethical questions that should be raised, as should be raised with the taking of any life be they old, sick, or and especially young. I don’t think life should be taken lightly and that we are all I believe, seeking to be protectors of life. I think some sort of rights should be extended upon children to recognize that being on one side of the birth canal does not matter when it comes to the right to live.

With all this it would seem to the readers that I fit a pro-lifer perfectly, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth as I have come to have little respect for the so called “pro-life” community and leaders. While I believe in the belief that the unborn should have rights I don’t, as I’m sure many Americans don’t, have a decided limit on when it has become life. Is it after the first trimester has completed? Is it after the first week? When? Although I’m sure some would like me to have a clear answer to this issue that would be dishonest. What’s to make it right when the egg is fertilized versus the individual egg and sperm themselves? Are we willing to call a group of cells a human being with necessary basic rights or not? All of these things must be put into account and should be debated and discussed about. But herein lies the problem of where the conversation of abortion has led to in this country over the last few decades and how religion and politics came together and I don’t say lightly when I state “screwed it all up”.

The Pro-life community is a part of the social conservative movement that started to come about in the 1970’s, some would say as early as the 60’s, and became part of the republican party in the late 80’s and especially in the early 90’s. This group and their leaders are a strongly theologically based group of people usually consisting of conservative Catholics and more prominently evangelical Protestantism. To make it short, these people are basing almost or any of their arguments in the abortion discussion solely on their interpretation of their religion. This is the incorrect way at engaging any serious issues as this nation is first off not a theocratic nation. This is not Iran where religious books dictate how and why something should be done. We were as our founders of the constitution intended for us to be, a nation that makes decisions based on rational thought and reason with carefully thought out logical arguments whose premises have been thought through and through. It is not something that will always give a black and white answer. The world, while it is composed of the polar opposites of good and evil sometimes shows us that there are an infinite number of cases where simplistic dualism fails to provide a clear answer and ideology that should always be followed in all cases. Abortion is one such case of this. What if the woman is in danger and she is in the final weeks of the pregnancy and the situation has unfortunately developed to the point where a necessary abortion will be necessary to protect the woman? The pro-life community seeks to present this scenario as almost nonexistent and continuously seek to make it dangerously impossible to allow a woman, even one that is in danger, to have an abortion. As part of the large majority of Americans, I don’t take the ending of a life at so developed a stage lightly at all. It is a loss either way, and the woman will probably be suffering much mental anguish over the ordeal. But if this is the situation presented, then the obvious correct answer to the question of what should have been done in that situation is obviously clear. The theologically rigid and inflexible pro-life community is ultimately an unrealistic minority and the Gallup Poll makes this clear. They are in the minority along with those who want unlimited and completely unhindered pro-choice actions.

To bring this to the subject of our party and where it should stand with these groups in deciding the future of our party, the Progressive Republicans should reject any movement that is as heavily grounded on mere theology that might not be shared amongst those of other faiths, beliefs or lack of. Our history prior to today’s Republican Party shows one of pragmatic and prudent thought in trying to solve issues. It is true that issues sometimes cannot be separated from the personal religious values that some espouse, but it is necessary that on subjects that are as far reaching as abortion and the nationwide policy on it that we make our discussions and policy decisions not on theology backed up by pseudo-scientific data that these groups usually bring up in their attempt to make their religious belief law. If they lived in their own nation of purist believers who only believed in one way, then this would not be a problem. Our nation though, is a pluralistic one with many beliefs and faiths. To base it so strongly on religion (which most of the pro-life community is) is sheer idiocy and ignorance in avoiding this obvious fact of who we are as an American nation. A nation of different faiths. Not everyone follows the same holy book, and not everyone follows a holy book at all. I believe in unborn rights but I have these opinions formed on the basis upon rational thought, not what my religion has taught me.

I am not ashamed to say I don’t have the complete answer, but I can say what many Americans in the center of this social issue do say in response the left and right extremes: That there needs to be some recognition of rights to the unborn understanding that depending on when during the development of the fetus, the issue at hand is not only that of the woman but also that of a child who is deserving of rights and that any decision should take into account both lives. What must be made sure is that while unborn rights should be granted, it should not in any way impede the necessary actions to keep the safety of the woman intact, which is exactly what pro-life policies of the religious right have done and if left unchecked, will do.

A philosophical search for the correct answer can only be undertaken when those who cannot represent rational and reasonable argument and only bring vitriol and hate towards any open minded thought upon the subject matter leave. While this is sometimes apparent in the far left in the Democratic Party, it is in our Republican Party that the whole subject of abortion that today I write about should refer especially too: the Far-right. The Religious Right. The Social Cons. I also see the opportunity possible if the party can move away from the far right in these issues and although we should never create litmus tests on social issues, we should also see this socially moderate majority as a possibility to at least speculate and discuss on where the future of our party should go.
Gallup Poll website: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx