On Monday, the Republican Party issued a report addressing how it can improve its performance in national elections. (I don’t care to read the 100 page report and am relying on CNN for this post.) According to Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus, “It all goes back to what our moms used to tell us: It’s not just what we say; it’s how we say it.”
Apparently, Priebus and the RNC haven’t learned a thing since last November. If they think that they can win elections by delivering an anti-individual rights message in a “nice” way, they are sadly mistaken. To illustrate this, we will consider two issues—gay marriage and immigration—in which the Republican Party takes a position that is anti-individual rights. (There are others, but these two will illustrate my point.)
First, we must define rights:
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
In regard to gay marriage, individual rights recognize the fact that each person should have the freedom to marry the individual of his choosing, and others may not prohibit him from doing so.
In regard to immigration, individual rights recognize the fact that each person should have the freedom to live his life as he chooses, and the vagarities of his place of birth have no impact on his rights.
In regard to both of these issues, the RNC is opposed to individual rights. In regard to both issues, the RNC is opposed to the freedom of individuals to act on their own judgment. In regard to both issues, the RNC supports government prohibitions on the voluntary interactions between individuals.
There is no way on God’s green earth that the RNC’s message can be delivered in a “nice” way. How do you say, “We are a big tent, but if you want to sleep with someone of your gender, you aren’t welcome in our tent” in a “nice” way? How do you say, “We aren’t opposed to immigration, but if you happened to be born in another country, we are going to make you jump through ungodly hoops to come to America” in a “nice” way? The fact is, there is no “nice” way to say that if you are gay or you weren’t born in America, you aren’t welcome.
The problem isn’t how the RNC is saying it. The problem is what the RNC is saying.