The Republican Purity Test

by Michael Jones · 2010-01-27 07:31:00 UTC
Topics:

RepublicansTo purify or not to purify? That is the question facing members of the Republican Party, who are debating this week whether to establish a purity test that Republican candidates running for office must pass in order to get official support from the party. Among the principles a GOP candidate has to support? As a former Miss USA contestant might put it, opposite marriage only.

It's called the Purity Test, and it's a ten-point proposal that GOP leaders are meeting to discuss this week in Hawaii. It's being championed by Indiana Republican James Bopp, who thinks that the party hurts itself by letting moderate candidates into the fold.

Under Bopp's worldview, true Republicans should hate gay marriage. They should hate unions. They should turn their nose up at immigrants. They should consider Iran and North Korea vulgar terms. They should erase from dictionaries the term "reproductive rights." And they should let everyone old enough to swallow solid food own a gun.

Wait, is this called the Purity Test, or the "Let's Shrink Our Party to a Ridiculously Small Demographic So That We Make the 1950s Look Progressive" Test?

Even the Wall Street Journal thinks a purity test for the GOP is a bad idea. For them, passing a purity test will pretty much guarantee that the GOP remains a minority party for generations to come.

"Imposing a litmus test is itself an act of elitism that will make it harder for candidates to forge a winning coalition," the paper writes. They're right.

Republicans like Cindy McCain, Meghan McCain, Steve Schmidt, and David Brooks may have conservative principles, but they also recognize that some issues -- particularly civil rights for LGBT people -- should know no party. Imposing a litmus test will absolutely alienate these voices, at a time when the Republican Party needs them more than ever to avoid becoming a monolithic tea party club.

Sure, in the short-term, a Republican Party litmus test might be good for progressives. Instituting a "Ten Commandments" in order to be a Republican is likely to turn off middle-of-the-road voters, and those folks may just head leftward.

But in the end, a litmus test probably hurts progressives, too. If Republicans don't have the wiggle room to cross over on certain issues without being excoriated by their party, it hurts progressive legislation as a whole. And the last thing government needs is more roadblocks to keep it slow.

Photo credit: Jim, the Photographer

Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor. He has worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Three Things More People Need to Know About Gay Equality
NEXT STORY:
On Aeroflot's Birthday, Russian Activists Condemn Company's Anti-Gay Record. And You Can Help.

COMMENTS (14)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.