Is this a preview of what we might see in 2016 on a national level at the Republican National Convention? I doubt such a move would occur but it is interesting to see it happening at the state level considering social issues have been a solid plank within the GOP since the days of Reagan and before.
Report from Las-Vegas Review Journal:
By a show of hands, convention-goers adopted the platform as proposed by a separate committee without the two planks on marriage and abortion, following the Clark County GOP’s lead in removing hot-button social issues from the party’s statement of its principles. Some 520 delegates attended the convention, but less than half were present when the platform was adopted at about 7:30 p.m. Little debate preceded the vote, a far contrast to earlier in day.
State party Chairman Michael McDonald said it was a successful convention at the end of the day.
“I think it was about inclusion, not exclusion,” McDonald said, referring to the platform. “This is where the party is going.”
Republicans who sat on the platform committee said they decided not to deal with social issues this year because the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have weighed in and it doesn’t make sense for the party of “personal freedom” to have the government or the political party get involved in people’s personal lives.
“The issue was how can we back out of people’s personal lives,” said Dave Hockaday of Lyon County, who sat on the platform committee. “We need to focus on issues where we can have an impact.”
Previously, the state party platform defined marriage as “between a man and a woman,” as does the Nevada Constitution. The past document also described the party as “pro-life,” or against abortion, a stance most Republicans still agree with.
Would this fly in the Texas Republican Party or the Georgia Republican Party? I’m certain it would not. However, depending on the part of the country, there is a divide growing within the party over whether social issues should continue continue as major part of the platform. The fact that the Nevada GOP felt strongly enough to retreat in those areas is a pretty fascinating move from a political standpoint.
Is this a good move or will this simply drive away a good portion of the party faithful if social issues take a back seat?
