BY WILLIAM F. GAVIN  |  APR 13

It used to be said about prizefighter Ray Robinson that he was “pound for pound, the greatest fighter in the world.” In recent years I have begun to think that Charles Lane, columnist for the Washington Post, is, column for column, the best political writer in Washington. Opinionated without being dogmatic, prudent but firm in his judgments, and willing to take seriously opinions that do not agree with his. He is a pleasure to read.

On Thursday, April 9, he wrote, thoughtfully as ever, about the controversy over Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s signing of the religious freedom restoration act, and the subsequent all-out attack by gay activists and by some business leaders who wanted to “curry favor with a national consumer base that’s not only sympathetic to gay marriage—but also increasingly liberal on many social issues.” Governor Pence’s not-ready-for-prime-time appearance in a televised interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and the clarification (i.e., retreat) by the Indiana legislature, with Pence’s hearty approval, completed the total rout of the traditional forces in the face of harsh criticism.

Quoting the late Daniel Bell, Lane wrote of the “cultural contradictions of capitalism which always made it an uneasy partner with conservative views on social issues.” All too true. The free market is dynamic, ever-changing, open to innovation, impatient with tradition, and ultimately more observant of the truths of the bottom line than the verities of traditional social views. It has been ever thus, despite the fact that, in “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith took for granted that the free market would be under the restraints of moral virtues that had nothing to do with the bottom line. So it comes as no surprise that some in big business wanted nothing to do with the religious freedom restoration act.

According to Lane, this tension presents the Republicans with a dilemma. Does the GOP continue to embrace social traditionalism and thereby become out of step with an increasingly libertarian/liberal American populace?  Or do Republicans claim to have “evolved,” as President Obama has, when it comes to defining what marriage is?  Must the GOP embrace “the right side of history”, an idea so stupid that only an intellectual or a 1930’s fascist or Marxist-Leninist could believe it.

As much as I admire Mr. Lane, and as much as I agree with his insights on the problems facing the GOP, I think he has presented the party with a false dilemma. I offer some points that Republican candidates should keep in mind when discussing this issue:

• Yes, the current climate of political opinion is such that a majority of Americans (especially among young people) is in favor of redefining marriage. It is an uphill fight, no doubt about it.  The GOP has to make convincing arguments against current popular views, not just proclaim high values. Governor Pence and his Indiana allies seemed totally unaware of this.

• We are not having a national “conversation” about the redefinition of marriage.  We have an angry, bullying, monologue by gay activists and their supporters in and out of the media, who begin the non-discussion by accusing their opponents of bigotry. Who, after all, can converse with a bigot? The fact that more conservatives haven’t made an issue out of this smear renders me speechless (all right, almost speechless). What gay activists have done is what Senator Joseph McCarthy did so often in the nineteen fifties: first smear your opponent and then let him try to explain himself. If anyone dares now to deviate from the gay activist line, he or she is, ipso facto, a bigot. Bishops, nuns, priests, ministers, tens of millions of social conservatives—all bigots, all as bad as racists. No need to present evidence, you see, just make the charge. Any response by the one labeled “bigot” is by its very nature dismissed as bigotry. Some conversation.

  This charge is based on a logical error: the activists and their allies are assuming as already having been proved the very point (traditionalists are bigots) that is at issue. This is called, technically, “begging the question”, and makes true debate impossible.  Gay activism is, in this sense, the McCarthyism of the twenty-first century, but the media can’t or won’t see it. Any GOP candidate has to openly and forcefully point out this slander and take the fight to those who make it.

• When it comes to social issues, don’t try to convert voters, try to convince them. The arguments in favor of   traditional values don’t have to be proclaimed in sectarian terms. While always fighting for religion’s place in the public square, the defense for traditional values should be made because those values are American values and have been since the beginning. Don’t sound like a preacher; sound like a teacher, someone with a great message that is firmly rooted in American history.

• Politics ain’t beanbag. The wholesale smearing of churches, political opponents, and anyone who dares to contradict the dogmatic assertions of the gay activist movement and its supporters in the entertainment, media, and academic worlds, is a national disgrace. The GOP should get its message straight, know the arguments of the gay activists in order to refute them, and have answers ready for “gotcha” questions of the media.

• And, finally, the charge that opposing the agenda of gay activists is a sign of “homophobia,” i.e., hatred and fear of homosexuals, is vicious. The coining of the word is one of the great propaganda successes in modern history, but it is a pernicious idea that if one opposes a political agenda, that means he hates or fears the people who hold it. Defenders of traditional values are facing a well-financed, confident, well-organized, take-no-prisoners ideological movement that is aided and abetted by many one-percenters, the news media, the entertainment industry, and prestigious institutions of higher learning. No wonder so many Americans believe this stuff—they see and hear nothing else. Only when traditionalists begin to fight back effectively, instead of cringing as the false, vile charge of “bigotry” is thrown at them, will a true national debate begin.

Is the GOP up to the challenge?

Editor’s Note: William F. Gavin was a speech writer for President Richard Nixon and long-time aide to former House Republican Leader Bob Michel. Among his books is his latest, Speechwright, published by Michigan State University Press.