Recently, more than 40,000 Utahns signed an online petition against the new HB363. The bill gave public schools the option of teaching sex education, and if they do teach it they can teach abstinence only. It quickly and easily passed in both the Utah House and Senate. However, once the bill reached Governor Gary Herbert’s desk, he simply felt that sex-education should stress the importance of abstinence but not interfere with parents’ decision to determine how their children are instructed. He vetoed the bill, saying “I cannot sign a bill that deprives parents of their choice.”
This issue has been quite controversial in Utah, especially amongst Republicans. Aside from many citizens, several politicians and prominent figures in Utah have been disappointed in the governor’s decision. Some have even criticized the governor for claiming to be conservative, but not passing this “appropriate” bill of legislation, and even went as far as stating this may hurt his reelection.
This issue brings to light the Michigan model and revisionist model from an article by Carsey and Layman. They posed a question concerning issues that divide the party: do people change their opinion on the issue and stick with the party, or do they change parties to stick with their opinion on the issues? Cognitive dissonance happens when new beliefs cause someone to battle within themselves on how they have already been believing. In the Michigan model, one identifies with a party, then arranges their world in such a way to avoid cognitive dissonance. In essence, you see things through the eyes of your party. The revisionist model is where you revise yourself to another party when your party takes a stand on an issue you are not in accordance with. If someone is aware of their party’s views and the issue, and that issue is salient to them, they will change parties and keep their views. If the issue were not salient to them, they would change their position and not their party.
In regards to the sex-education issue, people do not have the ability to change their party. The democratic stance is one that would want the bill to be vetoed. So, Republicans who did not get their way have nothing to do but be frustrated. They cannot leave the party because this was a conservative bill in the first place. Republicans on the other end, who wanted the bill vetoed, can happily stick with their party and hold to their views on the issue. If the bill were not vetoed, then we might see some individuals shifting their views to stick with conservatism and others changing parties to keep their views and stance on the issue consistent.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53736564-78/bill-veto-governor-herbert.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53736564-78/bill-veto-governor-herbert.html.csp
With this decision by Gov. Herbert to veto this bill, coming from the more social-conservative parts of his own Republican party, we see the ongoing fight within the conservative movement at face value. It is no secret that there has been a shift in conservative values in the Republican party over the past 25 years, where those values represented by Ronald Reagan advocated that government would minimize it's intrusion into the private sphere of life. On the other hand we have an increasing amount of conservatives that seeks to limit the governments intrusion on fiscal matters, i.e. taxes and regulation of businesses, where they on the other hand have no moral objections to regulate against alcohol consumption, the war on drugs, sex education, gay rights, and many other issues that falls into this category.
ReplyDeleteI for one am increasingly growing frustrated over this form of hypocrisy, that we can find Conservatives that with a clear conscience can advocate on that kind of intrusion and then abstain from other kinds of intrusion. How can it be morally justified that the government, with the help of these conservatives that by the way proclaim to be upholding the values of Ronald Reagan, can pass laws that takes away more and more rights to decide on the life that the individual citizen seeks. It seems to me that it is no longer adequate to inform and educate the public of differing points of views, but now seeks to be the judge on moral issues. I find this a very slippery slope as to the values that it instills in future generations, and the access it gives those that has to uphold these laws, into citizens lives and property.