Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
The politics of birth control have captivated America’s attention, and most mainstream conservatives are not happy about it.
In 2008, we were absolutely annihilated by then-Senator Obama in the battle to appear modern, cosmopolitan, fresh-faced, and vital—and the election tallies proved that our disdain for the premium that modern politics places on urbanity and aesthetics does not change the reality that such qualities do resonate with voters whom we cannot afford to write off and with the news media with which we are stuck. Paul Ryan speaking about how massive deficits will harm his young children, Chris Christie explaining in clear language how the union members who refuse to contribute anything towards their benefits are really the selfish class warriors: conservatives instinctively understand that these are winning issues, subjects in which good politics and good policy dovetail to show that our ideas are clearly the forward-looking approach.
Equally instinctively, most of us cringe when Rick Santorum proves unable to separate his personal views on contraception from what merits mention during a presidential campaign, and cringe twice when Rush Limbaugh deploys abusive and backwards rhetoric. It does not take a keen observer of U.S. politics to understand that, whatever the merits, any time the Right can be portrayed as trying to stuff twenty-first century America back into an antiquated, Eisenhower-era moral straitjacket we hand our disingenuous opponents a gift-wrapped propaganda victory. Though an obvious caricature, the narrative that Republicans are reactionary fuddy-duddies who want to shove the nation into a time machine and blast us back into “Leave It to Beaver” poses a chronic electoral problem that limits our appeal to college-aged and suburban voting blocs who otherwise represent ripe, natural constituencies for substantive fiscal reform.
Given these stereotypes, we can all acknowledge that conservatives must approach an issue like birth control with extra caution—yet too many among us have committed damaging and unforced errors. Santorum’s hopelessly muddled messaging has made one of our leading presidential candidates look uncomfortably like the theocratic boogeyman that liberals have always made him out to be. The former Senator has proven totally incapable of clearly and cogently distinguishing between his personal distaste for the moral implications of birth control and the commonsense argument from economic liberty that reveals the new requirements to lack any foundation in logic or real principles.
Sure, the mainstream media is complicit in fanning the flames, but a man who wants to lead our party and our country simply cannot cloud a straightforward question of freedom with polarizing remarks like these:
One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's OK; contraception is OK. It's not OK. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
Here Santorum is not making an argument about life, that area in which the crocodile tears shed by social-engineering liberals over “legislating morality” are so baseless and insulting. Rather, he is saying that as President he will advocate against contraception simply because he thinks it is immoral in and of itself. And this is profoundly not conservative.
To behave as if Americans need our political officeholders to lecture us on faith and morals above and beyond their capacity in governing is to sharply break with our intellectual heritage. It is impossible to imagine Thomas Jefferson or Barry Goldwater confusing our citizens’ cries for leaders who defend all Americans’ rights to conscience and religious freedom with a desire to have one moral tradition enshrined in law. To try and legislate one’s neighbors into morality is not to uphold the teachings of real conservatives like Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott, it is to completely reject them: those brilliant men passionately denounced arrogant governments who thought themselves entitled to use the force of law to micromanage a society’s organic character into some particular, arbitrary vision of the ideal community.
A wide gulf separates the notion that government should not force private organizations to cater to specific customers—particularly when doing so would compromise fundamental principles—and the idea that the United States needs career politicians to preach their personal morals to us from on high. Taking the former position combines the commonsense appeal of libertarian logic with the proud Burkean legacy of getting government out of the way of social traditions that work well; the latter would actually have provided a legitimate target for Newt Gingrich’s misguided charges of “right-wing social engineering.”
It may be that neither position is particularly popular with the American people, and that the most expedient course of action would be to abandon the fight altogether. But the legacies of Reagan, Thatcher, and countless others stand testament to the fact that shaping public opinion is both morally and politically superior to simply chasing it; standing on our principles is always more honorable than fruitlessly hunting some “middle ground” that will drift further leftward every time we think we have moved into it. If we conceive of it properly, as a fight for economic liberty, for freedom of conscience, and against government intrusion into our personal affairs—then conservatives should regard the Birth Control Battle of 2012 as a hill worth dying on, opinion polls be damned.
For my part, I’m actually optimistic that many Americans might rally to that commonsense position. But framing the issue as a Big Government Moral Crusade will drive away otherwise amenable Americans faster than you can say “progesterone.” It is critical to stand on the right principles, and doubly critical to make precisely the arguments we mean to make.
Unless conservatives are extremely careful, the birth control issue will become a damaging ideological contraceptive, preventing our commonsense Burkean and libertarian values from ever taking root in the minds of millions of our fellow Americans, where they might otherwise have developed into a beautiful revival of our finest political principles.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
The problem is that some conservatives like Rick Santorum don't seem to understand the difference between religion and politics. I am totally pro- life, and totally against the contraception mandate, but I find it frustrating when conservatives give religious answers to political questions. Such conservatives are adamant about keeping religion in the public square, but I have never been sure what they mean by that. I wish they would explain, because I don't want to live in a theocracy.
Most of our founding fathers believed in God, but they didn't necessarily believe in organized religion. They believed in the enlightenment principles of reason and science; those principles are not at odds with religion, and they defintely are not at odds with the pro- life cause. The question is, are conservatives like Rick Santorum trying to win votes, or are they trying to save souls? Because if saving people's souls is Rick Santorum's main goal in life, he picked the wrong profession.
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Judithann: A former Santorum aide has said publicly something to the effect of, "he isn't a Senator who is Catholic, he is a Catholic missionary who happens to be a Senator."
I feel that vision is completely at odds with any traditional American conception about the relationship between our government and our civil society, especially those articulated by actual conservatives.
Sep '11
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Correct. If he wanted to be a missionary, he should have become a missionary.
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Judithann writes in her first reply to Andrew:
"They [founding fathers] believed in the enlightenment principles of reason and science; those principles are not at odds with religion"
Judithann, I have to disagree with you on this statement. Science is at odds with religion. Science is a religion, and where science prevails, at school, the workplace, or in our government, religion succumbs. This is so, because our federal government for many decades now has favored science more than religion.
Also, the founding fathers believed in divine providence, meaning that, because the young and rebellious nation was following god's will, He would favor them in their pursuits.
And, I understand your comments on Santorum's overly religious nature, but you can't expect a person of faith to not be a person of faith. He is a practicing Catholic, and whether or not you agree with his religious beliefs, his decisions on moral issues and issues of state will be guided by his faith. Just like libs, who worship at the alter of science and reason, their decisions and rhetoric are based on their faith.
Edited on March 5, 2012 at 7:04amRe: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Austin Arnold:
And, I understand your comments on Santorum's overly religious nature, but you can't expect a person of faith tonotbe a person of faith. He is a practicing Catholic, and whether or not you agree with his religious beliefs, his decisions on moral issues and issues of state will be guided by his faith. Just like libs, who worship at the alter of science and reason, their decisions and rhetoric are based on their faith.
None of Santorum's critics on the right, including me, take any issue with this sentiment. To set up "But surely we should not banish faith from the public square!" as if it were a rebuttal to our complaint that Santorum ought not act like a missionary who merely happens to be in government is to wage war against a straw man that only the Daily Kos kids would defend.
There is a difference between a deeply religious man looking to the Lord for personal guidance on how to run a business and a CEO who includes big chunks of scripture in the daily staff memo. In government, that distinction is a particularly important one.
Edited on March 5, 2012 at 1:55pmRe: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Okay, I can agree with that. I am not aware of how far Santorum pushes his religiosity on his staffers.
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Having known a few of them, I can safely answer "not at all."
Sep '11
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Hello, Austin Arnold: there are some scientists around who would like us to worship them as though they are gods. They don't worship science and reason; they actually ignore evidence and cook the books, as seen with abortion and global warming. Much of what we are seeing right now isn't science; it's a corruption of science. Rejecting science altogether isn't the answer.
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Judithann, I completely agree with that statement. I also think there are people who worship science. But yes, you are correct.
Mollie, you write "not at all." Meaning you have not seen any politician push their religious beliefs down their staffers throats? Im confused.
Thanks.
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Austin Arnold:
Mollie, you write "not at all." Meaning you have not seen any politician push their religious beliefs down their staffers throats? Im confused.
The question was whether Santorum does. I've known people who worked for him -- gay, straight, Catholic, not Catholic, etc. -- and they would say he in no way pushes religion down their throats.
I'm not even saying they all liked working for him, just that they would say he doesn't push religion down their throats.
Re: Ideological Contraception: Why the Birth Control Debate Is Hurting Conservatism
Okay, thanks for the clarification, Mollie.