Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
James Taranto has a fascinating interview with legendary supply sider Jeffrey Bell in this weekend's WSJ. It's worth reading in full, but here's an excerpt:
Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."
The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to "end welfare as we know it" and make abortion "safe, legal and rare." Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). "Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority," Mr. Bell says. "It isn't coincidental."
...
In Mr. Bell's telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so."
He means the ObamaCare mandate that religious institutions must provide employee insurance for contraceptive services, including abortifacient drugs and sterilization procedures, even if doing so would violate their moral teachings. "You would think that once the economy started looking a little better, Obama would want to take a bow . . . but instead all of a sudden you have this contraception flap. From what I can find out about it, it wasn't a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle."
One of the more interesting points Bell makes later on is that the Tea Party's brand of populist fiscal conservatism is more friendly to social conservatism than one might expect, primarily because of an equal emphasis on natural law. It's an intriguing concept, and I look forward to reading Bell's book.
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
I'd feel more comfortable with this analysis if Santorum hadn't made it clear that he considers libertarianism his enemy:
Last June:
And 2005:
Jan '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
The wonder of the Tea Party is that social conservatives and libertarians renewed the fusionist alliance, as libertarians and social conservatives set aside their differences to unite against Obama's Leviathan. Santorum represents the rejection of that partnership.
Sep '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
The idea that moral and economic ideas can can be divorced is nonsense. Only establishment Republicans fail to grasp this. Progressives argue their big government socialism is moral and free market capitalism immoral. Classic liberals( true limited government conservatives) argue the opposite. The argument between Libertarians and "social conservatives" is about when the law is the proper instrument to enforce morality. Establishment Republicans have been conceding the moral argument to progressive for so long they no longer realize there is an argument going on. The Republican Party by refusing to engage progressives on moral grounds have done more harm than the progressives. "Conservatives don't care about the poor" is a moral not and economic argument. Someday the GOP may wake up, but I doubt it.
Aug '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
I agree that conservatives do not agree with the perfectly autonomous individual. They are not libertarians in that sense. But they also believe (and have from the days of Williams and Locke) that social control of individuals should not come from the government. It should come from other institutions of civil society -- like their churches, their families, their fraternal organizations. None of these institutions can use force against individuals.
What worries me about Santorum is that he may believe that government should impose its "moral" codes. Is that the case?
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Drat, Ben, you beat me too it; I was going to post on this interview with Jeff Bell.
Fascinating, just as you say.
Apr '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
cbc: I agree that conservatives do not agree with the perfectly autonomous individual. They are not libertarians in that sense....
What worries me about Santorum is that he may believe that government should impose its "moral" codes. Is that the case?
He's been touting his support for title X lately, which I think is a pretty effective argument against his being overly interventionist. Set against that, the top "issue" on the "issues" page of his website is about prosecuting pornographers and he promised in October that he'd talk about the harm contraception does to the country and called it an important public policy issue.
In the past, Santorum has been a truly great campaigner for social conservatism and the Republican party. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act brilliantly reduced abortions, helped other pro-life legislation pass in the states, and got republicans elected. Santorum's leadership on the serious social issues would be a great boon to the party. We'll see over the next few months how good he is at not talking about the losing trivial issues (or, more charitably, important issues that he can't do much about as President).
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 6:35pmRe: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Peter Robinson: Drat, Ben, you beat me too it;I was going to post on this interview with Jeff Bell.
Fascinating, just as you say. · 43 minutes ago
You made up for it by posting that NYT Mag Nate Silver piece!
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Without speaking specifically to the thesis that campaigning on social issues is always good politics, I think much of Bell's point speaks to the deep fallacy that obtains in liberals' distaste for focusing on moral questions (I tried to unpack this the other day over on the College feed).
The same liberals who constantly implore the most productive Americans to put ethics (specifically, the ethics of self-sacrifice) ahead of economic considerations do not hesitate to denigrate as reactionary rubes any American voters who do just that – prize their moral compass more highly than their finances.
We're promising you a big basket of governmental goodies, and you still vote your moral principles? You really don't know what's good for you, do you?!
How empty. And how condescending.
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 7:30pmDec '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
In the Last June paragraph, replace "libertarian" with "Ron Paul".
The And 2005 paragraph does not exist at the link provided. Did you just make that up? Or did you provide the wrong link? The text strings "libertarian" and "personal autonomy" are not used in the link.
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 7:37pmNov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Jerry Broaddus
In the Last June paragraph, replace "libertarian" with "Ron Paul".
The And 2005 paragraph does not exist at the link provided. Did you just make that up? Or did you provide the wrong link? The text strings "libertarian" and "personal autonomy" are not used in the link. · 43 minutes ago
Edited 39 minutes ago
The transcript is not full, he does say those things if you listen to the audio. Sounds like he's making an explicit rejection of Objectivism to me. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm sure some people would.
Nov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Mothership_Greg
Jerry Broaddus
In the Last June paragraph, replace "libertarian" with "Ron Paul".
The And 2005 paragraph does not exist at the link provided. Did you just make that up? Or did you provide the wrong link? The text strings "libertarian" and "personal autonomy" are not used in the link. · 43 minutes ago
Edited 39 minutes ago
The transcript is not full, he does say those things if you listen to the audio. Sounds like he's making an explicit rejection of Objectivism to me. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm sure some people would. · 1 minute ago
My theory that he's referring to Objectivist thought is based on the word "libertarianish" and also the phrase "radical individualism" that he also uses. Perhaps he can get with fellow Catholic Paul Ryan and they can reconcile Randian atheism with their religion together.
Feb '12
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
The value of social conservatives to winning elections is particularly interesting when contrasted with how little the winning Republican presidents have done for them in return.
Feb '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Much depends on what you mean by "libertarian" and on whether the level of governmental unit plays at all into Santorum's views.
Based on my interactions with self-described libertarians, many dont seem to acknowledge the that a potential tyranny of the individual is a problem to be reckoned with. If any such thing as a community is acknowledged, it doesn't go much beyond a mere collection of individuals living in close proximity; community must remain private, toothless in its lack of formal authority.
Not all libertarians think this way. It's getting to the point, though, that the label is just as meaningless describing political views as the term rock and roll is describing music genres. But if we're talking about those who deny communal rights altogether then I think Santorum is correct that such a view is just as wrong as the top down statism of the left for those of us who believe that community is a desirable and legitimate extension and expression of natural individual rights.
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 9:14pmRe: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Really?
Resistance to embryonic stem cell research culminating in a courageous veto of the SCREA, appointment of Roberts and (though it took way more prodding than it should have from the base) Alito, signature on a federal law banning partial-birth "abortion," Mexico City Policy, signed Laci's And Conner's Law. . .
Insofar as I am socially conservative I will take Bush 43's record on those issues eight days a week.
Jan '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Jerry,
As Greg said, the transcript is not complete, though Santorum absolutely states that in the interview, starting at the 1'00" mark. I've no idea why NPR didn't transcribe it.
As to the other comments, if Santorum means to single-out Ron Paul and Objectivism for criticism, then he should do so explicitly. For the record, I'd provably agree with many of those criticisms.
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 1:01amRe: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
This is a fascinating subject and one that has intrigued me for some time as I've feared potential schisms in the conservative movement, or should I say "on the right?" I understand the concern some people have about Santorum's emphasis on social issues and I've watched some of the clips wherein he appears to be taking issue with Libertarians. I think all he is saying is that he doesn't want Libertarians to be the dominant force in the conservative movement; not that he wants them out of the movement. I happen to believe that most Tea Partiers -- not all -- also happen to be sympathetic to social conservative concerns, though the TP's driving emphasis is on fiscal issues and constitutional ones. I just think Santorum is a guy who is a strong social conservative; it's who he is and he is open about it. I don't believe he wants Libertarians out of the big tent. I'm sure he doesn't. I also don't believe they have any reason to be too concerned about his policies -- he's not a theocrat -- except possibly those who agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.
Edited on February 19, 2012 at 11:33pmNov '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
I saw this article on RealClearPolitics, arguing that while social conservatism isn't necessarily a bad thing, Santorum's social conservatism is too extreme for him to be electable. I have no idea whether or not that is true, but I do worry. If I weren't already sympathetic to social conservatism in general, or if I hadn't spent a lot of my twenties around devout Roman Catholics, I might find the idea of electing a guy who didn't approve of contraception somewhat bizarre and scary. I think Professor Rahe is right; we are going to have to see how well he can calm people's fears about him going forward, before we figure out whether he can be an effective candidate.
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
People may be nervous but in fact Santorum said he would not try to impose his views on contraception through public policy, so I don't know what all the hype is about, other than that is so easy to demonize outspoken Christian conservatives these days.
Nov '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
David Limbaugh
People may be nervous but in fact Santorum said he would nottry to impose his views on contraception through public policy, so I don't know what all the hype is about, other than that is so easy to demonize outspoken Christian conservatives these days. · 2 hours ago
I understand that. But I know people who hold to similar views, and I know that they aren't particularly weird or scary. If I didn't know such people, and I would guess there are a lot of folks who don't, how strange and alien, and therefore scary, might his positions sound to me? I just don't know.
Nov '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
@ David Limbaugh, let me add that I am a conservative Christian, and in fact an Anglican with a lot of Catholic sympathies. So I'm a pretty poor test case for how Santorum's views will go down with the rest of the electorate. I want him to do OK, very badly. I just have to wait and see whether he actually can.