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:
Nov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Lucy Pevensie
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. · 1 minute ago
Lucy's right. The notion that contraception might be immoral is alien to a large majority of people in the United States, and, AFAIK the Catholic Church in America has not done a good job of making sure that its teaching on contraception is actually taught to Catholics. People would do well to study the writings of Margaret Sanger, for more reasons than one.
Apr '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
David Limbaugh
People may be nervous but in fact Santorum saidhe 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. ·
In October he suggested he would. I think he was pandering/ day dreaming, and wouldn't, but it's not insane to worry if that bothers you.
Nov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
James Of England
David Limbaugh
In October he suggested he would. I think he was pandering/ day dreaming, and wouldn't, but it's not insane to worry if that bothers you. · 1 minute ago
Link, please.
Apr '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
In October he suggested he would. I think he was pandering/ day dreaming, and wouldn't, but it's not insane to worry if that bothers you. · 1 minute ago
Link, please. · 14 minutes ago
I'd linked it in an earlier comment on this thread, but I agree that there was too big a gap between comments for that to be enough. Sorry.
Edited on February 20, 2012 at 5:47amMar '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Sorry, but it's the Libertarians that fail to grasp this. They're the ones saying things like "I didn't vote out Democrats to get a theocracy". They are diametrically opposed to social conservatism. Again, let me re-iterate, today's libertarians are not the same breed of cat as yesterday's libertarians. Todays libertarians are mostly libertines that want low taxes. They want "government to stay out of their business" because vice is a virtue to them. Abortion, drug use, gay marriage, polygamy... all have strong support among libertarians. They've completely rejected the argument that the virtue of a society and it's civic and economic health are in any way related. In this, they're simply no different from Democrats.
Nov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
James Of England
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
In October he suggested he would. I think he was pandering/ day dreaming, and wouldn't, but it's not insane to worry if that bothers you. · 1 minute ago
Link, please. · 14 minutes ago
I'd linked it in an earlier comment on this thread, but I agree that there was too big a gap between comments for that to be enough. Sorry. · 27 minutes ago
Edited 25 minutes ago
I have not watched the entire video, but I trust Tina Korbe's reporting on this here. I do not trust Time Magazine (Whittaker Chambers hasn't worked there in a long time).
Apr '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
I'd linked it in an earlier comment on this thread, but I agree that there was too big a gap between comments for that to be enough. Sorry. · 27 minutes ago
Edited 25 minutes ago
I have not watched the entire video, but I trust Tina Korbe's reporting on this here. I do not trust Time Magazine (Whittaker Chambers hasn't worked there in a long time). ·
Korbe says that he would end federal funding for contraception, which is at odds with his current defense that he supported it in Congress. I support him wanting to end it, but I don't think it's an example of his being inactive; ending funding is the Constitutional maximum of his actions, and probably the political maximum, too.
Aug '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Douglas
Todays libertarians are mostly libertines that want low taxes. They want "government to stay out of their business" because vice is a virtue to them. Abortion, drug use, gay marriage, polygamy... all have strong support among libertarians. They've completely rejected the argument that the virtue of a society and it's civic and economic health are in any way related. In this, they're simply no different from Democrats.
Oh yes, Mollie Hemingway, that abortion-lovin', God hatin', polyamorous crack-fiend. No different from a democrat, she is.
Don't know if you've noticed, but there are several among us here who identify as libertarian or libertarian-leaning who don't at all fit your convenient stereotype.
Many libertarians are pro-life, believing abortion deprives another of the right to life. Many are traditionally religious. Some are even chaste! (Are you falling off your chair yet in disbelief?)
Heavens, some libertarians even appreciate Rick Santorum!!! (I hope this news isn't giving you a fit of the vapors.)
Maybe you find scapegoating this cartoon image of libertarians comforting, but as a Christian, shouldn't you be more interested in the truth?
Aug '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Douglas
They've completely rejected the argument that the virtue of a society and it's civic and economic health are in any way related.
I'm sorry, but I have yet to meet any principled libertarian who believes this. Even those that reject other traditional social norms realize that there is a core of virtues indispensable to a self-governing populace. Namely, that people should honor their promises, and should not lie, burden others unduly, or leave messes for others to clean up.
Now, I would argue (as would you) that those libertarians who fly in the face of traditional social norms may in fact be leaving messes for others to clean up without realizing it -- in the form of broken homes and so forth. There are reasons why even libertarians may favor a traditional lifestyle and wish to stigmatize deviating from it.
But if honesty, keeping your word, not burdening others, and cleaning up after yourself aren't virtues, what are they?
Mar '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Douglas
Todays libertarians are mostly libertines that want low taxes. They want "government to stay out of their business" because vice is a virtue to them. Abortion, drug use, gay marriage, polygamy... all have strong support among libertarians. They've completely rejected the argument that the virtue of a society and it's civic and economic health are in any way related. In this, they're simply no different from Democrats.
Oh yes, Mollie Hemingway, that abortion-lovin', God hatin', polyamorous crack-fiend. No different from a democrat, she is.
Better add Charles Murray and Jonah Goldberg to the list....
In fairness, Douglas, I agree that there are some people who identify as libertarians who are libertines, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush.
Nov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
James Of England
Korbe says that he would end federal funding for contraception, which is at odds with his current defense that he supported it in Congress. I support him wanting to end it, but I don't think it's an example of his being inactive; ending funding is the Constitutional maximum of his actions, and probably the political maximum, too. · 6 hours ago
Fair point, saying he's voted in the past for Title X and saying he'll end federal funding for contraception are at odds. Not sure if "imposing his views" is how I'd describe stopping funding to Planned Parenthood, but I guess other people might call it that.
Sep '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Douglas
Sorry, but it's the Libertarians that fail to grasp this. They're the ones saying things like "I didn't vote out Democrats to get a theocracy". They are diametrically opposed to social conservatism. Again, let me re-iterate, today's libertarians are not the same breed of cat as yesterday's libertarians. Todays libertarians are mostly libertines that want low taxes. They want "government to stay out of their business" because vice is a virtue to them.
Nice try but calling Libertarians names doesn't refute my claim. When was the last time the GOP made a moral argument about the Dems? Dems routinely do so against the GOP. Why are even the most staunch supporters of partial birth abortion(infanticide) always referred to as misguided and never evil? While Speaker B and Cantor are called demons? The establishment GOP needs to wake up!
Feb '12
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Seeing as libertarians sat on their hands or voted for the other side in 2008 because they were in a tizzy about the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and the Iraq War was not "setting aside their differences" and uniting with conservatives against a common enemy. They might have seen - it was obvious from his voting record and his policy proposals - that Obama represented the worst threat to our liberties since FDR and LBJ. I don't remember libertarians declaring that Obama was the biggest threat in two generations; they were blinded by their opposition to Bush. They might at least have acknowledged, as Thomas Sowell did on Mr. Robinson's "Uncommon Knowledge," that while McCain would be "a disaster" as president, Obama would be "a catastrophe." It's rich now to hear libertarians claim they are uniters and conservatives are the dividers. (In sum, "Splitters!")
Feb '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Crow's Nest
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Douglas
Todays libertarians are mostly libertines that want low taxes. They want "government to stay out of their business" because vice is a virtue to them. Abortion, drug use, gay marriage, polygamy... all have strong support among libertarians. They've completely rejected the argument that the virtue of a society and it's civic and economic health are in any way related. In this, they're simply no different from Democrats.
Oh yes, Mollie Hemingway, that abortion-lovin', God hatin', polyamorous crack-fiend. No different from a democrat, she is.
Better add Charles Murray and Jonah Goldberg to the list....
In fairness, Douglas, I agree that there are some people who identify as libertarians who are libertines, but I think you're painting with far too broad a brush.
In mild defense of Douglas, my casual interactions with people self-identifying as libertarians over the last ten years is better reflected by Douglas' description than by Midge's, overall. The anarchists and libertines have been vocal; maybe Libertarians could gain some traction if they spent some time pruning the bushes of undesirable growth. If they did that, though, what would distinguish them from conservatives?
Jan '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Leporello
Seeing as libertarians sat on their hands or voted for the other side in 2008 because they were in a tizzy about the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and the Iraq War was not "setting aside their differences" and uniting with conservatives against a common enemy. They might have seen - it was obvious from his voting record and his policy proposals - that Obama represented the worst threat to our liberties since FDR and LBJ. I don't remember libertarians declaring that Obama was the biggest threat in two generations; they were blinded by their opposition to Bush. They might at least have acknowledged, as Thomas Sowell did on Mr. Robinson's "Uncommon Knowledge," that while McCain would be "a disaster" as president, Obama would be "a catastrophe." It's rich now to hear libertarians claim they are uniters and conservatives are the dividers. (In sum, "Splitters!").
There is much truth in this, in that a number of prominent libertarians -- including most of the staff of Reason Magazine, to their shame -- did exactly what you described. For the record, I voted for McCain/Palin.
Nov '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Tom Meyer
There is much truth in this, in that a number of prominent libertarians -- including most of the staff of Reason Magazine, to their shame -- did exactly what you described. For the record, I voted for McCain/Palin. · 5 minutes ago
Reason will do the same thing if Santorum is the nominee. There are lots of folks who are libertarians who don't care for their strain of libertarianism, though, but they tend not to be as vocal, because conservative libertarians are, well, conservative, and conservatives aren't nearly as loud.
Feb '12
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Thanks, Tom. As a conservative with a profound dislike of busybodies, I am often sympathetic to libertarian positions even when I disagree. And I want all libertarians to stay in the Republican Party, which should do as much as possible to accommodate them. I would like to see the full absorption of the Libertarian Party into the Republican Party with a concomitant shift of the Republican Party toward true free market policies and greater prudence in foreign affairs. While I cannot agree with some libertarians on the place of the law in supporting marriage and the family, not all self-described libertarians differ so completely with me on this. For instance, Charles Murray, perhaps the most well-known living, self-described libertarian, famously described the unbearable costs of anti-family policies in his book, Losing Ground. Sen. Jim DeMint has tried to welcome libertarians into the party while also urging the party to become more libertarian in certain ways. It would be great to see Reason and Cato reciprocate, just as it would be great if more Republicans followed Sen. DeMint's example.
Aug '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Thank you, Leporello. Hearing this from an outspoken traditionalist like you means a lot.
Aug '10
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Mothership_Greg
There are lots of folks who are libertarians who don't care for their strain of libertarianism, though, but they tend not to be as vocal, because conservative libertarians are, well, conservative, and conservatives aren't nearly as loud.
True, that.
Jan '11
Re: Jeff Bell: Don't Knock Social Conservatism
Leporello: Thanks, Tom. As a conservative with a profound dislike of busybodies, I am often sympathetic to libertarian positions even when I disagree. And I want all libertarians to stay in the Republican Party, which should do as much as possible to accommodate them.
It would be great to seeReason andCato reciprocate, just as it would be great if more Republicans followed Sen. DeMint's example.
I second Crow's Nest applause.
BTW, Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie have responded to DeMint's olive branch and sat him down for a half-hour interview. In the AEI debate linked earlier, Welch ends by saying that -- as of right now -- a libertarian would be a fool to not try to work within the Republican Party.
Again, my purpose here was to show that Santorum is the outlier here, not because he's a social conservative -- so's Jim DeMint! -- but because of repeated, derisive comments about libertarianism.