So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Let me set the stage thusly. Troy Senik excerpts Mike Murphy:
The Republican challenge is not about better voter-turnout software; it is about policy. We repel Latinos, the fastest-growing voter group in the country, with our nativist opposition to immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship. We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues. And we have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues.
Over on the thread about "anti-intellectualism" in the GOP, there's a full-blown debate pitting science vs. religion. One undercurrent there is that social conservatism = fundamentalist Christian = anti-science ignorance.
And finally, watch this admittedly inspiring video of Daniel Hannan, British conservative MEP, speaking at CPAC 2012 earlier this year:
Trust me; I'll connect the three.
So... here's what I'm wondering: what exactly does social conservatism mean in 21st century American politics? I ask because I think I'm a pretty doctrinaire libertarian and have become more and more hawkish in military terms, but I don't think I would qualify as a firm social conservative. (Though compared to Democrats, I'm probably seen as the equivalent of Glenn Beck.)
Does it mean an explicitly Christian movement that forces people like Rubio to nod towards creationist beliefs?
Does it mean an aesthetic movement that is simply rebelling against cultural innovations, like the S&M Club at Harvard? (In other words, a variant of the "Get a haircut, you hippie and get off my lawn" thing that is the privilege of older generations to level at the younger one. I imagine that George Washington's mother tut-tutted her son for his fancy wigs.)
Does it mean a focus on moral components of civilization, taking its cue from the Founders like Ben Franklin, who once said that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom?
I'll confess now that I never thought social conservatism included what Mike Murphy calls "nativist opposition" so I'll just leave that to the side.
The Religion Thing
While there is little doubt that SoCons and religion are mutually reinforcing, at least in recent years, I've seen very little from SoCons that suggest that they want to impose some sort of theocracy on the rest of America. Mainstream social conservatism, seems to me, is motivated by religion, but is not explicitly religious today. Are there fringe guys out there who actually do want a Biblical Republic? Yeah, but there are lots of guys who think 9/11 was an inside job, so...
In fact, environmentalists are far more explicitly religious than most Christians I've met in the GOP.
My take on where religious conservatives are today is that, much like gays of a generation ago, they just want respect and to be left alone. It's sort of a, "Hey, you may not approve of my lifestyle choice to go to church on Sunday, but I don't think that has any bearing on my ability to do this job." And you also have the whole, "Just because you don't like my lifestyle choice doesn't mean you can force me to pay for stuff I don't want to, like abortion for my employees."
But that's my take. I would like to hear more from religious conservatives about what social conservatism means to you.
The Aesthetic Angle
I do think, however, that many SoCons are also motivated by the aesthetics angle. Most of them are older, but not all. For them, contemporary American culture just seems to go from inane and silly to disgusting and vile.
For example, I've never met a fan of rap music at a conservative event. Paul Ryan admits to having AC/DC in his iPod, but I doubt he's got Notorious BIG and Snoop Dogg on it. Mark Steyn is famous for his love of Broadway and the pop standards of Tin Pan Alley, and I don't think he's particularly fond of progressive trance or dubstep.
And of course, the pornification of American culture is not to be countenanced.
There are other examples, of course, of this sort of soft-lit admiration of the past and distaste for contemporary culture, but... I'm not entirely sure. So you tell me, if you are a SoCon: how much of your social conservatism is motivated by aesthetics?
The Civic Virtue Thing
Finally, you have the civic virtue thing. This is the case that is most often made explicitly by all conservatives, even those like me.
A democracy simply cannot exist unless the citizens have certain pre-requisite virtues. People may disagree on what those virtues are, but most would agree that faith, industriousness, and charity are among them.
Social conservatism then is not necessarily about telling other people how to live, but about preserving the foundational moral codes that underlie a free democratic society.
I find this the most attractive and most convincing angle, but ... again, I'd love to hear from actual SoCons how much of your activism/beliefs are really motivated by preserving civic virtue as opposed to religious beliefs or aesthetics.
Mike Murphy, Daniel Hannan, and the Institutions
Why does any of this matter?
Because Daniel Hannan repeatedly makes the point that culture isn't some inchoate thing that sits "out there" like a fog. He believes that institutions create culture. He attributes American culture to its institutions, specifically to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
At one point he says in the speech that if we allow our institutions to become Europeanized, then Americans will behave just like the French.
I find that compelling. Are we not seeing exactly this play out in our elite coastal cities and on our college campuses?
In contrast, Mike Murphy's view appears to be that if Republicans stop repelling Latinos and young secular people, we'd be fine. There are plenty of other voices after Romneycalypse 2012 that are calling for dialing down the whole social conservatism thing.
But to what point? If Hannan is correct, then Ben Franklin had it backwards. It's not that only virtuous people are capable of freedom; rather, it is that freedom creates virtuous people.
A century of Progressive politics transforming our political, educational, and cultural institutions has meant that Americans are now more like the French than they are like the Pilgrims. So if we do as Murphy suggests, does that give us the ability to reverse the transformation of our institutions?
I'm not sure. Certainly, without victory, we can do nothing but whinge. But victory at the cost of continuing the transformation of American institutions into European ones does not strike me as particularly useful in the long run.
A Thought for Social Conservatives
So let me come at last to a possible suggestion for both the Republican Party and the social conservatives.
Perhaps what is needed, especially if Daniel Hannan is correct, is a focus not on behavior, but on institutions. Maybe our notion that civic virtues lead to better institutions is wrong; maybe, it's that better institutions will lead to civic virtues. Maybe restoring the Constitution as much as we could would naturally lead to a more moral, more just, and more aesthetically pleasing society, rather than the other way around?
The institution we may be able to restore at least partway back to Constitutional framework, and the one that would most protect and most benefit the interests of social conservatives, is federalism. Hannan spoke of it admiringly, and for good reason.
Perhaps the way forward is to end every one of our political statements with, "Restore the 10th Amendment." And by decentralizing power, the goals and aims of social conservatives may be fulfilled far easier.
What do you think? Does that strike you as too much of a "keep quiet" thing? Because that is not my intent at all. I meant it more as a "If you'll respect our lifestyle over here, then we'll respect yours... over there" thing.
- Comment (72)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
~Paules: ...
Marxist ideology has introduced a toxin into the bloodstream of the body politic. The disease must run its course before a recovery is possible. A sick society will be prey to demagogues and sociopaths until the patient realizes that the bleeding only makes him weaker. Such is our current condition.
Yes. Watching that Daniel Hannan video made me weep for my country for the first time since election week. It is too late to turn aside.
I think one of the differences between SoCons and libertarians, for example, is SoCons recognize that virtue cannot be coerced (and remain virtue, anyway), but there is a role for government in legislating morality. SoCons are willing to submit to a standard and a Standard Bearer.
To be specific in my case, I voted for the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Abstaining from its use is a virtue, in my estimation, but graver injustices occur through its prohibition than its use. On the other hand, I would vote for prohibition of abortion given the opportunity, because there is no graver injustice than murder.
Libertarians seem to align more often with the materialist Left on social issues, but perhaps for more consequentialist reasons?
Jun '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
katievs
It's a "virtuous cycle," don't you think? Good and just laws and institutions are conducive of virtue, and a virtuous people will construct and uphold good laws.
But, to bring it back to Robert's point, the key is natural law, which precedes human creation. I mean, we didn't invent marriage, we received it. It was given.
The most basic institution, like our basic rights, precede and supersede human government. · 9 minutes ago
Again, we don't disagree. Male and female, marriage and family, propagation and familial duty are ordained by our Creator. Atheism isn't just foolish; it's destructive.
Jul '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
katievs
It's a "virtuous cycle," don't you think? Good and just laws and institutions are conducive of virtue, and a virtuous people will construct and uphold good laws.
But, to bring it back to Robert's point, the key is natural law, which precedes human creation. I mean, we didn't invent marriage, we received it. It was given.
The most basic institution, like our basic rights, precede and supersede human government. · 0 minutes ago
They are self-reinforcing, but the root is still the populace's culture. A virtuous populace creates virtuous institutions, and those institutions strengthen and nurture the society. When we abandon our virtues, we are able to free-ride off the institutions for a time, but eventually they spread to our institutions, too. Cultural rot sets in (illegitimacy rate, for example) which leads to dire living conditions (child poverty) which leads to demands for government intervention (social welfare state) which leads to economic problems and political divisions.
Oct '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
I agree 100% with the importance of federalism. I have noticed both D's and R's both now always claim their policies didn't meet expectations because they were restricted from being implemented fully because of the other party, either directly via "obstruction", or via legacy policy instituted by the other party.
This can't be resolved easily. Even the current "let the Dems own it" line is likely to not work, because it will not be difficult for the media to pin all the blame on Bush, the House, the Tea Party, etc. Greater emphasis on federalism would also provide a bigger, and more logical, separation between the parties at the state and federal level. If states have greater control over social policies, the president's social views don't matter as much.
If we can re-define "States' Rights" to mean something other than condoning slavery, it will be the best way to prove which governing philosophy is superior ( Americans love competition). At the very least, the people being governed should be more on board with their government.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 5:56pmMay '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
So do I. But not when it comes to fundamental human rights and natural law. No human government has the authority to change those.
Hence, those who imagine that the marriage question can be settled by "leaving it up to the states" are wrong.
That argument assumes that the marriage is manipulable—a creature of the state. It isn't. Just as human nature isn't.
Jun '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Western Chauvinist
Yes. Watching that Daniel Hannan video made me weep for my country for the first time since election week. It is too late to turn aside.
I think one of the differences between SoCons and libertarians, for example, is SoCons recognize that virtue cannot be coerced (and remain virtue, anyway), but there is a role for government in legislating morality. SoCons are willing to submit to a standard and a Standard Bearer.
To be specific in my case, I voted for the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Abstaining from its use is a virtue, in my estimation, but graver injustices occur through its prohibition than its use. On the other hand, I would vote for prohibition of abortion given the opportunity, because there is no graver injustice than murder.
Libertarians seem to align more often with the materialist Left on social issues, but perhaps for more consequentialist reasons? · 18 minutes ago
Weep not. Not every generation is called upon to bear the shield of virtue and wield a sword of righteousness. It is a blessing.
Sep '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Look at the housing crisis: Both Liberals and conservatives worked from the premise that home ownership should be encouraged because homeowners seemed more responsible.
In reality the process by which a person accumulated the necessary capital to purchase a home created the more responsible person not the owning of the home.
The materialistic arguments brought us the housing crisis. A disciplined So. Con would have been focused on the process of developing the character traits and hopefully would not have been tempted to throw money at the problem which would have restricted government involvement.
"If they don't work they don't eat" is a So Con principle that unfortunately has been forgotten by the government which has resulted in most of the fiscal problems. Can materialistic measures be concocted to address the the consequences of abandoning the principle. Maybe - but I would say its a fools game.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
The problem with focusing on institutions vice behavior (I presume we're meaning government institutions here) is that no human authority can induce desire. As my pastor's kids used to tell him, "I can't want to," and no power on earth can make me.
If we're talking about non-government institutions, then we have an entirely different situation on our hands. Those are the institutions that operate with an authority not founded on a monopoly on violence. Those are the ones that can reach the heart and mind of an individual. Because they don't operate with physical violence as the ultimate coercion they don't suffer the same inability government has to induce desire. Unlike government, they can't physically make me do. They can, however, bring an internal kind of pressure to bear (moral, philosophical, intellectual, social, etc.) that can make me want to. Only problem with these institutions is that government has supplanted many and actively works against those that remain.
Jan '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Question: Is marriage really an institution?
A propos Hannan, I'm inclined to think of institutions as things like the relationship between federal and state power, things like media organizations, like Congress, non-profits, churches, labor unions, the military, etc. In other words, formal organizations.
Marriage doesn't really fit into that ideal neatly, no?
Wouldn't it be better to focus on the formal organizations and seek to limit their ability to interfere with cultural ideals like marriage?
To say it differently, marriage was transformed not because of sexual revolution, but because of the welfare state, particularly the centralized variant we have in the US. Charles Murray talks about this all the time.
So if we want to "defend marriage", isn't the solution not to argue about same-sex marriage or whatnot, but to attack the welfare state institutions that devalue economic bases of marriage?
Jan '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
katievs
So do I. But not when it comes to fundamental human rights and natural law. No human government has the authority to change those.
Hence, those who imagine that the marriage question can be settled by "leaving it up to the states" are wrong.
That argument assumes that the marriage is manipulable—a creature of the state. It isn't. Just as human nature isn't. · 16 minutes ago
But... katievs, evidence from Europe and elsewhere shows us that indeed, marriage IS manipulable. Create enough state institutions that undermine marriage, and it can be manipulated.
Whether they have the authority/right is a moral question, but practically speaking, I think it's obvious that the state can in fact change human nature.
That's Hannan's point after all, no?
The counter, for American conservatives, then should be to weaken the formal institutions as much as possible, not merely for fiscal reasons but for social/moral reasons.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Excellent point! One of the prime motives of the state supporting marriage was so the state didn't have to financially support individuals. Now the state willingly (wantonly, greedily, lustily?) supports individuals in order to buy votes. But, to emphasize my original point, the state is amoral and inanimate. It is the individuals who wield the authority of the state who are wanton, greedy, lusty, etc. after power.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
The counter, for American conservatives, then should be to weaken the formal institutions as much as possible, not merely for fiscal reasons but for social/moral reasons. · 2 minutes ago
The problem with this is that it works terribly as an electoral strategy. Telling voters that their previous choices for Uncle Sugar Daddy have made them horrible people is not an effective way to sell anything.
Jan '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
liberal jim
Look at the housing crisis: Both Liberals and conservatives worked from the premise that home ownership should be encouraged because homeowners seemed more responsible.
Let's look at the housing crisis. The premise is solid. I still agree that homeownership should be encouraged.
But where Republicans went awry is that they wanted to use the state to encourage homeownership. In particular, they chose to use the federal government to do it.
Encouraging homeownership through preaching its virtues is one thing; to do it via tax breaks, subsidies, Fannie/Freddie, legislation and regulation is another thing altogether.
I think this is the big lesson for conservatives of all stripes, but particularly SoCons, to learn. Debate, argue, preach the ideas -- but refrain from policymaking if that leads to empowering the state. Devolve power to the lowest, most local level. The result will be what we want: a more virtuous, more socially conservative polity.
Well, at least that's my hypothesis that I'm working out with you all here. :)
Jan '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
The King Prawn
The problem with this is that it works terribly as an electoral strategy. Telling voters that their previous choices for Uncle Sugar Daddy have made them horrible people is not an effective way to sell anything. · 3 minutes ago
I'm thinking something like this: support Colorado's legalization of marijuana to the hilt. Even though most SoCons would think the drug legalization is a step backwards, undermining centralized power aids them far more.
Maybe if a evangelical Texan supports the doobie brothers of Colorado, they would be more amenable to the idea that maybe Washington DC shouldn't decide everything under the sun?
So we sell the voters on things they love, defend those things, but always on federalism grounds or on other grounds, always with an eye towards weakening the big institutions.
This could be a fool's errand, but what do you think?
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
No, sophist. A society that has weak institutions, formal and informal, is a society which lacks public spiritedness, social trust, common sense, and civic virtue. It is ripe either for collapse or for the inevitable rise of a despot who will discipline it.
Some of this turns on the question: what is law? In antiquity, the law (nomos) was viewed as not merely punitive, but educative: formative of culture. The rise of a more expansive private sphere, and the rise of technology, has dampened our enthusiasm for such an idea today. Nevertheless, we cannot avoid noticing that many young people's views of politics are formed almost entirely by the culture...
Incidentally on that procreation point, we vaguely remember an essay on the spirit of Sparta or the taste of Xenophon, but be that as it may.
As far as a working definition of social conservatism goes Robert's is a very good one for our purposes. I concur with it, and fall well within that category.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
As far as the housing thing goes, here's my take on how we got it sideways:
It's perfectly fine for government to remove overly burdensome barriers, straighten paths, level the track, etc. If one does such with a river it becomes a peaceful flow. However, if the banks are taken away completely (which is essentially what the government did to create the crisis) the river becomes a flood.
Jun '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
But... katievs, evidence from Europe and elsewhere shows us that indeed, marriage IS manipulable.
No. Marriage can only be perverted. We hold these truths to be self-evident that God created man and woman, marriage and family, and the duties attendant to these relationships, for the purpose of carrying out His will. To manipulate the institution of marriage for other purposes is to violate a social order ordained by our Creator. This is why for so many of us the issue is non-negotiable.
May '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
But... katievs, evidence from Europe and elsewhere shows us that indeed, marriage IS manipulable. Create enough state institutions that undermine marriage, and it can be manipulated.
Whether they have the authority/right is a moral question, but practically speaking, I think it's obvious that the statecanin fact change human nature.
That's Hannan's point after all, no?
The counter, for American conservatives, then should be to weaken the formal institutions as much as possible, not merely for fiscal reasons but for social/moral reasons. · 15 minutes ago
Yes, it's manipulable in the sense that it can be manipulated. But I'm speaking in the sense of ought. Persons, too, can be manipulated, exploited, abused, even killed. But they ought not to be.
Good institutions and just laws are designed to prevent the abuse of persons.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
The King Prawn
The problem with this is that it works terribly as an electoral strategy. Telling voters that their previous choices for Uncle Sugar Daddy have made them horrible people is not an effective way to sell anything. · 3 minutes ago
I'm thinking something like this: support Colorado's legalization of marijuana to the hilt. Even though most SoCons would think the drug legalization is a step backwards, undermining centralized power aids them far more.
Maybe if a evangelical Texan supports the doobie brothers of Colorado, they would be more amenable to the idea that maybe Washington DC shouldn't decideeverythingunder the sun?
So we sell the voters on things they love, defend those things, but always on federalism grounds or on other grounds,always with an eye towards weakening the big institutions.
This could be a fool's errand, but what do you think? · 5 minutes ago
I am always and forever in favor of decentralizing power and weakening the federal government, especially concerning domestic issues.
May '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Of course marriage is an institution.
It's a natural institution with a natural essence. Just laws recognize it, uphold it, support it. To interfere with its basic nature and structure is a radically unjust abuse of power, leading to social chaos and the explosive growth of the welfare state.