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:
May '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
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.
Sorry. No can do.
I aim to support good laws and true values.
The left isn't just interested in growing government. It's also interested in debasing the public. One way to debase the public and establish wide dependency is to encourage youth to indulge in drugs and porn, etc.. It wants to do whatever it takes to detach them from family and church. To wreck their virtue and their ambition.
Jan '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
katievs
TheSophist
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.
Sorry. No can do.
I aim to support good laws and true values.
The left isn't just interested in growing government. It's also interested in debasing the public. One way to debase the public and establish wide dependency is to encourage youth to indulge in drugs and porn, etc.. It wants to do whatever it takes to detach them from family and church. To wreck their virtue and their ambition. · 5 minutes ago
But unless you live in Colorado, isn't your interest really in getting the federal government out of the entire issue? This way, you can convince your state not to debase the public, and be free to do so without federal interference.
If the federal govt has the right and moral authority to prevent the debasement of the public, it surely has the right and moral authority to impose what it considers to be the upliftment of the public, no?
May '12
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
katievs
TheSophist
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.
Sorry. No can do.
I aim to support good laws and true values.
But unless you live in Colorado, isn't your interest really in getting the federal government out of the entire issue? This way, you can convince your state not to debase the public, and be free to do so without federal interference.
If the federal govt has the right and moral authority to prevent the debasement of the public, it surely has the right and moral authority to impose what it considers to be the upliftment of the public, no? · 6 minutes ago
This works so long as the entire federal welfare state: WIC, food stamps, EITC, unemployment etc. are eliminated.
If Colorado wants to make marijuana legal then the consequences of that decision must be isolated to CO.
Aug '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Why would you assume that only religious people have morals and principles? I'm not religious, but I'm guessing that you and I share pretty much the same morals and principles, other than those that are explicitly about adhering to trappings of the faith (prayer, etc).
I do believe this is the big split on the right - there is the religious right, and then there is the secular right. The secular right is generally more libertarian and more interested in fiscal issues, regulation, and matters of good governance. The religious right is more interested in protecting the social norms that they feel are embodied in their religion, and they feel that their religious beliefs are a fundamental part of the character of America.
That's a pretty large chasm to bridge, even if both of us agree that government is too large and intrusive.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Federalism is definitely one of the virtues of our form of government. However, I'm convinced it will be used as a means to nationalize SSM via "equal protection" and "interstate commerce" (contract law). And then, once more, the Left will have a victory in the culture war by bringing to bear social opprobrium against marriage traditionalists. I'm willing to make a money wager, now that we've chosen the European path.
I guess what I'm getting at is, we have to be discerning about which institutions we weaken and which we strengthen, and not to make federalism our idol. Federalism will not save us. And I wish Congress had listened to Dennis Prager 15 years ago and protected traditional marriage by initiating an amendment to the Constitution. Too late now.
Aug '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Whiskey Sam
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.
From this godless materialist's perspective, social conservatives have it wrong. Virtuous behavior cannot be enforced by passing socially restrictive laws. Rather, virtuous behavior arises when economic incentives reward it.
Single parenthood isn't rising because we're abandoning God - it's rising because the govenrment rewards that behavior with incentives. The family isn't breaking down because of gay marriage or because TV has become too crass - it's breaking down because the government has replaced the need for strong extended families with government benefits. Community is breaking down because we no longer need to work with our neighbors for common benefit.
You can pass all the laws you want 'protecting' the culture, but as long as people are incentivized to behave in non-virtuous ways, that's what they'll do. This is a fundamental principle of economics, and provides a point of potential cooperation between libertarians and social conservatives.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Dan Hanson
I do believe this is the big split on the right - there is the religious right, and then there is the secular right. The secular right is generally more libertarian and more interested in fiscal issues, regulation, and matters of good governance. The religious right is more interested in protecting the social norms that they feel are embodied in their religion, and they feel that their religious beliefs are a fundamental part of the character of America.
That's a pretty large chasm to bridge, even if both of us agree that government is too large and intrusive. · 1 minute ago
This is a mischaracterization of the religious right. The social norms we support may derive from our faith, but we support and protect them for very pragmatic political reasons. We think they are necessary to a self-governing society. Evidence is on our side with this one.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
It chaps my bum that we should have to legally and constitutionally define existential reality.
Dec '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Dan Hanson
From this godless materialist's perspective, social conservatives have it wrong. Virtuous behavior cannot be enforced by passing socially restrictive laws. Rather, virtuous behavior arises when economic incentives reward it.
I don't know that we would agree on how to define virtue. From a religious/philosophical stand point I believe it can be coerced or inticed by outside incentives. When a good thing is done for any reason other than its inherent goodness it loses at least part of the goodness.
Where's Rachel Lu when I need her to back me up...
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Sometimes I hate living on the West Coast. You log on, read a great post, and then find out all the great comments you had in mind have already been made....
It seems there are three questions floating around here:
1) Can society function without a universal set of virtues?
2) Can these virtues exist without strong institutions to encourage/enforce them?
3) Can such institutions thrive without government support?
I would argue that most libertarian leaners (especially those with a "conservative" bent) would argue no to 1), perhaps to 2) (with some disagreement among the ranks), and absolutely yes to 3).
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
To continue on that last point: why do the "institutions" (such as church, marriage, charity, or even homeownership) that promote virtue need government support in any way?
I think we all agree that the state should avoid interacting with churches - don't financially support them, don't tell them what to do, just grant tax-free status using a broad definition and leave them alone. The same goes for charities - the state can only squelch their good work.
So why should this philosophy be any different regarding other virtuous "institutions"? The moral power of a church is only weakened when the state sponsors it - why should this be any different when it comes to the moral power of marriage?
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Dan Hanson
From this godless materialist's perspective, social conservatives have it wrong. Virtuous behavior cannot be enforced by passing socially restrictive laws. Rather, virtuous behavior arises when economic incentives reward it.
We can take this question one further - do individuals act virtuously because of their religion, or do they seek out (and find) religion because they are virtuous?
In other words, is faith a prerequisite for virtue, or is virtue (or the desire thereof) a prerequisite for faith?
There is a distinctive chicken-egg conundrum, but I believe (yes, believe) on balance that faith is contingent on some modicum of pre-existing virtue. I agree with Dan completely that virtuous behavior will only thrive when individuals are given the proper incentives to act virtuously.
When these conditions exist, an increase in religion will occur by itself.
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Dan: In part you have it right--I do not think that virtue can be enforced from the top down, after it has collapsed, by passing a new law, with all the old orders and all the present profligate conditions intact. It will not hold, it will be mocked and ignored. The damage has already been done.
I do not think this observation refutes the observation that law, prior to a collapse and especially if it has been long established, can be instructive and formative.
But where I take issue with you is with your easy-going conflation of virtuous behavior with economic incentive.
Allow me to provide a brutal yet very noble counter-example which has become necessary: I think we can all agree that courage is a virtue, no? How can you incentivize a Medal of Honor winner to lay down his life for his country and his fellow soldiers with mere economic incentive? Will you pay the Ferryman's fee?
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 8:44pmJul '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
To me, social conservatism means people wanting the same kind of Government intervention in social context that they don't want the Government to do in a financial context.
I keep hearing the "Natural Rights" as an argument. No where in any of the explanations of "Natural Rights" have I read forcing chastity, limiting marriage, etc., etc. This is plain and simple social control tactics.
If liberty means a person has the right to mess things up financially and be broke as a result of their choices, then it also means the right of individuals to be morally bankrupt. Using the government to force morality (or your interpretation of it) is not liberty.
Jan '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Mendel:
2) Can these virtues exist without strong institutions to encourage/enforce them?
I think it depends on whether we mean formal institutions or informal ones. My current take is that strong formal institutions (government, The Church, organizations) actually inhibit the development and maintenance of virtues, whereas strong informal institutions (churches, families, voluntary associations, neighborhoods, etc.) strengthen them.
So my obsession with federalism is that while central government was weak, Americans exhibited civic virtues, because weak formal institutions = strong informal ones = citizens of virtue, whereas strong central government = weak informal institutions = subjects without virtue.
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
I do not think anyone has a right to be morally bankrupt.
I think as a consequence of individual choice a person may end up morally bankrupt: but only if he has rejected the advice of his religion, his family, his community, and the laws of his city. If we leave him bereft of the guidance of all of these and then wonder to ourselves, privately, how it is that he "stumbled" or "slouched" into bankruptcy, then we are as lost as he is.
Freedom from cannot be separated from an aspiration of freedom for--though neither can the latter be enforced simply from the top down. It must come almost organically from within the society itself, but this seed cannot grow if it is not given an exemplar in public.
Or, more contemporaneously: if bureaucracy crushes all intermediary institutions, then the same democracy in which choice could have lead to virtuous people gives way to democracy in which choice leads only to comfort.
Mar '11
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
I think some confusion here may result from your definitions of "weak" and "strong". I am sure our social scientists can denominate this dilemma with a fittingly academic name, but 'round here we call it: incompetence.
If a bureaucracy is attempting to respond to a crisis, but has to cut through mountains of paperwork and red tape in order to respond in a basic way, a most simple-minded way, a way that the common man observing the scene can see in front of his face is necessary--regardless of whatever its legal authority may be--this is a weak and limp-wristed institution.
Strong institutions give rise to strong individuals and strong cultures. Weak, CYA institutions give rise to....well....look around.
Federalism is a great virtue of our system and it must be forcefully defended for many reasons, including that the local level is the proper place for our citizens to learn civic virtue and service in peace time.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 9:50pmSep '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
liberal jim
Let's look at the housing crisis. The premise is solid. I still agree that homeownership should be encouraged.
I disagree. The process of becoming a homeowner ie: using credit wisely, steady employment, saving. etc created more responsible people who then often purchased a home. The process was certainly influenced to a large degree by government. When the government altered the process (easy credit) the process no longer fostered the character traits and that eventually led to the housing crisis.
The real wealth is not the house, or money to buy one. It is the self discipline, thrift, ideas and work ethic that enable the person to accumulate the necessary investment and it is those things the government should be concerned with fostering.
The lottery is hailed as a good thing by some because it raises millions for education. But the get rich quick mentality it fosters is costing the country much more. The materialist looks at the money being raised the So. Con at the mentality being fostered.
Jul '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
Dan Hanson
From this godless materialist's perspective, social conservatives have it wrong. Virtuous behavior cannot be enforced by passing socially restrictive laws. Rather, virtuous behavior arises when economic incentives reward it.
Single parenthood isn't rising because we're abandoning God - it's rising because the govenrment rewards that behavior with incentives. The family isn't breaking down because of gay marriage or because TV has become too crass - it's breaking down because the government has replaced the need for strong extended families with government benefits. Community is breaking down because we no longer need to work with our neighbors for common benefit.
You can pass all the laws you want 'protecting' the culture, but as long as people are incentivized to behave in non-virtuous ways, that's what they'll do. This is a fundamental principle of economics, and provides a point of potential cooperation between libertarians and social conservatives. · 2 hours ago
When two kids are having sex, they aren't thinking, "Gee, it will all be okay because there's a government program to subsidize my decision." They're acting on their desires. That's a moral matter and not a rational cost analysis.
May '10
Re: So, What Exactly Does Social Conservatism Mean?
TheSophist
But unless you live in Colorado, isn't your interest really in getting the federal government out of the entire issue? This way, you can convince your state not to debase the public, and be free to do so without federal interference.
It happens that I care about teenagers in CO, even though I don't live there.
I can only support laws that I think improve things. I'll support laws that undercut federal power, provided they're being replaced by a better state of affairs, not a worse one.
I would like to see much less federal involvement in education. And I'd like Roe v. Wade overturned, which I think (in addition to its core evil) a grotesques violation of the 10th amendment.