Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
When the New Lines are Drawn, Don’t Abandon the Social Conservatives
Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by IngerAlHaosului using CommonsHelper., GPL.
This election cycle has exposed growing divisions in both political parties. It’s almost an assumption at this point that the GOP is heading for an inevitable disintegration, and there’s reason to believe the Democrats might not be far behind. Either way, the victories of Trump and Sanders are seen as indicators of the desire by many voters to upend the status quo. I’ll agree that plenty in the status could use some un-quoing, but whether things get better or worse depends entirely on where the new lines are drawn.
While it may be dealing with some amusing drama, I’m not convinced the Democrats are actually splitting right now. I’d argue they already did, and that’s why Trump is so successful. Democrat voters who want the US to be strong but don’t care much about limited government have found a a home with Trump. Watching Clinton have to work at getting her party’s nomination might be fun, but — at the end of the day — the choice isn’t any more substantial than picking a headache relief medicine: quick-acting or long-lasting? This is an internal dispute over means not ends, and isn’t the sort of thing that leads to new parties.
On the other hand, the Republican party’s internecine inquisitions are coming to a head. After witnessing the momentum of Trump’s candidacy, it’s harder and harder to believe what conservatives have been trying to convince themselves: that a majority of Americans share their principles. Consequently, I don’t think any of the parties (Democrats included) to emerge after the GOP falls apart will be able to win majorities. If Trump continues to succeed, I think we’ll see some sort of Trumpian Big-America party, which will crusade mightily against waste, fraud, and abuse while changing basically nothing. Long-term success may depend on whether or not Trump delivers on the immigration promises, but his current support seems so unflinching even failing to build a wall might not disappoint his supporters.
In the remainder’s attempt to build a majority, I could see a coalition forming between libertarians and conservatives who are willing to drop social issues in favor of wooing the “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” crowd. I hope I’m not just saying this because I am a social conservative, but I think dropping social issues would be a huge mistake.
First, let’s understand that there’s a step between abandonment and tactical positions. I would think most social conservatives would be willing to push for a platform that takes incremental wins on social issues where it can. For instance, a guy like me who thinks abortion is wrong in every instance would still support any law that limits abortion even if it doesn’t go that far. I’d rather save some than none. In other words, I don’t think you have to lose support from social conservatives to gain support from other circles.
However, let’s disabuse ourselves of the notion that social issues are simply pedantic when they are central to the rule of law. Social issues deal with how we respect the bonds we have and form with other people. If we won’t protect defenseless individuals deemed inconvenient, why would we order a society that grants power to the minority? If we believe every emotion or whim has a right to be satisfied, why should we expect a government that doesn’t spend us into oblivion? If we don’t take on the responsibilities we have towards others, the State will fill the void. In time, you’ll end up with a feckless, indebted, bloated government incapable of sustaining itself and a tyranny at worst. (Kinda like that thing we’re trying to avoid right now.)
With respect to the economy, if the only reason I care about the free market is that it produces the best results, I’ll stop caring as soon as I perceive those results to be wanting. If I care about the free market because I believe individuals’ rights to pursue their interests stem from their intrinsic worth as human beings, I’ll recognize that the market is failing not because it is free, but because it is not free enough. Where are people best taught that we have intrinsic worth as individuals? In the family, where it doesn’t matter what you are, but simply that you are.
It may seem attractive, when the dust settles, to leave behind social conservatives and rebrand the GOP as something fresh and new. (Speaking for SoCons, I think it’s fair to say we’re used to it.) Just keep in mind that the law does teach, and if the State doesn’t empower individuals and families, it will take that power for itself, and we’ll end up right back where we started.
Published in Politics
Is it possible that there are libertarians on this site engaging you civilly whom you do not recognize as such, because if they’re not rude, you don’t expect them to be libertarians?
Amen. In my admittedly amateur legal interpretation of this, so many of the social issues have gotten Federalized and then been turned into Constitutional questions by taking the 14th Amendment and applying the modern fallacy of thinking that people’s actions define an “identity.” Thus legislation codifying the time-immemorial practice of opposite sex marriage—a law regulating actions of everyone—gets twisted into “discrimination” against a particular “identity.”
This has to stop, or it will Federalize every conceivable social issue. I predict that there is no social issue that can’t be transformed from a question of behavior into a matter of identity through creative psychology. Once they’ve done that, it goes to the Supreme Court, and with Scalia replaced, all of our 5-4 wins become 5-4 losses. All of our 5-4 losses (same-sex marriage) become 6-3 losses.
Yup–“identity” and “equality” and “rights” are the contentless cudgels by which they “win” their battles. But it can’t go on forever, because when family, community and meaning itself are replaced by empty concepts, nationhood and indeed life itself, become impossible.
The thing that really swung me over to Trump was Scalia’s passing, and the fact that the next president will pick three or more SCOTUS. Plus we will then have had 12 to 16 years of Liberal judicial picks down the line. Even when we get the presidency back, we will have a very limited pool to pick from. That’s devastating. I know it’s not guaranteed that Trump will follow through, but I know for sure Hillary won’t.
Exactly my sentiments. Defeating Hillary is the paramount concern and defeating Hillary should be the paramount objective of every American who doesn’t want America to be a super Venezuela. Her judicial nominees’ will shred the constitution and pave the way for tyranny. She will gladly walk down the Tyrants path if given motive and oppurtunity. The never Trump crowd should face reality just as I have to and realize what is at stake.
I don’t really care if you want to formalize a relationship with your SS partner. Your business. But we HAVE to defend our freedom to disagree with other peoples’ choices. Whether I’m religious or not, I shouldn’t be forced to agree, or celebrate, or bake the cake.
Freedom!
No, I certainly don’t. My concern with Trump is that I think he’ll badly damage the Republican Party and — with it — much of the conservative movement without being appreciably better than Hillary. As SonOfSpengler said in the other thread, we’re putting someone who buys into some 9/11 truther stuff and makes Michael-Moore style libels about the Iraq war — plus everything else — our standard bearer.
I think we can suffer through a Hillary administration, barely. But Trump will take out the conservative movement and the country may not be able to survive that in the long run.
For the record, this libertarian opposed all judicial imposition of SSM. I think Prop 8 should never have been overturned. I’m not alone in that.
Likewise, I think the three states that did legislatively have SSM should have them, but no others. (Though my real preference is for constitutional amendments redefining SSM, much as we did for women’s suffrage).
Tom, what does “redefining SSM” mean?
Sorry, totally my bad.
I meant “Redefine marriage to include SSM.”
I admit there is that possibility, and I am hoping it is more than a possibility. To be forthright about this, MFR, it’s mostly how I see other members addressed (spoken to) that get me wanting to shout “Hey! Cut that out! There is no call for that kind of nasty “talk” just because the other person has a different viewpoint. If your only response is to display ill will towards another member via negative characterizations of them, please refrain from responding until the desire to display ill will dissipates. Otherwise, have at it.”
Repeatedly calling a person, who happens to disagree, vile, ignorant or evil is boring, tense, and repetitive. And I will add, sophomoric; even if it is an accurate representation of one’s thoughts.
Count me one. I would describe myself as a Christian libertarian; if/when the two philosophies contradict (which is rare), my faith (and its brand of social conservatism) takes precedence.
Like many others in this thread, I believe that culture is “upstream” of politics. For instance, we lost the SSM battle in the 1960s . . . not last year.
And prison inmates are the pagan babies they want to ransom.
I know. That conspiracy theory was breath taking. If you look at my “Conversations Started” on Ricochet I started a thread called “How Many Conspiracy Theories Does Donald Trump Believe In.” I think it was shortly after he said that. The Republican Party I’m not worried about, or really care. Subjecting our nation to Hillary and to more Liberal policies for another 4-8 years is where i see the real damage. Personally I think Republicans in Congress and his administration can manage the Trump stupidity.
I totally understand what you’re saying; we come to a different judgement, but I think we both think it’s a close call.
Nice in theory, but the fact is that modern liberalism has its cake and eats it too: while you believe in “local values”… ban gay marriage in Texas but let it flourish in California… liberals believing in bringing the federal court system hammer down on you and making you heel all the way to the local level. You’re fighting with one hand tied behind your back and spotting them points you can’t afford to. Recall that the US Constitution had little impact or effect on state laws… it was written mostly as a compact between federal government and individuals when it came to rights. Washington DC couldn’t ban your newspapers, but your state government could. Washington couldn’t quarter troops in your home, but your state government could if they wished. That’s why states had their own constitutions too, laying out state rights. All that was made moot when the Supreme Court started “incorporating” the Constitution. Federalism has been a corpse for a long, long time, my friend. Anything worth defending has to be defended at the national level, because we’ve been a defacto unitary national government for many years now. States became in practice just a bunch of names for administrative districts of the national government.
I get the impression that Ricochet hosts a fair number of these!
A question I have in this discussion is that if we are doomed, then what? Progressivism has had its way with us for many, many years. In the past the pendulum will swing a little bit backward, but then taken a giant swing forward, over and over. Does anyone have any hope (even though we don’t know who will win the election) that we can bring conservatism or social conservatism back (or maybe it would be better to say, move it forward)? Are we going to have to settle for a drop of conservatism in a progressivist cesspool? Or is there a chance we can turn the ship around, slowly but surely? It’s a pretty big ocean we sail in . . .
Likewise.
I do not presently believe Trump is likely to follow through on his promise to nominate more constitutionally-observant judges for SCOTUS than Hillary would, for example. I do realize that my future belief may not be identical to my present belief, depending on what the coming months turn up, so, while I don’t expect my doubts about Trump to change much, that’s not the same as saying they won’t change at all. Cruz coming over to Trump’s side, though, would tend to increase my doubts about Cruz rather than decrease my doubts about Trump.
Exactly right!
Yes, I’ve told Claire to wait until after the convention where Trump (if he wins it) will have picked a VP, agreed to a party platform, and have fleshed out more policy. Then we’ll get a fuller picture. He doesn’t talk policy, but you know his tax/economic plan is very good. Larry Kudlow thought it best of the candidates. Trump probably doesn’t know what’s in it, but he would have to push it.
Only if we stop playing “defense,” but I think it unlikely. SoCons almost universally believe in free will and freedom of conscience, so, despite the hyperventilating about a theocratic takeover, I say if it hasn’t happened in a much more religious America, it ain’t happening now.
The conscience of the nation has been corrupted by progressivism for decades now. This world is passing away — or, as we like to say around here — progressives are walking the battlefield shooting the wounded.
Jordan
Or to put it another way, influencing mass culture will be far more successful than influencing politicians. Ultimately the people get what they want, and mass culture has made them to want harmful things.
The real problem is left has put all these cultural production institutions on lockdown and erected very high barriers to entry for right thinking individuals. They’re all leftists and they want to keep it that way, because they understand the power of being able to produce culture.
But it hasn’t; the entry barriers are low and the institutions are irrelevant to making films and TV shows. I didn’t see the theater owners refusing to sell popcorn at “The Passion”. I don’t recall the studios boycotting “American Sniper”, for that matter, or “Juno”. When Phil Anschutz didn’t like the idea of kids worshipping Harry Potter, he set up a company to make “Narnia”. Made some money, too.
The fact is, most conservatives who don’t like the culture don’t want to compete and therefore will not win; it’s as simple as that. Most would rather sit on their fannies and yelp, like the world is supposed to feel sorry for them.
Paraphrasing Larry: Sure, the media took progressive’s side. Sure, it’s technically the progressive left, not libertarians, who coerce photographers, bakers, and wedding planners rather than allowing private citizens to live by their consciences. Were these developments unforeseen? Did any of this come as a shock to anyone? You can plan a strategy that doesn’t have a prayer of working, and then throw your hissy fit over the fact that you think it should have worked. But that doesn’t work either.
SSM is the imposition of progressive secular Left values through the court. The Left’s collectivism leans into totalitarianism. They can’t help themselves.
I think the challenge for many of us will be to decide what’s really being said or suggested or supported at any given time. It’ll be hard for me to take anyone’s changes in viewpoint at face value; I’ll have to wade through all my biases and beliefs about him or her. I’d hate to say I’m cynical, but I’m getting pretty close.
Freedoms are meaningless if you choose to exercise your freedoms outside the realm of acceptable opinion. We already see this nonsense with the “free speech protections only apply to the government but it’s totally fine if 3rd party platforms engage in censorship” meme.
It goes something like “freedom of speech isn’t freedom of not being
disemployedcriticized due to having the wrong opinions, and I get to decide what those opinions are.”This kind of “soft” censorship, where what is acceptable is tightly controlled by the thought-patrol vigilantes, is far worse.
^Like.
In most cases, it was an example of that. It was not in Maine, Washington, and Maryland where it was approved on open ballot measures.
I think it will happen; but not today. I think the ideals of a moral, civil society will be revitalized by those who are currently paying, and will continue to pay for some time, the cultural cost of the conservatives submitting to the progressives. Specifically, I think (hope) it will be our grandchildren who restore a civil society.
This is why I hope all the “conservative” grandparents are spending lots of time with their grandchildren in the hopes of imprinting American passion and beliefs as spoken in the Declaration of Independence — the unalienable right to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Taking the time to imprint the ideals of freedom from an oppressive government, religious freedom, self-determination and self-reliance. Imprinting a love for our Country. In effect, inoculating their grandchildren against the poison that is and will continue to be fed to them by the progressives’ schools and social media, etc.
However, I don’t think they will call themselves Conservatives (the word is now tainted, divisive); I think they will call themselves Classical Liberals or something similar. Cont’d.
I find this astonishing. You would enshrine the right to SSM in the Constitution?? A positive right to marriage — for a tiny minority “identity” group — in the Constitution? Astonishing.
Isn’t there some provision for Laplanders herding their reindeer in the multi-thousand article European Constitution? Where does it end? What’s the limiting principle?
Prager was right again. The only way man/woman marriage was ever going to be preserved was a Constitutional Amendment in the form of DOMA (which I now find an offensive title because I’m sick of “Defending” what is simple reality).
Western civilization is so last century.