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
I mean that if the two are mutually exclusive, which do you choose? The reason I think they are is because the left is so intolerant. If it were possible for states to determine what marriage is for themselves, we could have communities with differing views in different parts of the country, but the Supremes have said no. My husband is a legal scholar who writes about religious freedom. He is on the side of religion, but most of the academy is more than willing to throw religious freedom out in favor of gay and other “rights”. In other words, if the two are in conflict, religion loses, as is happening with the Little Sisters of the Poor. So–in light of all this–which do you choose?
Susan, sorry I missed replying to this yesterday. I agree with you and think it’s an important philosophical distinction for groups like say, Hollywood conservatives. I’m not saying it would be the same for conservatives in classical music or library management or other areas of the arts, and I’m not saying there aren’t two sides to the question. But there are a couple of broad strategies. You can come up with others, I’m sure:
–Out and loud political–a bunch of partisan right wing Republicans who party with visiting politicos auditioning to raise cash. David Horowitz and his Center for the Study of Popular Culture did that; “Can we get the girl from “Blade” for a pro-am golf tournament for Dornan in Coronado next weekend?”
–Silently political. Hang out with the big bucks crowd, party with those national political figures, but without embarrassing headlines in Variety. A very nice group of people, but–and here’s my polite, brotherly disagreement–as a secret organization they have only an indirect effect on the culture. They can’t hold screenings, buy ads or invite the public to see a new idea. (On the other hand, they can do a lot in private we can’t do in public; sometimes being Bruce Wayne is a good thing.)
–Overtly cultural, not narrowly political and above all, public. We have put on presentations here and overseas. Our board was always public. (On the other hand, we gave up most outward partisanship; old fashioned, Truman and JFK-type Democrats were never chased away.) We never hid how conservative we were, and the films spoke for themselves. But like Fox, we claimed to be the fairest and most balanced film organization giving out recognized awards.
All of those approaches have their uses.
Not to beat the dead gay marriage horse again, but I’m comfortable around gay people and gay couples too. I still don’t think public marriage policy should have been changed because changing it obliterates any pretense to the institution being for the public good. As Justice Kennedy’s opinion makes clear it is now entirely for the benefit of the individuals involved with any public good being incidental, whereas I think it should be the other way around with any individual benefit being incidental (and, by the way, quite achievable by individuals with or without the public institution).
I’m not very worried about anyone making explicitly “conservative” movies, because good movies are always, by their very nature, “conservative.” At it’s core, any good story is about the conflict of good and evil. And good is supposed to prevail. That is a very conservative message, no matter how much money the director donates to Hillary.
Okay, here goes:
Stipulating that I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, religious liberty is a much broader and more important subject; it is, therefore, far more important than SSM.
Wanted to address this separately. The problem here is not that the government is abridging the religious exercise rights of a group of nuns (though it is doing that, too). It’s that it’s mandated that we all indirectly pay for contraceptives, which is a stupid, useless, and big-government solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
That’s why these RFRA-type solutions seem so wrong headed. According to them, it’s absolutely impermissible for Little Sisters of the Poor to have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives, but totally okay — or, at least not so terrible — for everyone else to. Sandra Fluke should have no moral claim whatsoever on any of our wallets this way and it sort of burns me that we’re trying to solve this by asking the government to evaluate whose conscience it’s okay to violate rather than opposing the imposition on principle.
Thanks Tom. I know you don’t believe they are mutually exclusive, but by claiming it’s about “equality” and that it’s bigotry to be against it, they are succeeding in marginalizing people and institutions–especially churches–that don’t support it. The legal academy thinks religion should get no special consideration, and they use gay rights as their most effective weapon. They think they have won and they are in no mood to be tolerant. We’ll see what happens, but I am not hopeful. Those who wish to adhere to the Bible are in for a rough, rough ride. I wish you were right, but it sure Doesn’t look that way from the forefront of the legal academy.
I really think it is. The ego is attached to the in utero phase of human life now.
“that was me, therefore this is somebody else.” My ego exists therefore so does others’.
Yes, I’m glad you said this, Tom. I object to this being a “religious” freedom argument rather than a freedom of conscience argument, both for strategic reasons (we’re more likely to win if we include non-believers) and for the fact that it’s just. Everyone should have conscience protections.
What $140,000 pictures? “Spotlight” cost $20,000,000 plus distribution. And even that, an Oscar winner, has a limited social ripple.
Television series have a more pronounced and sustained cultural footprint than small features. I credit this to the talent and experience of television’s writers.
The best writers of TV dramas spend years on series staffs (or scripting features) learning the tricks of the trade, impressing their peer group by mastering technique. A full, proven set of storytelling skills, vetted by professionals, plus a decade of experience precede the opportunity to shape a major piece of the culture.
Yes, a “let’s put on a show in the barn” entrepreneur now has crowd-sourced funding and new distribution options. Still, major cultural influence is earned by career-long commitment to creative work. The compensation to match the top story-telling talent remains concentrated among the networks and studios, existing and emerging.
Breitbart said politics is downstream from culture. You could add that cultural influence is downstream from creative technique.
You can still sell low budget English language comedies and dramas for overseas TV if you have the usual production elements (nice scenery, naughty, but censor-friendly jokes, attractive young actors) and if you meet a low price point. $140,000 is an average of what I’ve seen quoted for a minimally sale-able 30 minute, so I’m using it as a baseline.
I’m not sure we disagree. Of course the vast bulk of US investment in creative media is big money stuff driven from the top. My point is that no one starting a career starts there, unless their uncle runs CAA; they start self-funded and if they’re talented and lucky, a local soda bottler or drug store chain owner “invests” in that first feature. Until that first film gets made, they can’t approach the big boys.
The OP is about social conservatives. I’m not trying to threadjack it, just pointing out that the kinds of entertainment SoCons want may have to be self-made, and that this is in fact possible. Those folks know that Lion’s Gate and Regency are not going to help them out.
Tom and WC–Absolutely, conscience should be protected, and no one should have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraception. A few hundred years ago, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion would have been virtually indistinguishable. No more. Conscience is regarded as more personal, while religious freedom has a personal and a corporate component. But they are co-dependent for many people–religion is the source of conscience for many of us, and we join with an organized religious group to act upon our conscience and celebrate its principles. We need both freedoms because we need to exercise conscience in individual and group settings.
It is also important to remember that religious freedom is central to limiting government. The idea of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s is central here–it tells us that there are different spheres and limits, and it puts something–God and religion–on the other side of the line. Otherwise, what is there to stop government? The harm principle is no help because it falls apart without some way of saying what harm is. There’s no authority (like God) to determine this. So yes–freedom of conscience is vital, but it is not the same as freedom of religion, which is essential if you want to limit government, as I know you do.
The left characterizes any opposition to anything on their agenda as evidence of deep-seated hatred. Disagree with Obama and you’re a racist. Disagree with open borders and you’re a bigot. Cringe at the sound of Hillary’s screeching and you’re a sexist.
But none of that means that there are no real instances of hatred, bigotry, or sexism. In my experience, the libertarian position in favor of same sex marriage is based entirely on the belief that government should not be in the business of deciding who can get married to whom. But that doesn’t mean that, in the course of discussing the issue, we do not occasionally run into actual bigotry, and it doesn’t mean that we have to be blind to bigotry when we see it.