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’ve never understood what we mean by social issues. Religion? Welfare? Abortion? Euthanasia? Civil Rights, Culture in general? Education? How can you be a libertarian if you do not put mankind and human dignity at the center. Hayek, who many consider one of the origins of libertarianism, put inherited notions of right and wrong, the role of family and religion at the center of things even though he is not a believer, much like Camille Paglia on the other side of the political divide puts these things in the center.
See they are gone. Read that first comment, that’s all you need to know that “Bible Thumpers” will have no place in any realignment. You could also read the thread to Tom’s piece about the preacher advocating execution for homosexuals–he didn’t–just before introducing Cruz–it was the day after not immediately after.
Don’t understand your point.
That’s a good point, and I certainly don’t have a good answer. My guess is it’s those issues where average opinions often correlate with religious affiliation. As you’ve said, though, you don’t have to be a believer to see the importance of so-called social issues.
I love the SoCons, especially those on Ricochet, but until they can reconcile themselves to federalism and understand their priorities should be reconciled at the state level and some states will choose differently (California) I fear social conservatives and conservatism is destined to wander the wilderness.
The goal of social conservatives should be to get the federal out of the way so they can further their mission, individually, in community, and at the state level.
I think it was Robert McReynolds commented once that the way forward is to be a federal libertarian and 10th amendment social conservative. He will correct me if I have this wrong.
I say this as a former socon and someone very sympathetic to the social conservative cause.
Social issues are outside the influence of the political process. Recent “progress” on same sex marriage, et al. were judicial fiat, or elected representatives ignoring the will of the people.
I do not believe that politicians actually influence culture. They are influenced by it. And as long as the left maintains its hegemony over cultural production and has the power of ostracism in the public spaces (such as SJWs being able to disemploy persons with the wrong opinions), and as long as the right refuses to fight by the rules of their enemy, this will be the case.
Social issues are a political loser because they are downstream of culture and institutions, almost all of which have been dominated or hijacked by the left.
The culture war cannot be fought on the political battlefield.
Brent that is exactly right. Legislated morality can only be done on the state level so long as it isn’t prohibited by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically.
Walton I might have misinterpreted what you wrote, sorry. I will say that there are plenty of people in the Conservative Movement happy to jettison the So Cons simply because they view them as an embarrassment.
In the political context I understand them to be the 5 (+1) deal-breakers: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex “marriage”, human cloning, and religious liberty.
These had better all be in the GOP platform – regardless if it is Trump, or Cruz, or someone else as the nominee.
We wouldn’t need to fight at the federal level if the federal government would have stayed bound to the 10th Amendment in the first place.
In any case, I basically share your fear. We can’t pretend like we can change things overnight, since we didn’t get here overnight. I can’t speak for all SoCons, but I certainly wouldn’t consider myself unreconciled to federalism.
I’m a social conservative myself and beyond abortion which is an abuse of basic human rights and thus actionable from a constitutional perspective, I believe in constitutional integrity.
My social views come from my faith in Jesus. I’m grateful for this country as I’m well aware of what my brothers and sisters are dealing with elsewhere. When fellow Christians decide to impose our beliefs on others through Gov’t coercion, gratitude has turned into pride which is itself sinful. I just can’t stomach that pride has become a virtue. That is the root of all of our problems.
I think the majority of Christian conservatives feel as I do. The politicians you see clamoring for unconstitutional social laws are much like Trump. They stoke emotions like fear and hatred to more easily manipulate others. We Christians are just as susceptible to this as any one else sadly.
If a constitutional conservative came along and could speak in terms of constitutional integrity without being as derisive towards those of faith as far too many have been, I think a winning coalition could be struck with ease.
I consider myself a SoCon, and all I want is for the Supreme Court to stop dictating the outcomes.
The way to address social issues is through legal reform. Why does the Supreme Court get to “decide” abortion, SSM, and so on? The answer is because the Supreme Court has interpreted clauses in the constitution to mean that they have jurisdiction over all law, rights, morality, etc. Anthony Kennedy’s decisions constantly refer to the dignity of human persons, as if the Supreme Court has authority to define what that dignity is. The Court bases its decisions, not on the text of what the lawmakers agreed to, but on their own private ideas about what human dignity should be – as if their theory of dignity trumps the actual text of the law.
If you return the judiciary to the text instead of their personal preferences about justice, that won’t win every cultural battle for the sake of traditional morality. But at least it keeps the battle fair, and that’s all we have a right to ask for.
Social issues should be decided by society, not by 5 lawyers.
They won’t be abandoned, because they’re who shows up, especially in non-Presidential years and primaries. They also keep track of who shares their views, and who pretends to then betrays them.
As does this libertarian; on federal domestic issues, our interests are in extremely close alignment against the progressives. To the extent we disagree on state matters, it’d be nice to live in a universe where the only matters of dispute are whether we should be content to overturn Roe, or should outlaw abortion.
The most disconcerting — albeit interesting — aspect of the Trump thing is how it’s exposed how many people on the Right aren’t classical liberals at all. To be sure, there are folks who reject classical liberalism and don’t support Trump (often on the grounds that he’s an uncouth bore) and there are people who do support Trump who are classical liberals (who are making an incorrect judgement in my mind), but those two categories seem to be the exceptions.
I like this analysis. I am not sure I’ve seen evidence that libertarians and social conservatives are in close alignment, but I wish they were.
Social conservatism puts some of the “why” behind the “what” and the “how.”
Free markets to the ends of greed and gluttony, and liberty to the end of libertinism are a hard sell to anyone past about 25.
Very interesting and well thought out. I call myself a traditional conservative since it encapsulates more than the social issues, but I would say I’m closer to the social conservatives. Yes I think social conservatives would be the odd man out under your scenario. But then we would have to try to splinter what’s left of the religious Democrats and merge with them. I still run into them.
One place I might quibble: What you call the Trumpian big government presidency would be no different than any of the past Republican presidents, with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge. Even Reagan, despite his rhetoric, was a big government conservative.
I may be off here but I envision the Trump presidency to be more conservative than the hysterical commentators have envisioned.
Excellent statement! 1000 likes for it, if I could give them to you. I have to try to memorize it.
I see some of the fusion in myself. I want government constrained and limited so moral decisions for me and mine are made by me, not by someone in Port Orchard (county seat), Olympia, or D.C. who neither knows my family nor my situations. Libertarians say “leave me alone” while socons say “so that I may live my life according to my values.” Both can tend to overreach, but marrying the two concepts is, I believe, a key to understanding how our founding fathers thought about the individual and his relationship to government.
Social conservatives will have exactly the same electoral power as any other group in a diverse democracy, and it will be based solely on their numbers. One person, one vote.
Whether they use that power wisely is another question. If they want to waste their electoral power by throwing hissy fits over their party’s failure to “fight” by pulling stupid political stunts (like shutting down the government, to no purpose), or over their party’s failure to “win” on issues that are self-evidently unwinnable given the make-up of the government in power, then the social conservatives will have rendered themselves irrelevant. Don’t go blaming libertarians. I’m guessing that libertarians are the most anti-Trump demographic there is.
This is certainly in the realm of possibilities, but with Trump so are many other outcomes. We simply cannot know. It’s like riding a roller coaster for the first time: you really don’t know if you’ll like it until you crest that first rise.
Tom, I think that people who think about these things and side with Trump are just settling for the least of two bad choices. Do you think Hillary as president is going to advance classical liberalism? 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.
Does fighting on the cultural front preclude the political? On some issues, I agree that it’s so unfashionable to hold the conservative position that you risk losing everything.
My point isn’t so much that every conservative politician needs to fight every social conservative issue at the federal level right now. Rather, I’m saying that if you abandon the principles that are at the core of “social conservatism”, over time you lose the ability to express why anyone should care about limited government, federalism, etc.
Again, you are a mind reader.
I’ve am unable to recall much
respecttolerancecivil engagement with social conservatives by the libertarians within Ricochet. But then I’ve only been around for about a year … perhaps in the early years there was some civilized discourse/alignment.Yeah, I hear you. It really is a roller coaster.
There’s a lot of libertarians who wholly embrace the latter notion. I want to live and participate in a moral society; I’m a libertarian because I want the state hemmed in to matters of force and fraud so that will flourish.
I hope that’s the case, but my reading of the current race is that there are fewer and fewer of those people.
Actually I might take my comment back that social conservatives are the odd man out. Given policing issues, foreign affairs issues, religious issues, military issues, it could be the Libertarians are the odd man out. Other than Rand Paul, where have Libertarians ever won anything, or represent any sizable part of the electorate? Values, not relativism, always wins the day at the voting booth.
Yes but when the majority of people in a Democracy support a set of values (opposition to gay marriage, for instance), then they want them encoded as part of the culture, and the only way to do that is through legislation. Hemming the government from that becomes moral relativism.
In the early years? Hahaha.
The early years around here were a rock fight interrupted only by same sex unions.
This joint has become downright boring. All we do now is chat politely about this Trump fellow.