Is Social Conservatism the Problem?
Both Ramesh Ponnuru and Rod Dreher make the case against scapegoating social conservatives for recent Republican defeats. Though they both come from very different places — Ramesh is a rock-ribbed Reaganite and Rod is an unorthodox Aristotelian — they reach a similar conclusion.
Here Ramesh replies to John Avlon’s contention that Republicans should “reconnect with independent and centrist voters who are fiscally conservative but socially progressive and strong on national security.”
Avlon is mistaken in thinking both that all centrists are social liberals and fiscal conservatives and that all people who talk about “the center” have this type of voter in mind. The latter mistake accounts for his recruiting of Lowry to his side of the argument. The notion that “a balanced budget and flat tax” plus abortion rights is a formula for political success, meanwhile, borders on the fantastical — particularly when you bear in mind that keeping both economic promises would require either tax increases on the middle class or massive spending cuts.
Avlon has also cited a 2007 Kaiser Foundation/Washington Post study that suggests that independent voters are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on abortion and same-sex marriage. But that very same study showed that only 16 percent of independents match the profile of fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters that Avlon wants Republicans to court.
Though Rod focuses on a somewhat broader set of issues, he writes:
White evangelicals (and, to a lesser extent, Mass-going Catholics) are the GOP’s backbone. Just more than a third of President Bush’s 2004 vote came from white evangelicals — and they turned out for McCain in comparable numbers. Cut social conservatives loose and you get a GOP that, as blogger Daniel Larison archly puts it, is “the party of all the remaining Episcopalians, Californians and New Yorkers who prefer lower taxes.”
Both agree that upper-middle-class soft libertarians are not the “ducks” Republicans should be hunting. I agree with both of them, but with a small caveat. Like Ramesh and Rod, I think the Republican should be the more culturally conservative party. But, as I think both of them would agree, cultural conservatism is a moving target.
Younger voters are, as we all know, far more likely to support equal rights for lesbians and gays, and this is true for younger conservatives as well. At the same time, younger voters are more inclined to favor restrictions on abortion. So I think Ramesh is being a bit too harsh on David Frum.
David Frum … has recently written that a “painful change” on abortion and a “less overtly religious” message is “the only hope for a Republican recovery.” This kind of sweeping language ought to be backed up by more evidence than the critics of the social Right have yet produced.
This “painful change” doesn’t necessarily refer to jettisoning the party’s pro-life stance. Only David Frum knows for sure, but I think he has in mind changes at the edges, e.g., emphasizing local democracy. As for his call for a “less overtly religious message,” Gertrude Himmelfarb once made a related argument — religious revivals often evolve into broader moral and civic revivals, and it makes sense that that the evangelical movement is, at the elite and increasingly at the popular level, embracing a broader set of concerns. I doubt that Frum fears a Republican party composed in large part of devout religious believers — rather, I think he’s worried about the perception that the GOP has become narrowly sectarian. Note that Huckabee did very well with white evangelicals, but very poorly with pro-life Catholics, this despite a message that was arguably tailor-made for Reagan Democrats. A “less overtly religious message” could nevertheless hold fast to the core concerns of cultural conservatives.
And, as an added bonus, it could put at least some of those upper-middle-class soft libertarians at ease. Ramesh is right to suggest that this is not the crucial voting bloc. Yet it is certainly true that the number of college-educated liberals and moderates is growing at a fast clip. Republicans won’t win voters for whom social liberalism comes first, and they shouldn’t. But it makes sense to be competitive with those for whom social liberalism comes fourth or fifth after support for an open economy and cheaper, more effective government and a strong national defense. An emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity would help this along.
The problem with social conservatives as a political force is that their manifesto rises from an terrible feeling that they are surrounded by heathens and that the behavior of these heathens is dooming everyone. If you have this feeling to act means telling other people how to behave: how to raise your kids, how to have sex, who to whorship, what kind of haircut to wear, what kind of language to use. The specifics of their recommendations are based on a nostalgia for a idealized past. If people would just behave with the dignity and restraint of the Mckinnley administration (for example) we wouldn’t be in this hell-bound handbasket.
There have always been social conservatives all throughout history but the specifics of what they were nostolgic for changes from era to era and place to place. In New Guiney there is, I am sure, a social conservative party that’s platform is centered on a longing for the really long penis gourds sported by the real New Guiniens of the past. Social conservativism is not a political philosophy, but a psychological condition. The specifics of a platform are not based on rational policy designed to address current needs, but spasms directed by fear and mistaken longing. In our country in this era, gay marriage is a perfect example as are lapel flags.
Becasue social conservativism is always there in the human psyche, it is always availble for mobilization by politicians. But becasue it is based on fearful, nostolgic, catestrophic feelings and not rational responses to current situations, social conservativism is never going to have the answers to the problems of the day. Nations will have social conservative moments when the apocolyptical feeling spreads far enough, but these moments will always end becasue social conservativsim is asking the wrong questions aboutthe wrong problems and coming up withthe worng answers. We’ve had our latest moment. We have seen where it leads and it is pretty bad. That is why the message of hope, tolerance, and reason—the opposite of the social conservative psychology—was so resonant this year.
Conservatives who believe they have rational soloutions to the world’s problems—and why be a political party of you don’t believe that—should cut loose conservatives in the thrall of apocolyptic feelings, not becasue it will win more votes, but because these people don’t make sense.
— cw · Dec 3, 02:43 AM · #
“At the same time, younger voters are more inclined to favor restrictions on abortion.”
Please tell me where you, Ross and Ponnuru are getting this from Reihan.
I have seen ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE OF THIS.
In the Hamilton poll 70% of young voters said they would not PERSONALLY have an abortion, but 60% of those same young voters said they SUPPORT ROE V WADE.
— matoko_chan · Dec 3, 04:31 AM · #
it makes sense to be competitive with those for whom social liberalism comes fourth or fifth after support for an open economy and cheaper, more effective government and a strong national defense.
But that’s the problem, or so it seems to me: people don’t believe the GOP can actually provide these things, anymore. Whether they ever could is being relegated to irrelevancy. Amid all of the questions about demographics, socons and theocons, acceptance of gay lifestyle and gay marriage, college education and elitism, cultural cues, etc, I’ve seen an unwillingness among many Republicans to countenance this possibilty: voters don’t believe the GOP actually provides cheaper government, they don’t believe the GOP actually provides more effective government, and they don’t believe the GOP provides stronger national defense. I don’t actually think the Republican party needs a big rebranding, I think you need to restore confidence in the old brand. But that’s just my view from the cheap seats and isn’t worth much.
— Freddie · Dec 3, 06:10 AM · #
I’d argue that the Republicans will need to learn to be persuasive again even before they get to the competence problem, Freddie. As someone who came into this game sympathetic to the right (my parents, you see), I’ve been absolutely amazed by poverty of the right’s arguments over the last seven years. Gay people getting married present a threat to heterosexual people who are married? Global warming isn’t real, er, really our fault, er, realistically addressable? We must end our addiction to foreign oil through a robust program of cutting taxes, driving big trucks, and building nuclear reactors? Liberalism is readily explainable as fascism? The strategic benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein outweighs any costs imposed in terms of American or Iraqi lives, our military strength, the public fisc, or our geopolitical standing? It’s all an inch deep and frankly embarrassing if you engage the subject in any substantial detail.
The right needs to get to a place where it can engage in sustained, fact-based argument with the left. Then it can start worrying about delivering on its promises.
— southpaw · Dec 3, 08:14 AM · #
So cw, you charge that social conservatives are nonsensical, reactionary, and disinterested in facts, then support your charge with a rant that is devoid of sense (New Guinea penis fetishes?), substance, or fact? That is as hobbled by rank assertion as the fundamentalist phantasms that you believe responsible for all that is wrong with our nation?
I cannot allow such a delicious example of the self-refuting irony of anti-fundamentalist fundamentalism go uncommented!
— Blar · Dec 3, 04:36 PM · #
I agree with Freddie, and probably southpaw as well.
Roughly, the Republican coalition is made up of (1) social cons/religious right types and (2) anti-tax/small-government/strong-defense types, with considerable but much less than complete overlap. The problem is that group (2), which is the part of the coalition that actually provides most of the people who do the governing, has lost credibility. Kicking either group (1) or group (2) out of the coalition doesn’t solve that problem; to the contrary, it just means that there is no longer a coalition.
— alkali · Dec 3, 04:41 PM · #
This bit of your essay is my starting point, “But, as I think both of them would agree, cultural conservatism is a moving target.”
Isn’t that a problem with conservatism in general, let alone the cultural Neanderthals? As I read history conservatism, at best, is just a holding action. Pick a battle, loose, on to the next windmill. The gay issue is the perfect and timely example. The evolution of gay rights is progressing at light speed. Just think of the changes in public acceptance in the last 30 to 40 years.
Conservatism offers nothing. It is stagnant. I really do not see any reason to embrace any of its views.
— Bob · Dec 3, 05:09 PM · #
I like all the points made here, but it is probably worth noting that the historical contingencies that brought together the big tent alkali describes are much weaker. From the 1970s – 90s they, anti-tax small government and social cons groups, had a lot of battles to fight together – being anti Department of Ed meant being pro home schooling, pro federalism mean being Anti Roe v Wade, anti Welfare mean being pro Personal Responsibility, anti Judicial Activism meant being anti Criminal Rights etc. etc. (all folded under the umbrella of Strong against Communism vs. for the American Way of Life perhaps). These were incredibly natural policy-based overlaps in retrospect.
Where’s the overlap on issues now? Evangelicals are dipping their toes into environmentalism while industry is gearing to fight a carbon tax. Globalization and risk transfers are teaching people that middle-class survival is just not about personal responsibility while Wall Street wants, and gets, to sell the public a trillion dollars of warrants and bonds. etc.
I’m on the other side, so if it’s there I’ll only see it in retrospect, but are there natural policy deals where everyone can get inside the Big Tent anymore?
— rortybomb · Dec 3, 05:13 PM · #
“At the same time, younger voters are more inclined to favor restrictions on abortion.”
No, that is simply wrong.
In the Hamilton poll young voters are against overturning Roe v Wade by 60%, roughly 2:1.
Coincidentally (or not, i haven’t done the maths) young voters were 2:1 against Prop 8, and 2:1 for Obama.
Pattern recognition, anyone?
— matoko_chan · Dec 3, 06:23 PM · #
Blar,
I realize that was a generalist rant, but I was talking about what I see as an aspect of human psychology. That is a pretty general topic. I didn’t give many suporting examples because I think we all can think of plenty of examples from the last couple decades of how this particular psychology plays out politcally. Southpaw up there has a nice list.
Anyway, I read what I read and then I wrote what I wrote. I am really interested in the intersection of general human psychology and politics and so that kind of stuff tends to come out. Obviously, one takes it for what it’s worth.
— cw · Dec 3, 08:18 PM · #
I’ve always found that the views of the religious right and the things that they support (bans on gay marriage, one religion over another, limits to personal freedoms based on archaic passages in the Bible) to be completely at odds with the philosophy of Libertarianism. Is it just me?
I also have found that the “small government and strong defense” argument would mean basic protection requiring induction into the military at some arbitrary point. Are we Sparta now?
— Dan · Dec 3, 08:35 PM · #
matoko_chan,
Do you think those young voters who claim they support Roe v. Wade understand what it says and its legal consequences over the past 30+ years?
Check out this discussion for more on this topic:
http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/abortion-democracy-and-compromise/
— Jeff Singer · Dec 3, 08:57 PM · #
Jeff, how condescending? Don’t know how old you are but it sure has not kept you from making a pompous and ignorant statement.
======== Do you think those young voters who claim they support Roe v. Wade understand what it says and its legal consequences over the past 30+ years?— Bob · Dec 3, 09:24 PM · #
First off, I need to share a little about myself: I am a gay Republican that has been involved with Log Cabin Republicans for several years.
I’m a little dismayed at how some of the so-called conservative reformers seem to pooh-pooh those of us who are conservative on fiscal and national defense matters, but tend to be social liberals as a part of the electorate that the GOP should go after.
Most of the gay Republicans I encounter can tell you why they are a conservative: less government and less taxes to name a few. We believe in a strong defense. We also have a strong sense of family as well. What tends to separate us from the rest of the pack, is that we tend to be socially liberal when it comes to gay rights issues such as same-sex marriage or gays in the military.
I have no truck against calls for a more family-friendly policy in the GOP. The family is the basic social unit in society and for conservatives of all stripes, it is an important institution to shore up. Having read “Grand New Party,” I would wholeheartedly agree with the ideas presented to help working class families stay afloat.
That said, I still think it is dangerous and unproductive to ignore those who call for more tolerance of gays and lesbians, which is in short supply in the GOP. While it isn’t the only thing that is important to me, it does matter to me and to countless other folks who are conservative how those who are gay or lesbian are treated.
There are many reasons why young people went for Obama,but one reason was how the GOP dealt with gays and lesbians. I have to think that there are some who are more conservative, but because they believe that Republican=bigot, they won’t pull the lever for the GOP.
My problem with some of the Reformers is to pretend that social issues are not as important as economic issues. I think both are important and I am not alone. Until the GOP is willing to be more open not only in economic issues, but on social issues like gay rights, we will lose a large chunk of the electorate.
That’s if, you all really care about that electorate.
— Dennis · Dec 3, 11:50 PM · #
I think it’s important to distinguish between (a) social conservatives who think that their social positions should be endorsed and enforced by the law of the land, and (b) social conservatives (like myself) who, in general, prefer public-sphere advocacy and persuasion to legislation.
— Alan Jacobs · Dec 3, 11:52 PM · #
Alan, if I understand you, point (b), you are against legislation to correct or change social issues. So how do you want to deal with issues that hold legislative imperium? Say, gay marriage? Many states have laws and constitutional provisions barring same sex marriage. So if the public attitude change and states wish to allow same sex marriage does that not demand new legislation or amending constitutions?
I know conservatives are against judicial fiat but this is the first time I have read of a conservative being anti legislation. I thought conservatives supported a republican form of government.
— Bob · Dec 4, 12:29 AM · #
Bob, that’s a seriously weird reading of my comment. I’ve written about these issues before, but I’m just saying that if you think a practice is bad it’s not necessarily the best thing to do to pass a law against it. Often you do better to try to persuade people to see things your way. I don’t think that view makes me an opponent of republican government. . . .
— Alan Jacobs · Dec 4, 12:46 AM · #
OK, But what happens once laws are on the books? Legislation is necessary to reverse that situation, for example voting rights law reversing Jim Crow legislation. While you can use public advocacy and try to dissuade abortion how do you use public advocacy to allow same sex marriage? That most certainly requires legislation, especially once discrimination has been legislated.
As for your previous comments, the fact that you have written about something does not invalidate my comment. This was the first time I have ever seen a conservative oppose legislation. And opposing legislative remedies is anti republican in my book.
— Bob · Dec 4, 01:22 AM · #
Jeff
Who cares? They understand it well enough to support it.
I believe in the data.
The empirical data is that young voters surveyed support Roe v Wade 2:1.
The same proportion of young voters that voted against Prop 8 and for President-elect Obama.
Reihan’s statement is simply untrue and I don’t understand why he would make it.
— matoko_chan · Dec 4, 03:10 AM · #
And I already read Schwenkler.
There is simply no incentive for compromise on the part of liberals, and it won’t happen.
Roe v Wade protects basic citizen rights just like Loving v Virginia.
The right of a citizen to hold autonomy over their own body, an’ ALSO to keep the purient troglodyte religious right out of other citizen’s bedrooms.
— matoko_chan · Dec 4, 03:18 AM · #
Alan, I did follow this link, written about these issues before Thanks. I enjoyed reading your views, not to say I agreed with every word, but a lot of it sounded right.
I’m new to this site, perhaps six weeks, so please don’t presume that every one writing you has read and committed your views to memory.
— Bob · Dec 4, 03:39 AM · #
In the taxonomy of ridiculous political breeds, Hipster Republicans – read Reihan – are about the most contorted, inbred species imaginable.
— bewildered · Dec 4, 03:51 AM · #
bewildered:
Holy Crap, they’re all Bangladeshis? Wicked awesome!
— Sanjay · Dec 4, 04:00 AM · #
I really, really just want to defend myself against one charge here — I’m definitely not a “Hipster.” I know a few Hipsters, and I’m pretty sure they’d agree with me. I am a “Nerd.” Also, I’m 99 percent sure my mother and father are not in fact cousins, though in fairness I haven’t looked too deeply into this question, possibly for fear of what I might find.
— Reihan · Dec 4, 07:28 AM · #
We’re pretty deep into this thread, but Ross has a post up trying to answer the question why kids “are no less pro-life than their elders, even though they’re more socially liberal most other fronts.” He also includes a link to Razib’s post at Secular Right which has some data.
Ross thinks the answer has something to do with philosophical argument:
I’m not so sure that’s the simplest answer. The simplest answer is that the meaning of choice no longer has the psychological force of an “urgent moral imperative” like it did in the 50s and 60s. This is because “choice” derived its psychological significance from its role as a stand-in for female liberation — and female liberation has already happened.
But now, at least for the millenials, “female liberation” is no longer a moralized issue (I’m thinking here of the evolutionary psychologist’s distinction between moralized and preferential issues). However, on the other side, “abortion” still retains its moral/instinctual potency — and probably will forever since it pulls at many natural and irrepressible mammalian heartstrings.
All of which means that the moral balances have shifted. The meaning of the act now weighs heavier than the meaning of the choice.
(Note: this will probably remain the case unless/until the legal fact of minimal choice is removed; if that happens, the balance will reset to its previous position.)
— JA · Dec 4, 06:22 PM · #
Look, it is much simpler than that.
It is about citizen rights.
Youth voters for Obama 2:1
Youth voters against Prop 8 2:1
Hamilton poll data— youth against having an abortion themselves 70%
Hamilton poll data— youth support Roe v Wade 2:1
Conservatism can still be the prolife party, Reihan.
But you have to give up on legislating it.
— matoko_chan · Dec 4, 09:12 PM · #
Oh, excuse me, “metro”-cons.
— bewildered · Dec 5, 05:03 AM · #
I do kinda agree with what JA says here—
“However, on the other side, “abortion” still retains its moral/instinctual potency — and probably will forever since it pulls at many natural and irrepressible mammalian heartstrings.”
But in statistics we actually call it Yuck Factor Bias.
— matoko_chan · Dec 5, 12:09 PM · #
bewildered, I think you need to get into the Christmas spirit. Bah humbug to you too!
— Reihan · Dec 5, 04:41 PM · #
I’m late to this thread, but I’m mostly in agreement with Dreher/Ponnuru—it’s kind of weird that with an unpopular war, recession economy, an incompetent president, and a VP nomination that reminded us of said incompetence that anyone would try to blame social conservatism itself for McCain’s failure. That leg of the stool is the only thing that kept the GOP in the game this round.
It does seem to me that social conservative rhetoric got a bit more exclusionary than usual this season (arguing over which parts of Virginia count as “real America”, for example.) But fixing that doesn’t require you to change your platform, it just requires some people to stop being jerks.
— Consumatopia · Dec 5, 05:56 PM · #
You’re right… Praise Jesus, Our Lord and Savior. Reihan, have you accepted Jesus Christ into your heart?
— bewildered · Dec 5, 10:28 PM · #
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
— John Lofton, Recovering Republican · Dec 9, 11:09 PM · #