social conservatives

I tend to agree with Patrick Ruffini that Gov. Sanford should not be obligated to resign for having an affair (as distinct from his disapperance and deception of his staff).  While I think that resignation is a perfectly legitimate, even appropriate, path to take after disgracing oneself, a personal disgrace should not necessarily require resignation from one's job, whether in politics or the private sector.

Indeed, as I pointed out in the comments there, I've been trying to think of a prominent politician who resigned from their elected political office because of an affair (note: McGreevey and Spitzer resigned because of the major ethics/legal violations involved, not the affair), and the only one I can come up with is Rep. Livingston, who resigned his Congressional seat in 1999 after admitting an affair.  I'm sure there are others - probably more at the State/local level - but I can't think of them offhand.

On the other hand, I have to disagree with part of what Max Borders wrote here.

The Right is now reaping what it sowed. By making social conservatism central to its platform, it left no room in the GOP for sinners.

I don't think the backlash against Gov. Sanford has a lot to do with social conservatism.  Social conservatives do not have a unique position on adultery.  Pretty much everybody considers it immoral.  And the social conservative position on gay marriage (which Sanford shared) is not predicated on heterosexual people being uniquely faithful, either.  The appropriate criticism is not so much hypocrisy as it is failure.

Ultimately, there are no political or ideological lessons to be drawn from Mark Sanford's affair.  There are only human lessons.

I also think Max is wrong on a practical and logical level to conclude from this story that "it is time to purge the Right’s politics of social conservatism".  As a libertarian, I certainly favor the harm principle over the offense principle - that is, I think politics should focus on addressing force and fraud instead of things which are merely unpleasant.

I believe that libertarianism is a very internally consistent way of marrying the personal and political spheres, but I actually don't think it works. Or rather, it's wonderful in theory, but human nature has not adopted that theory for any large, sustained social group in history.

For my part, I've come to believe that libertarianism is a personal moral philosophy, not a political philosophy. It describes how we ought to behave individually, but it does not give us practical advice for how we can resolve social disputes in a political system.

The political system requires accomodation.  Libertarians can either disengage or they can find a way to work within a coalition.  Unprincipled?  Maybe.  But so is everybody.  That's human nature.

But there is one final, very important point: Social conservatism is basically a personal moral philosophy (or tendency), as well.  As Hayek said of conservatism, "It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments."

Social conservatives also need to accomodate libertarians.  That does not mean they must minimize their objections to immorality, but it does mean they are going to have to accept fewer litmus tests and, if trends hold, a somewhat less decisive role within the Right's coalition.

Social conservatives and libertarians do have some common interests.  The Right's coalition has worked best when they have focused on those common interests and left the rest to the social and personal spheres.

Why is it that when one lone moron goes off the rails and does something henious you get a chorus of voices crying out how this proves that socially conservative views don't belong in the Republican party?  If you want to remain a minority party then go ahead and throw out oppostion to abortion and a preference for male female relationships over homosexual ones.  The social conservatives have been told for year after year to suck it up and vote republican because, after all it's better than the democrats and what choice do you have anyway?  Now they are proposing to jettison everything that makes the R's distinct from the D's on the social side and they think that wil lead to victory?  In fact what it will lead to (and indeed what it has been leading to for some time now) is religious voters staying home and voting for none of the above or even the creation of a spoiler party catering to the religious vote that insures that the Republicans stay out of power for a long, long time.

But go ahead folks.  Show me and millions of others that you don't have a clue as to how to build coalitions and how the party must be purified from all those nasty conservatives and let's see how toothless and useless you will be until you wake up one day and realize that you've destroyed yourselves and much of the country in the process.

Oh and I see denunciations of "legislating morality".  That phrase has got to be one of the most asinine phrases in the whole of human history.  How are any laws not a legislation of morality?  Spend 5 minutes reflecting on the fact that a law is only passed to stop people from doing what they otherwise would do and you will realize that is a pretty straightforward definition of "legislating morality".

Despite serious problems with the position, there remain people for whom it is true Evangelicals and other “Christians” cost the GOP the election in 2008.  The question must be asked why, when no data supports such an opinion, do people continue to hold it?  To be sure, some dislike that Christians believe in Creation and not Evolution and that homosexuality should be sinful and not celebrated.  But where is the political division in such views? 

If Christians hurt the GOP this cycle, then in prior elections: A) the GOP was primarily a haven for FisCons who are now being driven out by SoCons and their issues; B) key issues were more secular than religious or values based, and ; C) revulsion for Christians arose, basically overnight and with no warning, driving FisCon swing voters out of the GOP.  Let’s consider these points.

A - Fiscal Conservatism is, indeed, a draw to the GOP due to fiscally conservative planks in its platform.  Some FisCons are socially Moderate or Liberal and, thus, disagree with Socially Conservative FisCons.  This duality has existed for years.  If Fiscally Conservative yet Socially Moderate or Liberal voters abandoned the GOP in 2008, they did so because the GOP abandoned Conservative fiscal ideology as evidenced by budget items like Medicare and Bailout spending, not because a longstanding “live and let live” agreement with SoCons suddenly flared into a civil war.

B - Consider the terms “Values Voters”, “Moral Majority” and “Religious Right”.  They support the view of a strong contribution from Christians to the political process, past and present.  One can still debate the matter, of course, but however the question of SoCon political significance is answered, it refutes the premise Christians harmed the GOP in 2008.  If they were not influential from 1980 through 2004, where did they gain the power to derail the GOP in just 4 years?  If momentum is now in their direction, why alienate them?  Wouldn’t prudence dictate courting them?  If they were influential in 2004 and before, then “A” above applies and the origin of any rift is elsewhere.  Either way SoCons didn’t drive FisCons out of the party in contempt for ignorant, religious cousins.

C - Is there then a Republican rift so serious it may have cost the GOP the election?  There is, but not in the way it is being spun.  It does not exist between Conservative Republicans and Christians.  For the most part they share fiscal and social positions.  The rift is between Liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans, including Christians.  It is Liberal GOPers proclaiming Christians as the culprit.  The strategy is to use religion within the GOP to divide secular Conservatives and religious Conservatives leaving secular Liberals to divide and conquer all Conservatives.

Secular Liberals hope to change the basis for coalition from fiscal issues to social issues.  They prefer the cornerstone be Social Liberalism with a welcome to Fiscal Conservatives than Fiscal Conservatism and a welcome to Social Moderates and Liberals.  That they do so using religion as the wedge is a classic implementation of the pragmatic philosophy emodied in the adage, “My brother and I against my cousin.  My cousin and I against my enemy!”  Secular Conservatives should be wary of this olive branch and wonder when Secular Liberals will come for them with no one left to object.

The question I’ve pondered is, “Why this wedge and why now?”  I found my answer in the biblical description of God as “the Lord God Almighty, Who was, and is, and is to come.”  Those pushing Christians out of the Party are comfortable with the God Who “was”.  That God is a fairy tale good for morality plays but with no claim on current morality.  Likewise, the God Who “is to come” is a fairy tale valuable as a threat.  Gone for years and not expected back today, He can be used to club the faithful and to strip their allies from them.

What is problematic, however, is the God “Who is”.  If Christianity exists in a positive light, people will ask about the God “Who is”.  They’ll find the backstory of the God “Who was”.  They’ll find the happy ending of the God “Who is to come!”  The authority of the God “Who is” threatens Liberals, GOP Liberals included.  Rejecting God’s authority, the only remaining authority to acknowledge is their own.  This must be protected from all usurpers, real and perceived.  If that means religious people get thrown under a political bus, it’s a small price to pay.

This Christmas season, we’ve heard talk about Christ - His birth, life and death.  Most of it has been positive.  But never forget Caiphas said, of this same Christ, “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” Pharaoh and Herod also believed destroying God’s Deliverer was the path to political power, security and longevity.  History records the legacies of these men and their schemes.  Secular Liberals, injecting that same ant-Christian vein into today’s “politics that is”, won’t fare any better.  In fact, biblical accounts of this behavior in the “politics that was” should serve as a warning for modern practitioners.  The “politics which is to come” don’t always turn out as you expect if you remove the God Who is.

Without doubt, there are other factors at work, as well.  But to those ridiculing Christians for believing God speaks to them in their hearts; to those who can’t understand how that could happen - try reading the headlines with what the Book calls “an ear to hear”.  You never know what you might hear if you are listening for it.

<a href="conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse">Blue Collar Muse</a>

We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).

Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.

This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument." 

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."  

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."

Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts.  Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)

So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.

• Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me").   This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.
• Huckabee makes little distinction between religion and politics: It's not that he's religious.  It's that Mike Huckabee appears to be incapable of drawing a meaningful distinction between religion and politics.  For instance, in 1997, Governor Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for weeks because he objected to its description of floods and tornados as "an act of God".   He explained his position on another bill by saying "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."  He has asserted a Christian duty to support other policies.  The Right desperately needs to remember that where the government intrudes, church recedes.
• Huckabee accepts the Democratic framing: Mike Huckabee seems to have far more complaints with Republicans than with Democrats.  Worse, he embraces liberal or Democratic caricatures to attack Republicans.  Whether it is his attacks on libertarians, business or the Club for Growth, Huckabee almost invariably misrepresents their views, portraying them in the same cartoon terms that Democrats like to use (see the examples quoted earlier in this post).

This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives.  So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives.  Cry me a river.  We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition.  The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition. 

Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.

Value Voters go to the airwaves.

Mike Huckabee gave a recent interview to the Huffington Post where he outlined his vision for the Republican Party:

What can the party do to reverse course?

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.

Just because fiscal conservatives and most libertarians oppose big government doesn't mean they want to throw people on the streets, have anarchy in the streets, and eliminate schools. Most fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe maintaining law and order is one of the very few things government should be doing. Most fiscal conservatives/libertarians believe private charity and the private sector are the most efficent means to deliver services like healthcare and education because government bureaucracies are inefficent, consume much of the resources that can be used to help the receipents, require burdensome taxation, and often do not have the best interests of the receipents at heart. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that there should be a safety net for those among us who truly cannot work or are old.

Finally, have the failures of 2006 demonstrated to Huckabee the need to include conservatives/libertarians in the GOP fold. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians stayed home or defected to the Democrats over excessive spending, government waste, and intrusive government in 2006 and Huckabee wants to continue this. More "compassionate conservatism" will not win elections for Republicans. Only a platform embodying the principles of limited government, Federalism, a strong national defense, and defending traditional values will put us back into power.

Taking Huckabee's advice would destroy the conservative movement.