Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Sanford, social conservatives and libertarians

Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 10:17
in

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.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

Max's response to Henke

Submitted by Max Borders on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 12:31.

Henke: "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."

Hmmm, so Jon it looks like you're concluding that since no one group in history has adopted a harm principle, we'd better rest on the default position which is what? To legislate morality? To make our bed with those who would control our personal lives and enforce their moral values upon us? I still don't understand what you're trying to show by bringing in libertarianism, however internally consistent. 

My argument about purging the right of social conservatism is, as another blogger's friend said, to "lose the morality agenda." I emphasise agenda. I'm not asking people to forego their values. I'm not suggesting that people on the right be less "moral," whatever that means. What I am suggesting is that, for it to be a part of a political platform, it recommends policy. And policy is about control--unless one's policy is to keep government out of bedrooms, homes, churches and communities. That's my policy. And, well, that is the libertarian policy. So we've come full circle. If your "logical" alternative is simply to say that the world is unprincipled and vague and desires control so the Right, or better, Republicans should continue to focus on moralizing and rectitude? I don't see very much practicle in that. How about a little room for pragmatism? The Right has branded itself with rectitude its members simply can't live up to. That is a recipe for failure. Just look around you. 

Finally, I take issue with your philosophical musings on a principle of harm. The whole point of such a principle is that it peaceably reconciles diverse lifestyle choices and values, i.e. of people's conceptions of the right and the good. As long as you don't harm me in your religious or sexual practices, we can coexist. What is impracticle about that? If your answer is that humanity hasn't done a very good job of it, well, then we can say that about humanity's track record of respecting person and property. The Left, too, should get a pass then? Might as well not critque them for redistributing our resources to corporate cronies and subsidizing poverty. If that's your argument, why bother with any of this activism, politics, blogging, etc? A harm principle is the rule-basis for pluralism--a condition of diverse values, peace and coexistence. Toleration is the virtue that supports those rules.

And one more thing...

Submitted by Max Borders on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 12:33.

If you don't think the moral posturings of the Falwell army of the 80s and 90s has not been a liability for the Republicans, just ask someone on the left. 

re: And one more thing...

Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 16:19.

I didn't say that.

re: Max's response to Henke

Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 16:30.

Hmmm, so Jon it looks like you're concluding that since no one group in history has adopted a harm principle, we'd better rest on the default position which is what? To legislate morality? To make our bed with those who would control our personal lives and enforce their moral values upon us?

What other group is there?  A coalition of people who support the harm principle is statistically insignificant.  Heck, a majority of libertarians don't support the harm principle.  They can't even agree on what constitutes harm.

Conscientious objection is a legitimate choice, but I don't think libertarians get ahead by refusing to participate in the political system.

If your "logical" alternative is simply to say that the world is unprincipled and vague and desires control so the Right, or better, Republicans should continue to focus on moralizing and rectitude?

I didn't say that.  What I did say was that the Right's coalition is composed of groups with a few very different priorities and agendas, and we all have to figure out how to accomodate that in a way that works for enough people that we can accomplish something.

Finally, I take issue with your philosophical musings on a principle of harm. The whole point of such a principle is that it peaceably reconciles diverse lifestyle choices and values, i.e. of people's conceptions of the right and the good. As long as you don't harm me in your religious or sexual practices, we can coexist. What is impracticle about that?

It's a perfectly good personal philosphy. I basically support that. But, as I said in the post, it doesn't give you any guidance on how to cope within our political system.  The harm principle describes an ideal, theoretical social system; it doesn't suggest any way to get from here to there.

Social conservatives and

Submitted by Corey Mull on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 12:28.

Social conservatives and libertarians do have some common interests.

Name one.

Yes, please

Submitted by jaydedman on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 17:47.

I'd love to hear what Libertarians and "social conservatives" have in common.

I loathe social conservatives more than liberals.

Submitted by Einzige on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 16:30.

The New Fusionism of the future will be political alliances between progressives and libertarians - foreshadowed in a way, perhaps, by the New Democrats of the '90's? - to check the encroaches of big-government populism fueled by a hidebound theocraticism.

The Reagan coalition is finished; the ultimate result of this crisis will be its fracturing along lines almost the inverse of that of the Democratic Party beginning in earnest in 1968. What emerges from the new order will look very different, indeed, and no self-respecting, ideological libertarian of the future will even think of sacrificing his vote to a Party controlled by the likes of Mike Huckabee.

A gay perspective . . .

Submitted by conservatarian on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 18:46.

Let me say at the outset that I am a lifelong Republican who was drawn to the party back in the heyday of 1984 because of Ronald Reagan and his message of peace through strength on military issues, lower taxes and less government with regard to the economy, personal responsibility in life's decisions and a healthy respect for minimal divisions within his party's governing coalition at the time. I became a Republican because of three primary things - foreign policy, economics and a fervent belief in my country's future promise. Reagan personified all of that optimism that we, as a nation, so desperately needed then.

Notice here that I completely left out social issues. Why? For the simple fact that at the time I was only 17 years old and hadn't dealt with the deeply personal and painful reality of being gay in a rural, conservative enclave of the South. I just knew that I loved the Gipper and what he stood for. I knew that my politics were shaped by his leadership, by the GOP's overall worldview and that's all I considered relevant back in those days. When I finally came out of the closet, so to speak, and acknowledged being gay a decade ago, I began to examine where that life-changing decision fit in with my long-held beliefs on everything from tax cuts and affirmative action to defense spending and welfare reform. It forced me to do some major soul searching and what resulted is still being worked out inside my head and heart. Do I focus on the fact that I am unable to marry my loving partner of nine years, in part because my own party is, in my estimation, eerily strident on this question, or do I continue to look at a broad range of issues and vote accordingly because, after all, that is what I've always done? It presents a dilemma, indeed a moral challenge to my own conscience. I suspect there are millions of other gay Republicans who have had the same experience.

When my Democratic and liberal friends chastise my politics and suggest I'm being untrue or self-hating by voting GOP and supporting its overall platform, I often point to the reasons I gave above for becoming a Republican in the first place as the rationale that counts. But, it is increasingly difficult, if not mind-boggling to offer this explanation when there are so many examples of social conservatives waging war against the gay community. All you have to do is look at each instance when so-called marriage protection amendments are offered up around the country - who is leading the charge typically? You got it, Republicans. Oh, sometimes they'll throw in a token Democrat and there's always a right-wing minister or two on hand to make their supposedly biblical stance on preserving God's law. But, it's usually elected GOP leaders who make the point of being, in my view, divisive at best and in some cases hateful. The argument always seems to be framed in moral or just terms, so long as the case is being made by those who trumpet themselves as speaking for 'normal' or 'upright' folks against the lesser among us. It is impossible to fight that battle because you're automatically labeled as a closet liberal Democrat for daring to say that gay people should be treated like, well, human beings and fairly.

Now, you are likely wondering what in the world this has to do with the previous posts. Well, it's very simple. The Republican coalition that held sway for the better part of two-plus decades is shrinking as the nation's demographics change and shift. We have to find a way to reach out to the burgeoning Hispanic vote, and NO, that doesn't mean convincing them that the only immigration reform is to round folks up and toss them out of the country. The issue is far more complex than that. We have to make better connections with African-Americans (and that, too, doesn't necessitate bashing gays out of some dim hope it will somehow convince this group of voters that Republicans are better people). We have to figure out a way to attract younger Americans, just like Reagan did. They are far more supportive of gay marriage equality and yet are more pro-life. Interesting. I say all of this because the GOP finds itself at the crossroads. It can either adapt conservatism to meet the issues of today in realistic terms with solutions that are all-encompassing or continue to allow a sliver of its coalition to bully everyone else by using so-called religious convictions as a weapon of choice, except when that weapon produces yet another self-inflicted wound. One of these days, it will mean the death of this party. The choice is clear.

Conservatarian, I can sympathize with you.

Submitted by Einzige on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 23:00.

I have been known, in the past, to enjoy a toke or three from the sweet leaf; in fact, one of the things that initially attracted me so to the libertarian movement was its (perceived) broadness of acceptance for social diversity and tolerance for the freedom, within limits, to chart a life-course of one's own design.

Now, however, in the dark winter of our civilization, I see that Dionysian acceptance is slowly and steadily being replaced by populism - by an ugly form of populism, one which says that gays or blacks or drug users aren't worthy of the same liberties enjoyed by the WASP male, that we ought to conceed on moral issues - and may I remind my right-libertarian comrades that a society that surrenders its civil rights soon surrenders its market rights? - and one which appeals to the lowest common denominator, to the man who hastens himself to attach to the religious hierarchy at the hip, because he is too weak to strike out on his own.

We cannot go on being slaves to an ideological regime that wants nothing we have to offer save our vote. We must make our presence felt and heard among all lovers of freedom. We must look for new and experimental ways to make our voices heard, and new political alliances that, in the near future, might be more productive than the raw deal we've received today. If we can co-operate with the liberal progressives, and teach them while we learn, then perhaps there is a brighter future for fusionism - for a New Fusionism.

truck parts

Submitted by smithsong on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 02:45.

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Thanks for posting, definitely going to subscribe! See you on my reader. Please come visit my site truck accessories when you got time.

 

No political lessons to learn?....

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 21:05.

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

One of the major factors/tactics in the defeat of an enemy on the battlefield is that of actually demoralizing the enemy forces.  Once accomplished it's generally a simple matter to just move in and push the demoralized troops to the side.  Often without a fight.  It ought to be obvious to any observer that the GOP is a totally demoralized and defeated force.  This Sanford situation has nothing to do w/Social Conservatism vs. Libertarianism or Neo vs Paleo cons , etc, etc.  What we're seeing here is a symptom of  far  greater and deeper problems within the feckless GOP.  This is a political party that drives out true Leaders yet they embrace weak, but highly polished managers.  One need only watch Sanford's reunion news conference to see the face of a defeated GOP in full retreat.  And Ensign, at a time when we need all the positives we can get in the state of Nevada to defeat Harry Reid, he completely lets his party and the conservative movement down.  And his nation.  And to have 7 Republicans join with Nancy Pelosi, voting for this radical, destructive Cap/Trade bill!  All symptoms of a beaten, defeated and lame political party. 

Political lessons to be learned? Too numerous to count.  But the question remains, has the GOP hit bottom yet?  Apparently they're not going to be able to turn things around until they've hit bedrock. Why? Because they don't even recognize yet that they've got a problem!  They still blame the Base (who they have contempt for).   And they're obsessed w/pointing out the wickedness of the democrats, too.   And by the time they come out of denial and face their own tragic flaw, it may very well be too late for them and for our Nation. DD

Face the future

Submitted by _Wendy_ on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 21:48.

1. Social conservatives believe that all personal behavior ought to ultimately be subject to government control. This is fundamentally irreconcilable with the core belief of the conservative movement, which is inalienable individual rights. We of the liberty faction reject the social conservatives' worldview that holds that people are so helpless, weak, and corrupt that if government did not enforce personal morality, society would fall apart. We believe that allowing the consequences of personal behavior to occur without government interference is an absolute requirement for preserving a moral culture, not a threat to it.

2. When you say, "For my part, I've come to believe that libertarianism is a personal moral philosophy, not a political philosophy," you have it spectacularly and offensively backwards. In one's personal life, one ought to be conservative. In one's political beliefs, to include the government's role vis-a-vis personal lives, one should advocate liberty. 

3. The liberty principle is precisely what is workable, especially now in 2009. Let's be honest. Social conservatives have added exactly nothing of value to the conservative movement. All their ideas, every single one of them, are wacky, controversial, impractical, and politically unpopular. Embryonic stem cells? Terry Schiavo? Really? Social conservatives are parasites on the glory and successes of the liberty faction. They do not contribute a single thing intellectually to the economic de-control agenda, and in fact, they outright attack it when they are not resisting it, even as they camouflage themselves as supporters of it (when they are coherent enough to convey any concepts at all). You know that this is a fact. Social conservatives need to be outed for their true beliefs, which are monstrous and reprehensible.

4. The liberty faction does not need to accomodate anyone or anything. We are the Party. Here is the way it goes down: The social conservatives who can, will drop the melodrama and adopt our worldview and our agenda. Those who can't or won't, will leave the Party. We cannot pretend that coexistence is possible anymore, because a host does not properly offer to coexist with its parasites. Advocating the "unprincipled" as a working solution is neither principled nor workable, for the very reason it is unprincipled. And I note that you have outed yourself as unprincipled, which I will take into account in the future.

as for your future.....

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 22:41.

mind explaining how we win any elections without winning places like ,,,hmmm.... Missouri ?

Politics is the art of the possible. Maybe that's why the likes of me think Russell Kirk was the dad of the skipper of the Enterprise

 

Here it is

Submitted by _Wendy_ on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 23:32.

It's very simple. Most social conservatives are stupid. I'm not intending to be flippant here, but their cognitive processes are all over the place. They are incoherent. Thus, they are always followers. So if real conservatives start getting louder and telling them what conservatives are supposed to believe in, they can take over leadership of these sheeple. If that sounds condescending, social conservatives have earned it.

If Republicans in the South quietly drop the social issues and dominate the airwaves, the discussions, and the intellectual space with the freedom agenda, especially as it pertains to current concerns with Obama's agenda, then social conservatives will simply go along, and then the Party and the public can co-evolve. Within the span of a few years, the actual social conservative position will lose its luster, its impetus, and its base of support, even in places like Missouri. In fact, all a Republican would have to do to win over a social conservative is state that he is strongly for personal responsibility. (Just like he is for apple pie, rainbows, and puppies). That is how stupid social conservatives are.

If social conservatives leaders still want influence, they should be told in no uncertain terms that they need to get on board the freedom train and start seeing things our way, or they can entreat the Democrats for a place at their table and see what luck they have.

The truth is that true social conservatives are a small but loud minority. They are not some fearsome "majority" without whom we cannot live, although they like to camouflage themselves as such. Social conservatives need us a lot more than we need them. I would stake everything I own on the notion that this plan will work if executed persistently. In a very real way, I already am.

Rrright.....

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 06/28/2009 - 01:48.

first we insult the voters, then they are going to vote for us.

Might I suggest your brilliant theory ignores the fact that voters can stay home or vote for third parties. 

Instead of using a broader brush than Benjamin Moore sells, how about you explain why social conservatives would benefit by becoming junior partners to the libertarians. But that would require a modicum of respect, now wouldn;t it?

A lifelong Republican (since 1980, when I was 17)

Submitted by XCon on Sun, 06/28/2009 - 02:14.

Not anymore.  Now, I think I was probably mistaken all along.  I went along with things I despised, the War on Drugs, [garbage] "constitutionalism" (thank God Robert Bork was borked), targeting gays, cops-are-always-right cover for targeting minorities.  On and on.

Conservatism never provided me a thing, materially or spiritually.  And libertarianism is irrelevant.  All the great places to live in America have no conservatives or libertarians in charge.  

What if we were wrong?  That is the question.   Like I said, I think we were.  For me it was a fairly slow process, but it hit suddenly when I realized that conservatives never are on the right side of real justice issues, civil rights and environmentalism, in particular.  

Who cares about Gov. Sanford?  I don't.  Newt?  Are you kidding me?  Michelle Bachmann?   At least she's smarter than Palin, but she's nuts. 

I split my ticket for the first time in 2008.  Tim Pawlenty was the only Republican I would have voted for since, but after he vetoed a medical marijuana bill, he's done with me now.   

It's not just social conservatives, it's the business whores, the perma-hawks, George Will and Rush's hatred of blue jeans, the rednecks, and the Amway idiots. 

What are they good for?

Submitted by XCon on Sun, 06/28/2009 - 02:20.

"Social conservatives have added exactly nothing of value to the conservative movement."

Except lots of votes.  That's the problem. 

Sanford, social conservatives and libertarians

Submitted by dhlii on Sun, 06/28/2009 - 03:29.

Any kind of significant libertarian political influence is unlikely so long as we squabble over the political purity of our personal brand of libertarianism.

Reagan and Goldwater were conservative republicans. Reagan is particularly diefied by social conservatives, yet while neither would comfortably fit a libertarian mantle, both represented a very libertarian form of conservatism.

Social conservatives dwarf lliberals, but even together these extremes make up barely 1/3 of the electorate. The country as a whole both today and historically holds values that are more libertarian than conservative or liberal. Since Reagan the GOP has been increasingly and stupidly kowtowing to the social conservative extremes.  It is unlikely that Republicans are going to legalize pot or embrace gay marraige anytime soon. But US elections are not decided by those minorities that identify themselves as social conservatives or liberals.

Reagan demonstated that an overwhelming majority of us will support a vision of limited government, lower taxes, and stronger defense but less meddling in the affairs of other nations.

A re-emergence of a Reagan/Goldwater strain of conservatism emphasizing liberty might not be a libertarian dream, but it certainly would be an improvement over the FDR/LBJ disaster that the democrats seem intent on rejuvinating.

The 70's were supposed to have been the final nail in the Keynesian coffin. The 80's - and even 90's proof of the soundness of the economic tradition Smith through Hayek. If that past history is correct the democrats are sowing the economic seeds of their own destruction. Republican's are irrelevant right now, that also means they will be blameless in what comes. If GDP is still negative, unemployment over 10% and inflation is resurgent in 2010 then the democratic surge in 2006 and 2008 will look tiny in comparision to the backlash in 2010.

I will hold my nose and vote for the most foul social conservitives if I have to to atleast restore gridlock, but my hope is that we will see a resurgence in leaders offering more than lip service to limited government. Real libertarians of whatever flavor might be nice, but a more libertarian GOP is a more reasonable possibility.

One of the reasons libertarians in the US have had limited political success is that historically american conservativism has had a strong libertarian tilt..

It is time to tell the Social conservatives, they can have lower taxes, smaller government, vouchers, guns,  and other platform issues consistent with the libertarian strain of conservatism, but they need to stick to policing their own bedrooms and private lives. That we are not looking to trade one form of government oppression for another. That freedom entitles them to convert people to their values, but not to impose those values by force. That government imposed values are wrong regardless of whether they are those of the left or the right.   

 

 

 

Even wrong about the 70s

Submitted by XCon on Sun, 06/28/2009 - 10:32.

We smoked herb more or less openly and it was Columbian Gold, not some hydroponic super-freak sativa.  Farrah was hotter than Demi.  The music was so much better than Michael Jackson and Poison.  The Grateful Dead was still still a great band, not a commercial cluster-fest of tacky tie dye and veggie burritos.

Sure, there weren't any jobs, but who cared?  I despised Carter - I still think rightly so.   But frankly, Reaganism made everything about money and almost everything truly BAD (see Paul Fussell) about America is much worse now.    We're working harder for less and less.

Jon erects a strawman

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 08:01.

He conflates "libertarianism" with anarchism. Most libertarians share the political philosophy of our founding fathers - limited government. They are not anarchists. Jon's arguments only make sense if they are applied to anarchists. (Whether he or they are correct is a different issue.)

How honest can we get?

Submitted by jaydedman on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 20:44.

I remember the subtle shift in language about 18 months ago. All the sudden the media stopped calling them "evangelicals" and replaced it with "social conservatives". Does anyone know a "social conservative" who is not an evangelical? It was obvious that the party leaders realized "evangelicals" were carrying a lot of irrational heavy baggage. 

Here's an interesting post about the evangelical's ability to believe one thing and live another way : http://bit.ly/bggpi

I find this space between belief and not-belief to be an interesting thing, and it crops up more with adolescents than anyone else.  You’ve probably been there---it’s not like suspending your disbelief at all.  It’s having the experience of believing something while functioning as if you don’t believe it.  When teenagers tell each other ghost stories, they are in this space.  A lot of urban legends rely on people entering into this space, which is why urban legends proliferate in evangelical circles.  Living in this space is encouraged in these circles, which is dangerous, because it instills a disrespect for the truth and it encourages a lot of drama and bullshit.  To make things worse, the people that are drawn to evangelical churches in the first place are often a mess to begin with, which is why they crave the structure.  But the community has come to terms with the idea that having a bunch of rules doesn’t imply that people follow them. If anything, the gap between rules and behavior is exciting, because it means non-stop drama. 

The power of conservativism is its inherent rationality. Trusting that markets work. Trusting that people are smart enough to solve their own problems within their community. Smart enough to have sexual lives without interference. 

Evangelicals, hmmm, I mean Social Conservatives do not respect truth. It poisons all rational debate. They are the drama queens in the room.