I found an interesting comment at Nation States.
It is my perception that social conservatives are on the losing side of every major social issue and the Republicans have for the most part, lost the culture wars. So if being socially conservative is a losing proposition, does it make sense for the GOP to continue to represent their interests or is it about time for the party to abandon evangelical voters and take the party in a newer direction in order to stay relevant?
In my opinion there is no need for the Republicans to change. Death will do that soon enough.
A social conservative, Rod Dreher, agrees that social conservatism as a political force is dieing.
As a social conservative, I am as pessimistic as I’ve ever been about the future of social conservatism in US politics. It’s not because of the maladroit campaigning of people like Mourdock and Akin. It’s because of the demographic changes that this year’s election appears to lock in. Social conservatism is concentrated among older voters, who are dying off, and being replaced by younger voters, who simply aren’t socially conservative, and aren’t likely to become socially conservative (at least not as socially conservative as older, expiring Americans are). I know liberals and media figures love to say that social conservatism is a loser’s game. I don’t think that’s quite true, at least not in the way that they mean. But I think it is true that going forward, it will be very hard for a presidential candidate to win nationally if he or she is heavily identified as a social conservative. We social conservatives are going to have to figure out how to deal with that. They’re not going to be able to tell us to go away, but we are in a weak position.
No need to tell them to go away. Death will do the job without anyone having to lift a finger.
A commenter at Social Conservatives Are Smelling the Coffee had this to say:
ThaomasH
I’d say the problem is that “social conservatives” have not been trying to win the “culture wars” (awful term) intellectually. They have assumed they are the majority and tried to impose their view by political force rather than trying to argue their views.
The theory being that if you can pass laws people will be FORCED to obey them. Alcohol Prohibition puts thze lie to that theory. And Drug Prohibition is even worse. Even 95% compliance is not enough to make it work.
Another commenter there said:
tacitus
The problem is that the religious right is authoritarian in nature, as are most conservatives in the US.
That is my take as well. As long as nearly nearly everyone agrees, such authoritarianism is relatively harmless. Where it becomes problematic is when you get a significant part of the population willing to break the law. And significant is not really a great number. It is about 5%. The proof of that assertion? Cannabis prohibition. Which after 40 years has 58% of the population favoring legalization. Where does that leave the Social Conservative Party? If they follow the majority opinion on the matter they lose their current base and lose elections. If they stick with the prohibitionist position they have difficulty attracting enough votes to win elections. I have read about Democrat strategists planning to stanch the bleeding from ObamaCare by changing the subject to marijuana legalization. It will probably not help a lot in the next two national elections. But I expect it to be a factor in 2018 and 2020. Why? Because as the older generation dies out that 58% number will continue to rise. And if they base their campaign on medical cannabis they will have the backing (on that issue) of about 80% of the voting population.
Michelle Fields at Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism had some comments on the situation.
Young republicans aren’t on board with social conservatism, instead we’re seeing an unprecedented level of enthusiasm for libertarianism. Many of my conservative colleagues will argue that, “ah, this is just a phase amongst young republicans.” But being socially liberal isn’t a phase. What we’re seeing is a cultural shift that is inevitably going to force the Republican Party to make some major platform adjustments. For example, take gay marriage. Millennials have grown up a time where it’s no longer taboo to be openly gay. Our favorite films and television shows have gay characters. Some of the most prominent figures in American culture are openly gay. If you look at the polls, public opinion has moved sharply in favor of gay marriage in recent years with 76% of 18-34 year olds saying that the law should recognize same sex marriage.
She also says:
Visit any college campus and you’ll see that the most active political groups are not the College Republicans or the College Democrats. The most politically active groups are the libertarian-leaning “Student for Liberty” groups. Libertarian groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty have taken over college campuses by working non-stop to educate and groom republican students to have the charisma and speaking skills of a Marco Rubio, but the ideas and knowledge of Ron Paul.
The Republican establishment has every right to be worried about the unpopularity of social conservatism among young Americans because, as of right now, it looks as if once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism.
What would I do if I was a social conservative and I wanted to win national elections on this new playing field? I’d say something like, “On this issue I believe…, but clearly it is not a matter for the Federal Government. It should be left up to the states or the people. And I trust the people.”
You see you only have to pass laws when you do not trust the people. Or when there is an actual crime. The initiation of force against another. The commission of fraud. Or intentional carelessness. And that is about it. What you do to or with yourself is not the business of government.
It would be really nice if we had one non-authoritarian party in America that was strong enough to win elections.
Comments
27 responses to “Losing The Culture War”
All democracies drift steadily to the left because the majority gets more and more stuff. Democracies also become more and more socially liberal because the majority gets to do what it wants without any criticism. This is not libertarianism, and socialism will be the outcome.
So, the Republican Party will go extinct and social conservatives will become an irrelevant, heavily persecuted minority.
Unfortunately, all forms of socialism are either authoritarian or totalitarian, and they do and will actively suppress both social conservatives and libertarians. You can look at Canada or the European Union to see our future. They even put home schoolers in prison in Europe, and we deport them.
The Catholic Church is a favorite target for suppression in both Europe and Canada. Both the PRI and the Spanish Republicans used to hunt and kill priests. E.g., Graham Greene, “The Power and the Glory.” Whatever you might think of Catholicism (and I might agree), the Church is in for a very rough ride.
Socialists generally have a strong puritanical bent; some think that the Progressive movement is in fact a descendant of a Puritanism stripped of God. So, I fully expect that the socialists will continue the drug war and expand it. Note that tobacco is practically prohibited, and alcohol is a target.
In general, socialists and progressives are liberal only with respect to sex (and even there marxist-leninists aren’t–Castro) and puritanical on all other topics.
So you are saying that the only choice we ever had and will ever have is between stripes of authoritarians.
I’m more hopeful of a resurgence of those who favor strictly limited government. We are running out of OPM and people that a majority wants to foment pogroms against.
We did start out with at least a theory of limited government.
the majority gets to do what it wants without any criticism
I don’t object to criticism. What I object to is jails.
I was doing some thinking on this topic so I came here to see what Simon was up to and, viola, right on topic.
I am socially conservative but generally try to avoid having those beliefs inform my political leanings, especially on federal government. I think of myself as a socially conservative libertarian.
I do not indulge myself in most of the substance usages many judge to be abusive to one’s health, but I also do not think federal prohibitions against personal use is appropriate or effective. Many other personal behaviors I don’t admire, but then I just don’t have to associate myself with them and I’m content to teach my posterity these preferences and have them make their own choices.
Here’s my question for Simon. It seems that our society, in general, has to bear the costs of the significant negative outcomes of numerous behavior patterns since those who incur the negative results are typically unproductive or, at least, fall far short of average human productivity. How do we adjust this equitably?
I am aware we will avoid significant costs by not having these behaviors criminalized.
Simon, you’ve avoided answering my argument.
(For anyone who doesn’t know me, I’m much closer to being libertarian than I am to being any sort of social conservative. I’m strictly talking political strategy here, not ideology.)
The fact is, it is Libertarians and libertarians that are preventing the formation of a fiscal-liberty voting bloc, because they won’t stoop to voting for any politician who has a history of being a social conservative.
Social conservatives will turn out in droves for people like Rand Paul, but libertarians won’t vote for Ted Cruz or Rick Perry.
You can fantasize about the death of social conservatism, but (assuming you are correct about the correlation between race and 2nd or 3rd generation voting habits, of which I am skeptical) where would that leave us? That leaves us in cap’s world, where we’re sending libertarians to re-education camp.
Perhaps a truce on social issues would be more efficacious–we can fight it out later after defeating the economic tyrants.
The social conservatives entering early middle age are the last remnant of a cohort that lived their life following a moral code of conduct that was once so accepted that it did not need to be defended. And now, it cannot be defended to the new face of America.
Well, to hell with the new face. You can have the country you are creating. It won’t work in every sense of the word. I’m not going to wring my hands and wonder, “Whatever will we do?”.
They, the new face, are simply not worth wasting what little time we have left on trying to convince them of something they cannot even understand.
Have a Merry Christmas.
Social conservatives are not going to go down soon, and not without a fight. Check out this post in the Corner today, and especially the comments.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366636/drag-queens-promote-obamacare-alec-torres#comments
How disgusting are these comments? And not a single voice with the gumption to stand up to them. I would love to see a viable more libertarian party, promoting personal liberty and limited government. But I’m not expecting the Republican party to die soon. This sort of bigotry has real staying power.
Social conservatives are now the largest part of republican party libertarians who are pro choice are insignificant same with pro gay marriage. business republicans are only money providers their votes are not enough. If you take all groups that have stayed in g.o.p. they make up less then social conservatives that has why g.o.p. has become a southern party power base as mexican american vote is turning western states democrat! Midwestern states may have republican govenours in off year election but vote democrat for president and will do so in 2016 as mrs clinton is WHITE! Your libertarian anti social welfare dogma is anathama to latinos and 100,000 turn 18 voting age every month bye bye g.o.p.!
How many pro abortion republican elected officials can you name if any.
Neil,
The fact is, it is Libertarians and libertarians that are preventing the formation of a fiscal-liberty voting bloc, because they won’t stoop to voting for any politician who has a history of being a social conservative.
Rand Paul puts the lie to that. I believe the objection is to authoritarianism. It is for me.
Johan,
What you are going to miss is a strain of progressive politics (the religious strain) that is only about 100 years old (as a major national political force). They are the folks that brought us alcohol prohibition. Which tells you that they are not too smart. Not for the initial mistake but for the failure to incorporate its lessons into their world view.
SteveBrooklineMA,
I was a fan of the Cockettes when they first appeared on the scene in the Bay Area. They were hilarious. And when I went to see them I often brought my current girlfriend with me.
captain*arizona,
It would be unseemly for an official. However, I am personally pro Abortion because it is mostly leftists killing their future. And I favor that.
Perhaps a truce on social issues would be more efficacious–we can fight it out later after defeating the economic tyrants.
A truce is hardly possible if you are still throwing people in jail for “crimes”.
In fact if the use of government force was curtailed a truce wouldn’t even be necessary. I’m content to let you live as you choose if you will accord me the same respect. We used to understand that. “Mind your business” was printed on our currency.
Johan says:
Have a Merry Christmas.
There is your problem in a nutshell. I’m Jewish. You can enact your version of Christian law. However, your problem is making it stick. Black markets are one way out. Repudiation is another. Tolerance to begin with is a third.
We are coming to the repudiation phase.
So what should you do? Teach your children your moral code. Christians have done well even in eras and places where their view of how to live was a minority view. Your problem is that you are unaccustomed living as a minority. Unusual in a country that values a “Minority of One”.
Simon,
Rand Paul has only one issue in common with social conservatives, and he argues for it on the basis of libertarian philosophy. On the other hand, from what I can see, he is very careful to emphasize the commonality between libertarians and social conservatives–basically, he makes a socially conservative argument for libertarianism.
When a politician with a history of social conservatism does exactly the same thing, libertarians stay away in droves. We’re going nowhere until that changes.
There are two social conservatisms: the theocratic branch and the hereditarian branch. The biggest problem with the theocratic branch is that they have a little trouble reaching out to potential allies. I suspect this is temporary.
Neil,
Wm. Buckley used to make the same argument as Rand. Richard Cowan who helped found YAF made the same argument.
It is not my fault Republicans have strayed. The Democrats are God’s punishment. When they have been sufficiently chastised they will come around.
Republicans of the 1860s were known as the party of “freethinkers”. What has happened to them?
I will tell you what – Nixon and his Southern strategy filled the party with Christian Democrats. He turned an old Progressive idea into a crusade: Drug Prohibition. Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
If they want to be Progressives it is all right with me. But it is not going to attract my vote on any kind of permanent basis. Sometimes not even on a temporary basis.
It all goes back to the idea of ATTRACTION.
How does the party as currently constituted attract independents? Well the repeal of ObamaCare(less) will help for a while. Then what?
When a politician with a history of social conservatism does exactly the same thing, libertarians stay away in droves. We’re going nowhere until that changes.
It is a matter of trust. Can an authoritarian change his spots? I’d like some examples.
Joseph Hertzlinger,
Could you explain that?
As social conservative who cannot abide statists such as Huckabee, who see the government as a tool to inflict their ideals on everyone else. I oppose government coercion of behavior, even that with which I strongly disagree. In my opinion, there are a significant number of other liberty-minded socons. Sadly, almost none of them seem to run for office, as politics tends to attract those most in love for power over others.
I don’t pretend to know what the answer is. Simon, you mentioned “a matter of trust” being the reason why libertarians refuse to vote for former culture warriors. Think of the flip side: if, no matter what you say and/or do, you know that there’s a bloc that won’t vote for you, what is the incentive for any outreach? Seriously. A lot of socons voted for both Ron and Rand Paul, yet I don’t really see the favor being returned. To my mind, and in that of many others, fiscal conservatism is the preeminent voting consideration. If the government cannot be restrained fiscally, it will simply lay claim to everything and gather all to itself, relegating everyone to the role of serf. It seems to me that there is some common ground there, but some are refusing to see it.
physics geek:
Think of the flip side: if, no matter what you say and/or do, you know that there’s a bloc that won’t vote for you, what is the incentive for any outreach?
Don’t give us that bullshit. Most of us have voted for socons for years and been consistently betrayed. Ever heard of George Bush?
My own experience is a perfect example. I was a 21 year old kid when I was taken in by Ronald Reagan. He was running for Governor of California in 1966 and made a point of campaigning at college campuses. After being introduced by Chuck Connors, he strode on stage and gave a great libertarian themed speech, all seemingly extemporaneous. Sincerity oozed from every utterance.
Some bullet points paraphrased from memory:
The draft is involuntary servitude, no different in essence than slavery, and as such should be abolished immediately. This, this, during the buildup of the Vietnam War and speaking to 18-22 year old draft age kids.
Taxes are theft. The government should receive only the absolutely minimum amount necessary to maintain national defense, the courts, and other constitutionally allowed services. And income tax withholding is wrong in an of itself because it facilitates the easy confiscation of wealth from the citizenry. Taxes should hurt.
State mandated public education is wrong not only because it uses coercion and tax money, but primarily because it is a vehicle for propaganda. As examples he pointed out the leftist/statist ideology then so apparent on every college campus because of the Vietnam War. We had all been exposed to college professors in many fields who used the lectern as a pulpit. He promised to cut back state funding for public higher education and instead proposed something similar to vouchers.
He went through libertarian talking points and quoting everyone from Bastiat, Von Mises, Orwell, and The Founders, to Goldwater and Russel Kirk. The man was well read and sincere.
After the rousing and standing ovation, I left the gymnasium and walked downtown to the Republican election campaign office and donated what cash I had. I was hooked, just like the Obamabots of today. And what did I get?
As soon as the SOB was elected he broke his main campaign promise and conspired with the Democrat legislature to enact state income tax withholding.
Then he increased college and university funding with the new tax money. But to mollify his Republican pro-war base, he steered the new funding to college campuses where the student body had shown resistance to the sit ins and demonstrations. State colleges like Humbolt State and Chico State were showered with money. Chico State grew from a sleepy teachers college of 4,000 to over 16,000. And it became the joke of colleges nationwide as the No. 1 Party School. Money down a rat hole.
As if these betrayals weren’t enough, when the time came that his voice could be heard to help repeal the draft, he weaseled out. “Maybe in the middle of a war is not the right time,” he said.
As to his Presidency, the budget deals with Tip O’Neil, his about face on abortion, and his legacy of debt speak for themselves.
Social conservatives have shown themselves to be the untrustworthy ones, time and time again. And Reagan WAS a social conservative despite using the cover of libertarianism to get elected.
Once they get a little power, the temptation to do the “moral” thing is overwhelming. No different than leftist ideologues.
Screw both of them.
Frank,
Thanks for that history lesson. I missed a lot of that being in the Navy at the time (out in early ’67). And then I had no feeling for what went on at the colleges since I was what was called then an “outside agitator”.
I used my GI Bill money to enroll in an mail order electronics course in ’75 (I didn’t need it) and used the profits from that to get into computers.
Neil,
What you are asking from me is to support pogromists because they are more fiscally sound than the mass murderers from the other side.
Forgetting that pogroms are just the opening gambit to mass murder and financial suicide.
Newt Gingrich once proposed the death penalty for 2 oz of pot. I gave that a sentence or two here:
How To Put an End to Drug Users
Please tell me what possible attraction that kind of politics can have for a Jew? We are very culturally tuned to that sort of thing. And we don’t like it. At all.
As a Jew (Reform at that) I’m kind of an odd man out being the least bit attracted to the politics of the right. I’m totally down with fiscal conservatism. Taxation is theft. etc.
But I will be damned to hell before I give even the slightest support for any of the right’s culture war ventures.
You tell me the economy will go down faster if I don’t support the right. And I do believe you are correct. If it matters so much to you then get your compadres to change ASAP. Because I’m kind of in a Samson kind of mood. Let the whole shit house come down around me and take me with it.
Let the Right get right with God. If they want to win elections. If they intend to use government to punish sinners count me out.
Let the whole shit house come down around me and take me with it.
Yes. Enough pretending to be champions of liberty. Look where their compromises and betrayals have taken us – a slow death of freedom. Their worst sin is the growth of surveillance and the police state, which is now at the disposal of the left. In some ways it’s fun watching them squeal as the IRS and NSA are used against them for political purpose. And who wrote the Patriot Act and established Homeland Security, assholes?
Freedom is an illusion frank other wise why did ayn rand sign up for medicare when she preached againt it.
I’m not aware that you can opt out. I never signed up. Yet I’m “enrolled’.
Simon wrote;
But I will be damned to hell before I give even the slightest support for any of the right’s culture war ventures.
You tell me the economy will go down faster if I don’t support the right. And I do believe you are correct. If it matters so much to you then get your compadres to change ASAP. Because I’m kind of in a Samson kind of mood. Let the whole shit house come down around me and take me with it.
Let the Right get right with God. If they want to win elections. If they intend to use government to punish sinners count me out.
Despite being an atheist, I am moved to concur with a hearty Amen Brother!