Eric e-mailed me a link to a rant by Matthew Jarzen discussing the social conservative (socon) pull out from CPAC. I have discussed it before at The Real Enemy and Is It Religion?. Matthew, who is evidently going to college at the present time makes some points that I would like to follow up on.
One of the hardest things about being a conservative on a college campus has been trying to explain away the ridiculous positions and statements of social conservatives and how they don’t represent the GOP or conservatism as a whole. For anyone who really knows me, I despise social conservatives — who in my and many others’ mind are not conservative. Why?
Because they advocate for their brand of big government, only instead of faceless bureaucrats regulating every aspect of your life, they want faceless Christian bureaucrats to regulate every aspect of your moral life and choices. As social conservatives have become a more powerful voting bloc, they’ve driven out everyone who don’t 100 percent agree with them, which is one of the reasons why young people are driven away from the GOP and conservatism.
The irrational behavior of the social conservatives (henceforth, I will call them “moral liberals“) goes against everything Ronald Reagan stood for and preached. He was famous for saying, “If you agree with me 80 percent of the time, you’re my friend.”
I’ve been calling them “moral socialists” but “moral liberals” is close enough.
So what do I agree on with the social conservatives/moral socialists?
Fiscal responsibility, Constitutional Government (missed the Drug Prohibition Amendment), and Free Markets about covers it. You know the generally accepted TEA Party Manifesto.
…the moral liberals seem to think that some 20 percents are more important than others.
Perhaps none other than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee illustrates my point best. When he was governor of Arkansas, he supported increases in the state income tax, sales tax, gas tax, licensing fees and even a nursing bed tax. Yet, why does Huckabee still remain popular in GOP circles? It is thanks to the social “conservative” voting bloc that feels comfortable with Huckabee because he is staunchly pro-life and anti-gay.
The moral liberals will ignore that because that 20 percent is more important than the tax and spending part. There has even been talk of social conservatives leaving the GOP and forming their own party. They will make this move solely because of GOProud, whose inclusion in CPAC is both welcomed and refreshing as it brings young, fresh faces to represent and help grow the movement.
To this proposition, I say go for it. That way the moral liberals can continue to lose elections while the rest of us figure out how to grow and build the movement and the GOP so we can compete in the next 20 years.
Many in the TEA Party movement feel that getting involved in social issues will drive away some libertarians, Democrats, moderates, independents, etc.
But suppose the socially liberal, fiscally conservative guys like Rand and Ron Paul take over the GOP and win elections without the hard core socons? Suppose enough socons defect (or are already libertarian in sentiment) to make a winning coalition?
IMO those leaving CPAC over GOProud have made an unwise move. Let me put it simply: those who leave the table will lose their seat.
That dogma often leads to unwisdom is nothing new. It is a constant in history. And yet there are some who would prefer dogma to union despite the lessons of history. Isn’t there a lot in the Torah about internal conflict among the tribes leading to defeat at the hands of an external enemy? Hmmmm.
Or to put it in more modern terms: sometimes you have to join with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Try to put in a good word for Uncle Joe when you can. Say until we have defeated the Socialists and the Islamic nutters.
My good word about socons: Socons “get” economics… And my criticism: “except when it comes to their pet projects.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his world view depends on not understanding it.” – with apologies to Upton Sinclair.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
2 responses to “What If They Gave A Revolution And You Didn’t Show Up?”
I think the Huckabee analysis is wrong. It can’t be only because of him being pro-life and the disgustingly loose term “anti-gay”. He is funny, affable, charming, appears conservative, and speaks the evangelical language. When we were down to three in 2008, I was in this order: Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. My atheist liberaltarian brother was for Huckabee (final vote – Obama?/McCain?); my libertarian father was for Huckabee (McCain); my strong evangelical Christian libertarian friend was for Huckabee (Barr). They still all like him and consider him more Presidential than a lot of other choices. Explain that, because I rail against the man and have found very little ability to sway them.
I am socially conservative, fiscally conservative, non-libertarian, Constitutionalist and I think this characterization is more divisive than helpful.
I am not a moral socialist. Most of these people can be found on Democrat side of the aisle, but the pro-life ones are primarily on the Republican side.
Bottom line, you think you have the table. You think you are conciliatory and pragmatic, but you are being just as dogmatic and pig-headed as those you criticize. Admit that the 20% has way more complexity and options than just a Christian bureaucrat/theocrat alternative.
My opinion is that this is an opening negotiating position. It strikes at the core of these people, but ultimately, if the right formula is found, they will come back. If CPAC wants a replay of the Log Cabin Republicans and an elevation of “sexuality equality” at the expense of other rights (deprioritized, not eliminated), then we do have bigger problems. To me, that is a hill I would not like to see the Republic fall on.
pwr,
I’m going to cross post a bit I did at Power and Control. In the mean time:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/02/difference.html
A very wide segment of the American population thinks like that.
Speaking the Evangelical language is good for winning the Nomination. To me it is screeching chalk on a chalkboard. And there is a “we are right and you don’t count” attitude that goes with it that I find insufferable. It is a mirror image of the left. Nanny Staters all.
BTW it is my experience that morality and character develops by allowing people to make mistakes and then making it as easy as possible to recover. The nanny staters are destroying the American Character in the name of saving it.
My point? A winning party will stick to:
Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutional Government, and Free Markets.
And you must have missed this point in my post: If the socon drop outs had any sense they would join with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Alone they have 80% of the strength to do the job. It is not enough.
====
Would Jesus suggest political solutions for moral problems? Or would he work to change people’s hearts and leave politics to the politicians? Another way of looking at “Render unto Rome….”
And it would be nice to see socons admit that their union with progressives was not helpful. It gave us Prohibitions and Public schools. A study of the genesis of the Catholic School System might prove instructive.
Since those heady days responsibilities have been divided. The Progressives now do Economic Socialism and the Socons do the Moral Socialism. Nanny Staters All.
And yet I’m willing to join with the nanny staters of the right to destroy the socialists. My motto? Hitler first, then Stalin.
And you do understand that once economic socialism is gone the people will turn on the nanny staters of the right. The death of Economic Socialism will lead to the death of Moral Socialism. I don’t think the reverse order would work. For sure not as well.