Posted on 10/12/2006 11:55:29 PM PDT by beaversmom
With the approach of the crucial mid-term elections, and especially after the media obsession with the internet correspondence of Congressman Mark Foley, numerous liberal commentators eagerly anticipate a shattering crack-up of the conservative movement. While the outcome of the November balloting remains very much in doubt, these gleeful predictions of GOP disaster demonstrate an ignorant misunderstanding of the essential nature of the Republican coalition, and grossly exaggerate the gap between “religious” and “economic” conservatives.
Paul Krugman, for instance, New York Times columnist, bestselling author and Princeton professor, recently published a piece called “Things Fall Apart.” In it, he declared: “At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats- between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people…Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition, in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right supplied the money.”
Krugman insists that the movement will inevitably self destruct because its members don’t share a philosophy or even common aims. “The coalition, however, has always been more vulnerable than it seemed because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group’s belief that it could use the other to get what it wants,” he writes. In other words, he suggests cooperation within the conservative movement has always been self-serving, hypocritical, contradictory and cynical. He makes the fatal mistake of many ideologues: feeling so certain of his own enlightened righteousness that he can’t even acknowledge the sincerity of his opponents. “Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction but to share in the spoils,” he sniffs.
This attitude reflects the common assumption that the impassioned members of a Pentecostal church in Alabama can’t possibly endorse the same worldview as Ivy League-educated intellectuals at a conservative Washington think tank – an assumption that ignores the obvious fact that some ideological commitments cut across class, religious, educational, economic and even racial lines. The agreement on major issues that has fueled Republican successes since the Reagan Revolution is authentic and organic, not strategic or calculating.
For instance, religious conservatives support low taxes not as a sop to their economic conservative allies, but because they believe that families will make better decisions on spending their own money than bureaucrats. Inheritance taxes are at least as offensive to people of faith as they are to small government reformers since these “death taxes” assault one of the ultimate family values: the ability to pass on to the next generation the fruits of a lifetime of hard work. By the same token, economic Republicans who want to limit governmental bureaucracy and spending will support the home-schooling practiced by many of their Christian colleagues not as some concession to Fundamentalists, but because they share the core principle that individual Americans should depend less on government and more on themselves.
Even some issues that are supposed to drive a wedge between the “preachers” and “plutocrats” can, if properly understood, bring the two factions together. Consider the debate over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: where even the most secular, libertarian-tinged, economic conservatives will rightly question the necessity of government financing for scientific work that remains profoundly controversial. Leaders of the religious right don’t seek a government ban on this area of scientific investigation so long as it’s privately funded—they only want to avoid tax-payer support and the societal endorsement that comes with it. By the same token, opposition to same sex marriage doesn’t involve any effort to block or penalize private gay relationships, but merely a desire to stop the governmental sanction and support involved in state backed matrimony. During all debates on the National Endowment of the Arts and the condemnations of their generous grants to sacrilegious expression, people of faith didn’t clamor for censorship--- they wanted only to avoid government sponsorship. If an artist chose to display a crucifix in urine in his own garage, not even the most outspoken religious conservative would have demanded that the police invade his premises to halt the blasphemy.
In all these areas, the libertarian and faith-based impulses can and do reach similar conclusions: hoping to keep government disentangled from ongoing efforts to challenge age-old religious values, and striving to use all available means to shore up societal support for the traditional family.
Yes, economic and religious conservatives may emphasize different priorities: Christian activists will care more passionately about abortion, while money-minded reformers might stress retooling social security or cleaning up our law-suit riddled judicial system. But the two wings of the GOP and the conservative movement nonetheless pursue goals that are not only complementary, but utterly dependent on one another.
The economic conservatives want to shrink government and encourage personal responsibility. Religious right wingers seek to strengthen the family, and to affirm its independence. These two aims naturally, inevitably, go together.
This inherent reinforcement becomes apparent when considering current controversies regarding the beginning of life and our last years of existence. Liberals increasingly favor a cradle-to-grave governmental role, hoping that tax money will fund day care, school breakfasts, medical care, psychological counseling and more. Economic conservatives oppose such programs as wasteful and intrusive, while religious conservatives hate them because they undermine the role of the family. If Washington D.C. provides a toddler’s breakfast at government funded nursery school in Seattle, as well as the food stamps that finance other meals, then what’s left of a classical parenting role? By the same token, if grown children bear no responsibility for their aged parents, and depend entirely on the feds to feed and care for mom and pop in their senior years, then it involves not only a grotesque expansion of government but a tragic diminution of the role of family. Setting up voluntary personal retirement accounts within Social Security not only provides the greater independence that economic conservatives crave, but also reinforces the family values boosted by religious believers --- since such accounts (financed by your own payroll deductions) would be transferable to your heirs, rather than simply reverting to the strangers in the government.
In other words, the alignment of religious and economic conservatives isn’t an accident or an opportunistic strategy: it’s the logical result of identical desires. Both sides want to see the family strengthened and the government’s power reduced – two goals which can’t be separated. Bigger government means weaker families, while stronger families mean less justification for big government.
This common vision among conservatives of all stripes doesn’t mean that Republicans agree on all issues. The immigration debate, for instance, saw spirited arguments among various factions within the party. But that question —easily the most divisive current agenda sitem for Republicans – hardly splits conservatives along simplistic religious/economic lines. Most (but by no means all) economic conservatives (representing the interests of businesses, big and small) backed the comprehensive immigration reform advocated by President Bush, and many religious conservatives (including leaders of most of the major Evangelical denominations) also backed a path to earned legalization as an expression of “compassionate conservativism.” While nearly all Republicans back the idea of constructing a fence and strengthening security at the border, the complicated, multi-faceted disputes over what to do with the illegals already here defied simplistic attempts to characterize the GOP as clearly split between businessmen and Bible-thumpers. On this and many other issues, some of the commercial leaders could cite chapters and verses of their Bibles, and some of the religious believers achieved great financial success with profound respect for business values.
Regardless of differences in nuance and rhetoric, the dollar and devotional wings of the Republican Party will continue to enjoy a natural, logical, obvious congruence in political philosophy as well as practical approaches. Above all, the increasingly stridency and uncompromising militancy of the American Left helps push non-liberals of every stripe toward common ground – as does the obvious contempt with which leftist commentators like Krugman view all branches of conservative thought. Family values conservatives include tens of millions of Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and even the religiously unaffiliated, and can’t be rightly classified as “preachers.” Nor do libertarian-minded main street strivers, the independent small business people and entrepreneurs (who now far outnumber the members of organized labor in this country), deserve classification as “plutocrats.”
In this difficult electoral environment, with the mainstream media shamelessly exploiting the shameful behavior of Mark Foley, it’s of course possible (but by no means certain) that the Republicans will lose one or both houses of Congress in November. But the conservative coalition that has achieved such spectacular success in the past will manage to hold together for the long term, based on shared strong family/small government values, and no doubt will enjoy fresh victories in the future.
Michael Medved ping
Anyone want on or off the Medved, low volume ping list, please send me an FR mail.
Medved is terrific! Basically conservatives have agood logical
and consistent philosophy compared to the democratic left which is highly
facionalized.
These people constantly ignore the power of homeschooling, maybe because they are in denial about the millions of people doing it.
Homeschooling is where the rubber meets the road for both social and economic conservatives. Whether you object to property taxes bleeding you dry, or the overwhelming desire of the state to indoctrinate your children with its social mores, the homeschooling Christian is profoundly conservative - without wavering or quarter.
Oh yea--they are just an amalgam of every dysfunctional radical group out there. The only thing they have in common is their absolute pathological hatred of President Bush and anything/anyone of the right.
On this point the question is, why don't the social conservatives favor a total ban, not only on private embryonic stem cell research, but on all private scientific or fertility treatment related uses of human embryos that result in the destruction or discarding of such embryos? If these embryos are human persons as valuable as you or I, why don't social conservatives believe they are deserving of legal protection?
By the same token, opposition to same sex marriage doesn’t involve any effort to block or penalize private gay relationships, but merely a desire to stop the governmental sanction and support involved in state backed matrimony.
But many social conservatives support sodomy laws, which prohibit gay sex, as well as many forms of heterosexual sex. Many also support government crusades against adult pornography, strip clubs, sex toys, and "indecent" television and radio programs. These positions are directly contrary to the libertarian sensibilities that tend to predominate among economic conservatives.
Medved is misrepresenting quite alot in this article. The divide between social and economic conservatives is very real.
The Republican Party is not simply the money party. See Ted Turner, Bill Gates, George Soros,...
Social programs keep the labor pool large and cheap (both halves in more families working full time and not having kids). Homeschooling presents more potential business competition, as do whole families. Environmentalism keeps potential competition away. Think...
And very polarizing, as I suspect the upcoming elections will show. A lot of wishfull thinking going on in this writers article. The out of control spending by our compassionate social conservative administration leads one to consider changing the term social conservative to socialist conservative. And talk about your nanny staters...Who would protect us from ourselves if not the religous right...Perhaps today if the President signs the Gambling is a Sin Bill, they will prevent us from sinning by playing online bingo...After all, who needs Jesus Christ when you can just get Government to outlaw sin.
In the context of creeping socialism, home-schooling is a revolutionary act!
To the barricades!
There is a definite willingness, among those in the religious right, to trust the government to police our private affairs. This is a very disturbing philosophical point of view which happens to conflict strongly with the personal liberty philosophy held by most economic conservatives. And, you're right, they don't seem to mind the Republican Party spending this country into the ground as long as they get their anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-sex priorities addressed.
Pro-lifers generally would support such a ban... but with abortion available up until birth, protecting embryos is not even close to being on the table right now. So it doesn't constitute a wedge issue.
But many social conservatives support sodomy laws, which prohibit gay sex, as well as many forms of heterosexual sex.
I would say that very few social conservatives care much for sodomy laws. Many criticized the Lawrence vs. Texas decision, for instance, not out of a desire for sodomy laws so much as disgust over the judicial intrusion of one's sexual likes and dislikes into the Constitution.
Many also support government crusades against adult pornography, strip clubs, sex toys, and "indecent" television and radio programs. These positions are directly contrary to the libertarian sensibilities that tend to predominate among economic conservatives.
Most are only interested in protecting children from inadvertent exposure to these things, for the same reason that we have laws against walking down the street nude. Almost nobody cares what you do in your house.
On the contrary, banning abortion is what's currently not on the table due to Roe V. Wade. There is no constitutional right to use human embryos in experimentation, however. A ban on such experimentation would very likely be upheld in the courts, since it would not conflict with the legal rights of another human being, as an abortion ban would. Yet, we hear nothing from pro-life groups about this issue.
I would say that very few social conservatives care much for sodomy laws. Many criticized the Lawrence vs. Texas decision, for instance, not out of a desire for sodomy laws so much as disgust over the judicial intrusion of one's sexual likes and dislikes into the Constitution.
You may not support sodomy laws (if so, good for you). However, many religious right groups support them quite vigorously. Just one example would be the debate in Arizona a few years ago over whether to repeal that state's sodomy law. Religious conservatives mobilized in an attempt to defeat the repeal.
Most are only interested in protecting children from inadvertent exposure to these things, for the same reason that we have laws against walking down the street nude. Almost nobody cares what you do in your house.
No, it's not about protecting the children. Children can't patronize a strip club or rent a porn video. There are groups on the religious right who's primary mission is to close these businesses down.
You sound like you're not a hardcore social conservative. If so, I congratulate you for respecting the right of other adults to live as they please. However, don't try to excuse those who really do wish to use the power of the state to crush lifestyles they consider sinful. I can assure you they do exist and they're disturbingly influential.
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
Among the rank and file, as seen here, there are varying degrees of appetite for outright bans. Go back 20 years, you can see where social conservatives said what they thought, and they were fried for it. Take for example Frank Zappa appearing on CNN with Bob Novak and some unfortunate guy from the Washington Times discussing "profane" rock lyrics. To the extent what the guy advocated sounded like censorship, encroaching on free speech, noone would listen to him. You wouldn't see that today.
On the contrary, banning abortion is what's currently not on the table due to Roe V. Wade. There is no constitutional right to use human embryos in experimentation, however. A ban on such experimentation would very likely be upheld in the courts, since it would not conflict with the legal rights of another human being, as an abortion ban would.
I suspect that the pro-abortion lobby would fight tooth & nail in both Congress and the courts to ensure that such a thing wouldn't stand. And it just wouldn't make any sense to pursue it from that end. If a almost fully-developed fetus, with brain waves & a heartbeat & the sensation of pain cannot be legally protected, then what argument could be made that tiny embryos deserve any more protection?
Yet, we hear nothing from pro-life groups about this issue.
OK, so what are you complaining about? Obviously this issue is NOT driving any wedge between the 'Religious Right', the country club GOPers and/or the libertarians.
You may not support sodomy laws (if so, good for you).
No, I do not.
However, many religious right groups support them quite vigorously. Just one example would be the debate in Arizona a few years ago over whether to repeal that state's sodomy law. Religious conservatives mobilized in an attempt to defeat the repeal.
The link you provide mentions less than 4,000 e-mails received about the matter, in a state of 5,000,000+, in conjunction with a campaign involving scare tactics about lowering the age of consent to 12. In other words, I think that the data you provide *support* my contention that it is only a small, albeit vocal, minority of "social conservatives" who really want to pass laws about where other people stick their assorted appendages.
No, it's not about protecting the children. Children can't patronize a strip club or rent a porn video. There are groups on the religious right who's primary mission is to close these businesses down.
True, but a lot of these people just don't want it in their town, and don't much care about whether some other city has such a thing. In other words, it's not some grand desire to control what other people are doing, but to control the environment they live in.
You sound like you're not a hardcore social conservative. If so, I congratulate you for respecting the right of other adults to live as they please.
I find this comment somewhat insulting. I AM a hardcore social conservative, and I DO respect the right of other adults to live as they please. And I am hardly alone in that respect. As far as my social conservatism goes, let's see... Elective abortion = premeditated murder all the way back to conception, unrepentant homosexuals are sinners bound for eternity in Hell (along with adulterers, all non-Christians, etc.) -- even most so-called Christians are condemned because they don't follow the Bible closely enough -- I'm a prude about sexual content in public venues or airwaves, I value the traditional family structure, and so on. Is that enough to establish my credentials?
Many of the people I know who share those beliefs and are politically aware call themselves libertarians (small L) or in a couple of cases, anarchists / anarcho-capitalists. The rest are Republicans who are not going anywhere else, partywise. I consider myself a minarchist -- I support national defense, preferably funded by sales taxes, but that's about it the Federal level. I would be quite content with a government that abided by the Constitution.
However, don't try to excuse those who really do wish to use the power of the state to crush lifestyles they consider sinful. I can assure you they do exist and they're disturbingly influential.
I'm not excusing them, I'm suggesting they are not the force you make them out to be. Politicians who think so and pander to them are making the same mistake as you, and many on the left -- hearing the loud voices of a few pseudoreligious fascists, and assuming that they represent a large theocratic movement.
You said earlier: "...they don't seem to mind the Republican Party spending this country into the ground as long as they get their anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-sex priorities addressed."
Can you provide even a single quote from any mainstream socially conservative pundit or interest group -- even the relatively anal retentive ones, like the American Family Association -- that express pleasure or even tacit approval over the spending of the current administration?
Pro life conservatives oppose the destruction of innocent human life period. Those that support the destruction of innocent human life are currently labeled as pro choice. Like you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.