Posted on 04/28/2012 12:41:24 AM PDT by neverdem
The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Need Social Conservatism, by Jeffrey Bell (Encounter, 322 pp., $25.95)
I recently attended a political meeting in New York City at which the people tended to identify themselves as “fiscal conservatives and social liberals.” They argued that conservatives should focus on the nation’s economic challenges while either ignoring or downplaying social issues. It’s a point of view shared by Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, among others. When he was considering a presidential run, Daniels memorably told an interviewer that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.”
But in The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism, Jeffrey Bell argues that social conservatism is uniquely and idiosyncratically American, emerging from basic principles of our national politics, and that it would be ill-advised for those on the libertarian right to try to make it go away. Social conservatives remain a key constituency in the Republican Party; socially conservative principles continue to come to the fore in public debate; and social issues have helped Republicans more than hurt them at the polls. In 1984, for example, Ronald Reagan argued in an address to Protestant clergymen that people of faith should unapologetically defend their values in the public square. Walter Mondale, the Democratic nominee, castigated the president for inserting religion into politics and compared him with an “ayatollah.” Yet in the two months after the speech was delivered, Reagan took a huge lead in the polls that he never relinquished.
Four years later, GOP strategist Lee Atwater persuaded George Bush to highlight his disagreement with Michael Dukakis on a variety of social issues, helping turn Bush’s deficit in the polls into a resounding triumph: an eight-point winning margin in the popular vote and victories in 40 states. The 1988 election set the stage for further social activism within the Republican Party. More recently, President George W. Bush argued that the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence were universal, a position held by most American social conservatives; the Left, unrelenting in its battle against traditionalism, detested him for it. Bush served two terms. As Bell notes, Republicans who shift to the left on social issues won’t simply alienate the substantial number of Americans who remain committed to our founding precepts; they’ll also make political enemies of the many recent immigrants who are socially conservative.
The book’s thesis—that Republicans who embrace social conservatism can win, and that social conservatism is in keeping with American tradition—is a useful one in this political season. Bell holds that the narrative of the nation is tied inextricably to religious influences. To deny these influences comes with a hefty political price; to embrace them requires courage, but in the end, they foster respect for the national purpose. As Bell sees it, America needs social conservatives, even if their presence leads to polarization.
I'm tired of Daniels getting a bad rap because of on quote. This guy actually defunded Planned Barenthood. I don't give a rat's butt what someone SAYS on social issues. I care what someone DOES. Talk is cheap.
Make that Planned Barrenhood, not Barenthood.
2nd Amendment is non negotiable, which is shared with libertarians.
I don't support state sanctioned gay marriage/unions, nor support that crap in our schools. What two consenting adult homos do in their house isn't my business. At the same time I don't need to know about it.
Affirmative action and white guilt policies are wrong.
I do not support the drug war or anti-gambling laws. That's big with some social conservatives, not all.
Don't censor religion.
Most of what is called ‘Judeo-Christian’ morals is based on the 10 Commandments.
Good.
2nd Amendment is non negotiable, which is shared with libertarians.
Unfortunately, many Republicans sign on to gun control laws, which just mean that the weapons are in the hands of the government and criminals instead of private citizens.
I don't support state sanctioned gay marriage/unions, nor support that crap in our schools.
Right. In middle school, some GLSEN type group came in and passed out a crude "It's OK to be gay" survey. The teachers said that everyone had to take it. I threw the copt that they put before me in the trash and got branded a "troublemaker".
What two consenting adult homos do in their house isn't my business. At the same time I don't need to know about it.
They will never accept that. An inextricable part of their way of things is forcing everyone else to actively endorse it.
Affirmative action and white guilt policies are wrong.
They got Obama elected and are getting Whites attacked across the country.
I do not support the drug war
Many authorized drugs are poison; if the government would secure the border that would massively reduce the amount of unauthorized drugs flowing in.
anti-gambling laws
It's kind of weird that only American Indians can run casinos. But everything is gambling: every business venture I invest in is a gamble, albeit one backed by my hard work instead of the spin of a wheel.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
Ronald Reagan the Libertarian
by Alex Tabarrok on June 7, 2004 at 7:10 am in Current Affairs | Permalink
Here’s a wonderful quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
The Libertarian Party of today is in favor of no holds barred porn, the entire spectrum of the GLBT etc agenda, all drugs legalized, and legalized prostitution.
Do you think Reagan was in favor of all of the above?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Socially liberal Rs don't win elections. Especially presidential elections. If we are stuck with Robomney...it'll be interesting. Hopefully there will be a revolution at the convention and a real conservative will be the nominee.
“The Libertarian Party of today is in favor of no holds barred porn, the entire spectrum of the GLBT etc agenda, all drugs legalized, and legalized prostitution.
Do you think Reagan was in favor of all of the above?”
First, I posted Reagan’s own words, nothing about the Libertarian Party.
Second, I have no idea about how Reagan would come down on what you said.
Finally, I personally favor more personal freedom, less government.
I don’t trust government, so I want it to be too poor, to have resources for enforcing morality beyond bare minimums.
Did you read recently about our United States Treasury Dept. supervised Special Agents, in Columbia?
The thing worth considering is your party won’t always direct, supervise the government with all of its powers. So keep the government small, confined by money and manpower limits.
As such it won’t be able to enforce very many rules.
People, families, neighborhoods, churches will enforce human behavior limits, to the extent it is possible.
I’m sure we disagree. I don’t drink or use drugs. But I grant the next person the freedom to do so. I draw lines with methamphetamine, which I think is over the line.
And of course no supplying drugs to minors, either. No driving under the influence.
Any crimes committed under the influence punished harshly, for the crime.
Smoking pot at home, listening to tunes and eating chips and dip, no problem.
I don’t want a big enough police force (or budget), to kick down that pot smokers door.
Oh, so you can’t answer.
PS - there’s a difference between federal gov and state gov, you know.
And you don’t know if we disagree or not, since I have not stated my positions. Nor have you, other than obliquely. But you certinaly insinuated that Reagan would have ssented to the Libertarian viewpoints I described above.
BTW, are you on TB2 as “truthseeker”?
Bravissimo!!!
In #23, you have that just about right. On Mitch Daniels, note also that he has cut an ad seeking to prolong Richard Lugar’s miserable existence in the US Senate. I think we can wisely ignore Daniels henceforth. Mike Pence will be just as good or better as governor and will always be a movement conservative across the board. Daniels is a star on money and on cutting useless expenditures but he appeared to be seeking the support of the wrong people when he spoke to CPAC 2011. We have to separate the whet from the chaff. Look what happened this year with all those conservative candidates and just one evil and well-funded Romney. Also, if we don’t continue the drug war, what will we do? It is superficially attractive to say nothing but I used to practice criminal law and I really don’t think we want to just throw up our hands and not give a sh*t. This stuff (not marijuana but speed, coke, crack and whatnot) is nasty and insidious especially when spread among 14 year-olds. I don’t have the perfect answer but there must be a better one somewhere between War on Drugs and nothing at all. Like Arab oil, drug revenues finance our enemies.
“BTW, are you on TB2 as “truthseeker”?”
Just one name truth_seeker, here and several other sites over the years.
Am I being investigated, for posting Reagan’s words?
“PS - there’s a difference between federal gov and state gov, you know.”
I want all government to be small, too small to bother people very much.
I assume prostitution will occur, if it is legal or if it is illegal.
When it is illegal, the cops and politicians will probably be involved in one corrupt way or another.
Are you Truthseeker on TB2?
“”I would say that social conservative position are essential, particularly so at the State & local level.”
I would argue that they are essential Primarily at the federal level e.g. inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The federal government amasses power at the expense of freedom and does so by directly replacing inalienable truth with government truth.”
Although I don’t dispute your assertion about Federal actions I’m not following your thinking regarding the priority of social conservative attention to Washington over States & local government.
Washington has usurped our rights to govern ourselves and has stuck its ugly outsider head into our local and individual business. It has no right to be involved period in local or domesic matters. Social conservatism therefore should not be very much concerned with Washington, importantly nto more concerned with Washington than they are with State & local governments.
It is after all State & local governments that illegitimately make domestic policy and can illegitimately have the “police power”. It is only State & local governments that might illegitimately give Social conservatism(Whatever the local variant is) a form
Washington is too distant from the people to govern and too divided in its population to even form & enforce a coherent social policy that is anything but destructive to rights & liberties.
It IS time for a new Party, but we have to start planning NOW!
Not a coupla months before some election .............................................. FRegards
“
NOW; however, the federal government concerns itself with all manner of issues and those pleading for consensus in all things are in essence those promoting government control of all things -an imposed tyrannical top down social order.”
With this Statement I could not agree more. You hit the nail on the head.
Although I think many of those arguing for compromise don’t even realize what a “compromise” is really demanding of us all. I don’t think the thought itself has even crossed their mind. Its like to them its always been a question of how the Federal government should run the issue not whether it should run it at all.
AKA: What policy we can agree on, not whether or not we should have to agree at all.
We shouldn’t have to agree on how our healthcare is run, we should each run our own healthcare policy according to our own means & desires. The left only want us to “agree” because at the end of the day their game is about redistribution(thief) not justice, not better services.
Simply stealing from one man who carried his weight to pay off anther who did not. That in itself is the greatest of moral evils.
Right. In middle school, some GLSEN type group came in and passed out a crude "It's OK to be gay" survey.
We had a white guilt thing in the era of Malice Green and OJ Simpson, and most of us called it out for what it was. We didn't have GLSEN though. Too many rednecks, and I say that in a good way.
But here's the question nobody on their side can answer. Why the kids, especially in middle school? They alienate so many people who while disagree personally with gay lobby, don't support being jerks to them either. It places doubts to movies in the minds of many, including myself.
They will never accept that. An inextricable part of their way of things is forcing everyone else to actively endorse it.
I agree. I missed it and haven't heard of it in my old district, but I know it's big where I live now right outside Ann Arbor. What actually offends me most is the push of effeminate behavior upon males these days. Not all gay men are that way, and some straights are as well. Obama fits one of those two categories. I'm old school on that, and was raised that way (by example in how family members conducted themselves). Men should be men. Not jerks or bullies, but strong and not wimps. If effeminacy and trans crap wasn't pushed on our kids, I wouldn't complain.
As far as the drug war, I personally hate most of the stuff. I don't even smoke pot (bad experience with it years ago). I have a big problem with all the freedoms that have been given up in the name of the "war on (insert here)" with the drug war being the biggest culprit.
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.