Skip to comments.
The GOP and Social Issues: Sophomoric Arguments at the Wall Street Journal
Crisis Magazine ^
| December 7, 2012
| John Londregan
Posted on 12/07/2012 2:57:47 PM PST by NYer
A common trope in social policy debates is to claim that the publics changing opinion on the policy at stake, rather than the policys moral or substantive justifications, merits changing the platform of ones preferred political party. This notion seems recently to have taken root on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and several commentators have reacted.
Consider its November 8 editorial extolling referendums on marriage. The editors argue that views on gay marriage are changing so that after 32 defeats at the ballot box, a gay marriage initiative was adopted by voters, which shows that Americans are capable of changing their views and the laws on gay marriage. They praise the referendum process over judicial fiat, but their implicit premise seems to be that the policy change is a good one. Any substantive arguments to support this view are missing; what remains is only the claim of an inexorable shift in public opinion.
In a November 13 op-ed Bret Stephens wraps the inevitability argument in the flag, arguing that we ought to institute gay marriage because channeling passions that cannot be repressed toward socially productive ends is the genius of the American way. He then slides into ad hominem argument and innuendo, contending that the Republican Party should abandon its principles on abortion because they are uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.
In the pages of November 12s issue, Sarah Westwood, a freshman at George Washington University, makes the inevitability argument with brutal clarity. She bemoans the Republican Partys concession to the left of the moral high ground on abortion. Westwood hardly grounds her complaint, besides claiming that as a member of this all-important demographic, I know that neither I nor (almost) anybody else coming of age today supports the Republican social agenda. That’s the way the country is movingso just deal with it. Modernize and prioritize.”
Does this remind you of the song Tomorrow belongs to me” in the movie Cabaret? It should. It’s the same argument.
Suppose we turn to the moral question at stake that Westwood ignores: Is abortion the destruction of innocent human life?
Yes, we can argue about the costs of an unintended pregnancy. We can perhaps even compare the prospective achievements of people born into economically difficult circumstances, like those that awaited aborted children had they been allowed to live, with the circumstances encountered by children born into affluent two-parent households. But the fact remains: abortion stops a beating (human) heart. It takes a life.
Consider, for example, the case of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was raised by a single mother in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen. Moynihan taught on the faculty of Harvard University and served for decades in the US Senate; he also wrote cogently and with prescience about the social costs of the breakup of the nuclear family.
Let’s contrast his experience with that of Paris Hilton, a wanted child” raised under privileged circumstances. Hilton has higher name recognition than Moynihan, but the contrast between their achievements reminds us that regardless of the circumstances of one’s birth, being human means having a destiny of one’s own. That destiny cannot be realized if one is killed. And so, for those who would count the costs of allowing the unborn to live, consider this question: Do you support the murder of newborn infants if their care would pose a hardship for their parents?
No! The life of a small and helpless newborn is worth vastly more than the difficulties that caring for her would impose. Yes, Virginia, the choice of pronoun was not accidental. The typical fetus who is aborted is a girl, and she’s disproportionately likely to be a member of a minority ethnic community as well. Why does everything change at the moment of birth? Did the child suddenly acquire an ability to feel pain or to seek love that did not exist an instant before birth? Once we recognize the humanity of the fetus, the arguments against abortion are the arguments against infanticide.
Then there is the issue of gay marriage. An impressive array of major religions rejects gay marriage, and for many of the faithful these arguments rest on divine authority. But for them and for the rest of us, there are also both moral and practical considerations, some of them highlighted in Jeffrey Lords recent response to Westwood in the American Spectator, and some of them made by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and my colleague Robby George in their new book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.
Apart from these legitimate, well-principled objections to abortion and gay marriage, what about the practical politics of objecting? Is Westwood right that there are no voters willing to support us in defense of helpless human life? Have the youth all joined in a rousing chorus of Tomorrow belongs to me”?
Public opinion data tell a different story. Policy preferences have not one but two dimensionsan economic axis that runs from left (with high taxes and lots of redistribution) to right (where taxes are low and government largess meager), and a social axis that runs from left (with support for gay marriage, abortion, and coming soon to an operating theater near you, euthanasia), to right (with respect for life, and support for traditional marriage, and religious liberty). The two main parties find their core supporters on the same side of both axes, and for each group the struggle is to build a majority by recruiting from voters with intermediate positions.
Before Ronald Reagan, the parties differed from each other on economic policy preferences, but were internally divided on social issues. Edward Kennedy and Jesse Jackson were once pro-life, while there were Rockefeller Republicans who favored abortion. Reagan changed this, moving the Republican Party to a pro-life position on abortion and to the right on other social issues as well.
Recent research by Stefan Krasa and Mattias Polborn shows that Reagans efforts ceded some Rockefeller Republicans to the Democrats, but gained the Reagan Democrats” who leaned to the right socially, but somewhat to the left economically. The latter group of voters was much more numerous than the former, and the Republican Party gained considerable electoral heft as a result.
To the extent then that the Republican Party appears to abandon its rightward stance on social issues; to the extent that Republicans are afraid to defend their views on the value of life, on religious freedom, and on marriage, they cede back the Reagan Democrats and their children to the Democrats, and they doom themselves to minority status.
These practical realities have not been lost on conservatives, and several important commentators have sounded the alarm. At First Things Matthew Franck cogently compares the Wall Street Journals urgings that we abandon our social principles to the cynical political maneuvering of Stephen Douglas on the slavery issue a century and a half ago. Franck notes that had Abraham Lincoln succumbed to the apparent expediency of falling into line with Douglass arguments, slavery likely would have persisted.
Also on the cyber-pages of First Things Joseph Knippenberg observes that as a purely practical matter it would be bad politics for Republicans to alienate socially conservative Evangelicals and churchgoers, who are more numerous and who vote more consistently than do younger voters.
Writing in The Foundry, Ryan Anderson and Andrew Walker show that far from detracting from Romneys popularity, the vote for traditional marriage polled ahead of the Republican presidential nominee in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, and it did so by an average of more than six percentage points.
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, policy has worked, does work, and will work best when it is founded on moral and practical arguments. The Republican Party’s defense of freedom and dignity is based on both.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: gop; homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes
posted on 12/07/2012 2:58:00 PM PST
To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
posted on 12/07/2012 2:58:49 PM PST
("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; narses
posted on 12/07/2012 2:59:56 PM PST
("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
posted on 12/07/2012 3:18:35 PM PST
(You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
Of course. The notion here is to ‘normalize’ something that is against nature, in order to assuage one’s sense of guilt and remorse.
posted on 12/07/2012 3:48:50 PM PST
("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
You would be better served reading the Wall Street Journal than what some guy is typing in his basement...Put in some effort and you might be rewarded instead of reading the same old crapola...
You have access to a great publication. Use it.
Yup, that's some real good solid, lip-smackin' (wild-eyed, baby-killin, packer/muncher) Journolism right there, pal.
posted on 12/07/2012 4:06:48 PM PST
(Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month)
I'm sure that no-one here would support Gary North's Reconstructionism, but he definitely has his moments as a political observer. In Conspiracy In Philadelphia
, he goes into depth about how the Founders - and the American elite of the time - had their worldview shaped by Newtonian mechanics. We all know that they were profoundly shaped by the Enlightenment, particularly the Scottish Enlightenment, but they were also profoundly influenced by Newton's "natural philosophy."
As "social scientists," they saw themselves as designing a structure of government in the spirit of Newton. The ideal Newtonian system is one where the forces manifesting themselves naturally both complement and balance each other off so as to keep the system stable. Like the solar system or a well-designed structure, the checks and balances operate as a whole to keep the system together. Thus, it's most stable when every component is left to move (or exert a force) of its own accord. Meddling with the structure makes it weaker, and more prone to collapse. Thus, meddlers are prone to do harm regardless of their "good intentions." Most likely, they don't know what they're doing.
"You don't like that there wall in the middle of the room? Well, it's structural. You take it down, regardless of how more spacious or prettier it makes the room, you weaken the whole structure and hasten the day when the entire structure collapses. So learn to like it.
"The same thing goes for our solar system. If some cosmic meddler shoves Saturn into Jupiter, every planet's orbit will be perturbed - including ours. Earth would go out of its natural orbit and our planet would be no longer fit to live on.
"So it is with our System of Natural Liberty. Take down the ugly wall that displeases you so, you only hasten its collapse. Join one planet to another out of 'efficiency' and the whole system goes out of kilter and life become unlivable. No go read your Newton and think over what I said."
But, as North further points out, this protective Newtonianism went awry. Not because of Einstein, but because Newton lost his cachet in favour of Charles Darwin. Instead of Newtonian mechanics being the height of thought, Darwinian evolutionism became the height. The "random chance as metaphysics" we read about today was a complementary add-on to the Darwinian worldview.
Darwinism, as "social science," emphasizes process and celebrates successful change. It doesn't matter much about the truth-value or moral excellence of a new "idea:" what matters is its fate. Blithely, Darwinists assume that bad ideas are squelched off early - just as bad mutations die off quickly. So, they further assume, a "change" that sticks has to have some good to it. On the other hand, an idea that's buried has to be bad: it's a "bad mutation" because it died out.
Thus, a Darwinist has the opposite attitude towards meddling than the Newtonian. Instead of the strict lecture above, it's:
"Well, I have my doubts, but the only way to find out is to put it into play and see if it sticks. If you've come up with a good reform, it will win out over the reactionaries and obstructionists because it'll 'take' in the minds of the people.
"On the other hand, it may well flop. If so, best to just put it aside. But remember, you had a fair chance because your idea did get free play in the political environment. If it dies off, don't waste time being bitter. That's just the way evolution works, and disappointment's part of progress too."
Unfortunately, Darwinism has economic growth and technological progress as its capstone selling point. Both forms of progress reinforce the notion that any "change" that breeds true is good. The Newtonians actually had an easier time when plenty was the norm but economic/technological progress was slow.
Those Republicans who want to drop the opposition to gay marriage are showing a Darwinian mindset. Gay marriage has been pegged by them as the latest political mutation that's taken root. Thus, they believe, opposing it means opposing "progress" - i.e., the progress of political evolution. So, they believe, opponents of gay marriage are the (Darwinially proverbial!) "dinosaurs" on the way to extinction. Thus, they conclude, socons should get with the evolutionary program or they'll go politically extinct.
And that's how it's been since Darwinism replaced Newtonianism. Process, change for change's sake, success as its own validator, radical impermanence, etc. It's the same mentality behind the "living Constitution" trope.
Without social conservatism, there is no fiscal conservatism. The folks who say the GOP should reject the Christian view of life and the family, deserve to live under socialism IMHO.
Exactly. Sexual immorality and socialism/statism/communism go hand in hand. It’s all about destabilizing and destroying the natural family and replacing it with the government.
(Article) Edward Kennedy and Jesse Jackson were once pro-life, while there were Rockefeller Republicans who favored abortion. Reagan changed this, moving the Republican Party to a pro-life position on abortion and to the right on other social issues as well.
Funny, Ann Coulter was just pounding the table the other day about how Ronald Reagan had supported this and that and the other liberal position, that he wasn't nearly as conservative as conservatives think he was, and so conservatives need to knock off the Ronnie-was-pro-life and other socon worthless jabber, and get on the winning GOP Moderate wagon (that didn't really lose, you only thought it did, because of your social-conservative intellectual shallowness).
Or did I misunderstand her somehow? I don't think I did.
(Art.) In the pages of November 12’s issue, Sarah Westwood, a freshman at George Washington University, makes the inevitability argument with brutal clarity.
George Washington University, eh? Same place Miss "Fluck" enrolled for the purpose of doing guerrilla theater before Congress under the watchful, manipulative eye of Red Nancy Pelosi (whose creature "Fluck" is).
Same university that covered its crucifixes when a "secret Moslem" barked at them.
I also remember a professor at GWU coming to Judy Woodruff's round table on Election Night 2008 and cracking a joke about the slipping grip on North Carolina politics of "the Dukes of Hazzard", by which he meant non-liberal North Carolinians. Ha, ha, ha, ha, said everyone at the table.
Guess that's what passes for the Zeitgeist at GWU these days. Note to Pope Benedict: Your Holiness can go ahead in good conscience and shut these guys down. They've forgotten what ministering to the People means, much less the Magisterium of the Church.
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson