Huckabee has been bolstering his populist credentials by carrying out a running argument with the Club for Growth. Jonah calls Huck a "right-wing progressive," which strikes me as pretty accurate. It's starting to surprise some on the right that more than a few Christians vote Republican not because they agree all that much with GOP economic policies, but because they've trusted the Republican Party to do the right thing on social issues. Christian conservatives are expected to get in line behind the Republican candidate, even if they don't necessarily agree with his non-social agenda, because that's the price of being in a coalition. Fine, I get that.
And when he was re-elected in 2004, arguably because Rove turned out conservative Christian voters with state anti-gay marriage initiatives, Bush took a dive on that issue, and bet all his chits on Iraq and Social Security reform. Maybe that was the politically smart thing to do, but it certainly should have let social cons know how their issues mattered to the GOP.
So now I'm wondering: if Huckabee ends up as the Republican nominee, will the fiscal wing of the party feel the same sense of obligation to turn out for the party's presidential candidate that they expected social conservatives to act on?
On the other hand, I have to admit that the most I ever really expected out of Republican presidents were conservative Supreme Court justices, and on that, G.W. Bush has delivered wonderfully (though not without having to be slapped hard for the Miers thing). We pro-lifers have placed so much stock in getting the right justices in place to overturn Roe that we have forgotten, or seemed to have done, that all overturning Roe would do is leave abortion policy up to the states -- most of which would take about two days to restore Roe's protections. In that sense, Patrick Deneen thinks that social conservatives, by placing so much emphasis on the Court, have been playing a senseless game. Excerpt:
By understanding this as an issue of jurisprudence they have accepted the playbook of the liberals who taught them to fight all the discrete battles of the cultural wars in the Supreme Court. It's a lazy man's battle in which we eschew the hard work of working in the fields of politics and culture - since, let's face it, most "conservatives" like the libertarian culture just as much as the liberals - and put our money on the symbolic victories of winning judicial nominations and court cases. All the while, no one has pointed out that you don't really need to reverse Roe v. Wade to "win" the abortion battle if you persuade people that the language and philosophy of choice needs to be replaced by the language and philosophy of duty and obligation. Has any "pro-life" Republican President been preparing the ground for a post-Roe future, much less seeking to repair the culture of our Roe-governed present?
More:
What would then be the arguments that would need to be made to discourage [abortion] not now as part of a judicial strategy, but as the encouragement of a set of cultural and moral norms? Not a single Republican (nor, of course, Democrat) could tell you, because not a single one has ever made a compelling argument. Instead, for more than thirty years we have dutifully heard candidate after candidate tell us that they oppose abortion and will seek to appoint certain kinds of justices.
Patrick says culturally conservative voters need to get beyond the assumption that creating a culture of life -- and indeed, a culture built around the values of duty and obligation, not autonomy and choice -- depends wholly on the judiciary, and instead and "to begin doing the hard work of cultivation." I agree with this, which is why, taking the long view, I am far more hopeful about extrapolitical work of cultural renewal.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Just wanted to comment on the idea of Freedom and Legislating Morality.
In thinking about the role of the Law, I always go back to Galatians 5:1,13-16
"When Christ freed us, he meant us to remain free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.
My brothers, you were called,as you know, to liberty: but be careful, or this liberty will provide an opening for self-indulgence. Serve one another, ratherm in works of love, since the whole Law is summarized in a single command:Love your neighbor as yourself. If you go snapping ast each othere and tearing each other to pieces, you had better watch out or you will destroy the whole community. Let me put it this way, if you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to self-indulgence, . . .
Liberty on its own can't keep a Democratic society on track. It's the combination of liberty and charity. And the rejection of all of those self indulgent and greedy behaviors that destroy community.
Think the Chinese toy recalls, US lobbyists, tv and film producers pushing insolence and violence. Self-indulgence is the real enemy of a good community and a working society.
As Christians, we're called to live by a higher law that will always be somewhat more rigorous than the basics that are encoded by society.
Ps. This is Not ever an easy thing to do! But I think it's essential to our society as well as our Christian faith.
Harvey, your take on Jesus and the law is quite off-base. Jesus' point, if you take into consideration all the stories and sayings related to this issue, is that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter. But this does not necessarily involve a slackening of the law, as you seem to indicate. Indeed in some cases he made the rules stricter. See the "You have heard it said...but I tell you..." sayings.
"Prohibiting dog fighting and stealing via kickbacks are no brainers. They make sense, not because of divine design, but to protect victimizing by predators."
And this is wrong exactly why? It happens in nature all the time.
The criminalizing of murder is moral legislation, but criminalizing doing business on Sunday is legislating morality.
Franklin, I honestly don't understand the distinction you are trying to make here. Perhaps it is unreasonable to prohibit Sunday business in a religiously diverse society (though many people favor Sunday-closing laws for non-religious reasons, such as to ensure workers a day off). But if it is unreasonable, it is not because it is "legislating morality" but rather, that the morality being legislated is contrary to that of most of the general public.
All non-procedural criminal law is based on moral judgment of some kind -- and there are certainly significant minorities of the public who disagree with the moral judgments that dog fighting should be illegal or that businesses should be subject to environmental regulation. Nevertheless, we have a right to advance the case that those things SHOULD be illegal and -- if we advance that case successfully through the democratic process -- to enact laws against such things.
Simon, I have a clear idea of what I want to convey, but not a clear idea of how to convey it. At least half the blame for your confusion is mine.
I won't push it any more beyond the following (unless, of course, you have a eureka moment): we may be getting stuck on the exemplars at the expense of the concepts.
There are two components to majority rule in the US: the documented will of the voters, and the documented rights of the individual. I think my point is where those two aspects of the balance of law come into conflict.
Civic morality -- for our discussion, codified by laws -- in the US is the expression of the balance. The pejorative "legislating morality" is the expression of the conflict. Applying this to the business on Sundays scenario: all other things being equal (meaning: this must remain hypothetical in nature), a law prohibiting businesses from opening on Sunday in order to give workers a day off would be civic morality; a law prohibiting businesses from opening on Sunday specifically because Christian employees want to go to church would be the legislating of morality.
I hasten to point out that the exemplar is flawed. There is a better, legal approach to the whole thing, that being a general law about hours worked per week, and protecting an employee from employer sanctions because of religious practice (that being much more civic, as well, because it would apply to any observant Muslim (Friday) and any observant Jew (Saturday). A law protecting an observant person's right to honor the Sabbath as a matter of personal choice, not a blanket mandate, is (I hope!) a better illustration of the distinction I'm trying to convey. That choice, I should add, would extend to any individual business as well. The owner choosing to close on Sundays (a reasonable choice, considering that the vast majority of his employees may be Christians) is not the same as a government requiring him to close. Perhaps another comparison would be: voluntary accomodation falls under civic morality; mandated accomodation without regard to those not in the accomodated group would be legislating morality.
Thanks for your patience with me, btw. :-)
Franklin, you need to research the case law on sabbath observance. You will find:
That no federal law limits the number of hours an employee can be required to work, so long as s/he is paid overtime for any hours over a statutory maximum. Mandatory overtime is a plague in the lives of many workers. There is also no law requiring employers to give any advance notice of overtime hours. There are some state statutes providing slightly more consideration to employee time needs. Illinois, for instance, requires than an employee be given two 20-minute breaks in every work day. Period.
That an employer's personnel policy requiring that employees be permitted to take off from work on their respective religiously-mandated days of rest has been declared unconstitutional by the Supremes, because it discriminates against people with no religion or no religiously-mandated day of rest.
There's more, which if you like I can put up a link for on my blog. But American workers in general seem to believe in a lot of rights they don't have.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.