Wise words about the temptations to social conservatives to draw the wrong lesson from the recent election, from two socially conservative observers. First, Prof. John Haldane writes from Scotland. Excerpt:
Today we face a danger of oversimplifying the structure of political thought to the point of dividing policies between left and right, and then associating these positions with particular political parties. In truth, one may be a social welfarist or socialist and a moral conservative, or equally a free-marketeer or classical liberal and a moral radical: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and aggressively secular.The fact is that some voters chose against the Republicans not just for pragmatic reasons, and not because they had bought into a general liberal package, but because they took moral exception to some of the policies pursued by the Bush administration, and I believe that in this their judgment was correct. The Bush years were marked by policy immoralities of omission and commission. Not all of those who voted for Barack Obama did so because they favoured every major element of his policies. Rather, as is generally the case, people made an overall judgement of past performance, of the strength and weaknesses of the candidates, and of likely future performance.
The opponents of John McCain and Sarah Palin did not tend to depict them as bad people, but rather as flawed or ill-equipped politicians. But the critics of Obama often sought to represent him as evil. My judgement is that the American people not only did not share that opinion, but that they drew conclusions about those who pressed it, and in fact came to regard Obama as a generally admirable character.
In other words, by attempting to paint Obama not only as wrong, but as wicked, his opponents made themselves look silly. More Haldane:
It has been a mistake for moral conservatives to associate their concerns with opposition to one candidate and one party. Not only has the previous administration proved itself unworthy, but the state of the Republican party continues to be divided over values such that, had it won the White House and Congressional elections, it would not have delivered a range of policies that would have addressed moral concerns about the conduct of war, the management of markets, the securing of marriage, or the protection of the unborn.
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat thinks George Weigel is way out of line to say Catholics who voted for Obama did so because they're moral idiots. Here's Ross:
And pro-lifers who see the GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to look the party's failures squarely in the face and work to fix them, instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life voting.No, social conservatives aren't the problem for the GOP. But they haven't been the solution, either: Too often, on matters ranging from the Iraq War to domestic policy, they've served as enablers of Republican folly, rather than as constructive critics. And calling Catholics who voted for Obama "mindless" and "stupid" is a poor substitute for building the sort of Republican Party that can attract the votes of those millions of Americans, Catholic and otherwise, who voted for the Democrats because they thought, not without reason, that George W. Bush was a disastrous president whose party should not be rewarded with a third term in the White House.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Interesting Idea here. Holds alot of water in my opinion.
But while we're beating the dead horse called Pro-Life, I'll assert - one more time - that it has no place in politics whatsoever and if that's your only concern when voting for president (arguably a position that will never touch this issue with a ten-foot pole), you deserve to be stuck with impotent and ill-equipped, ignorant, or downright despicable candidates.
Basically because you refuse to use reason to weight the pros and cons of the decision in any realm of sanity, basing your decision purely on a black-or-white (and downright sophomoric) understanding of how this one issue fits into the ENTIRE political spectrum.
I'm all about breaking the two-party system - and I would love to see the Social Conservatives have it out with the Monetaries, Environmentalists, Social Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, Labours, and all the other political groups for the domination of the Executive Branch - but it just aint happenin. If you're so adamantly pro-life; the first place you should start to generate support is probably on your school board. Then your local community government and perhaps your state rep. Senators? Governors? You have to work your way through the system and generate familiarity and recognition for your cause. That's the only way to validate it, and no vote for president will ever make up for all that hard work.
If the Republican party wants to gain the support of conservatives again, it needs to simultaneously decouple itself from the STAUNCH pro-life position that keeps social liberals from embracing fiscal conservatism and educate those people who this issue is important to, that they should pursue civil and social means to forwarding that agenda and save the national political interests from bearing that cross. Not to say Pro-life or Pro-Abortion legislation will never find, and has no place in, politics; but it simply is too hot of an issue to be taken seriously by the candidate of any major political establishment. We've turned this into such an "us vs them" cause that even mentioning favoring one side alienates 40% of the voting population. He or she will tell you whatever you want to hear just to get your vote - but ultimately you'll be left with nothing as they go about their business.
Haldane makes some good points, but he seems unaware of the fact that, with only such rare exceptions as tactical necessity requires, the Democratic Party tolerates opponents of abortion only as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Conservatives today with Obama face the same dilemma as liberals did back in l980 with Reagan. If they paint him as deluded, stupid, or corrupt, they will only turn off those who voted for him because they thought he was on the right track, even if, as Haldane said, they don't approve of all his policies. But if conservatives depict Obama as a decent man pursuing misguided policies, they risk being left without rhetorical recourse if his policies turn out to be successful.
It's a dilemma.
The real answer for social conservatives is to think long-term, to forget about Obama for the moment, and develop policies of their own able to answer the concerns and needs of middle-of-the-road and young voters, most of whom are not especially concerned about ending abortion or prohibiting gay marriage.
The obvious answer to yours truly is a conservatism not just of sexual mores, but also of money, blood, and earth. Meaning -- no foreign adventures, a Federal budget that is not all things to all people, including corporations, and a recognition that our civilization depends on the natural capital of the planet on which we live.
I agree with Charles - had McCain picked Romney as VP, they would have been elected.
Oh, please. I and most of the evangelicals I know (I'm not one, I only move in their social circles) were ready to stay at home sitting on their hands until Palin was nominated.
Without Palin, McCain would have lost by 10 points.
Re: Without Palin, McCain would have lost by 10 points.
For every vote McCain gained with Palin, he also lost one among people who had serious doubts about Obama.
By the way what's wrong with those Evangelicals who were going to sit out the election? Hav they reached the point wher they will only vote for one of their own? By that standard Ronald Reagan, who was not a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, would not have won their votes. It should have been enough that McCain supported most of the SoCon agenda (or at least did so far, far more than Obama). I don't think (as some suggest) that social conservatism per se is problem for the GOP, but if SoCons will only vote for someone whose personal religious bona fides are in order, then I''m wrong and the SoCons are a problem.
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.