Monthly Select Month September 2010 (169) August 2010 (206) July 2010 (224) June 2010 (190) May 2010 (201) April 2010 (182) March 2010 (153) February 2010 (137) January 2010 (140) December 2009 (123) November 2009 (123) October 2009 (94) September 2009 (149) August 2009 (176) July 2009 (221) June 2009 (172) May 2009 (125) April 2009 (133) March 2009 (144) February 2009 (122) January 2009 (97) December 2008 (113) November 2008 (106) October 2008 (118) September 2008 (157) August 2008 (134) July 2008 (93) June 2008 (87) May 2008 (26) April 2008 (40) March 2008 (69) February 2008 (113) January 2008 (181) December 2007 (100)
They still don't get it.
Today House Republicans are releasing "Pledge to America,"� a 21 page, 8,000 word document outlining their new governing agenda, a copy of which is now making the rounds.
The editors of National Review issued a fawning, effusive editorial, claiming it is "bolder"� than the 1994 Contract for America and that it "commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda."�
Nonsense. While the pledge has many praiseworthy items on economic and defense issues, it says almost nothing about social concern. That is not a “broad conservative agenda.” It's disappointing, though unfortunately not all that surprising, that the GOP could release a pledge that has almost nothing about social issues and the flagship publication of the conservative movement doesn't raise a peep.
The Weekly Standard hardly does much better. John McCormack writes, "There had been some discussion as to whether or not social issues would be included in the document. And indeed they are."�
Indeed they are barely mentioned. Out of 8,000 words, the pledge contains 43 dealing directly with social issues:
We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.
Notably, that line was only added at the last minute after Rep. Mike Pence raised a fuss. Outside the preamble, the only mention of social issues concern the ones that, as Ramesh Ponnuru noted, almost derailed Obamacare:
We will protect the doctor-patient relationship . . . We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.
This is little more than promising to maintain the status quo, yet it is the extent of "social conservative"� issues addressed in the pledge.
With all due respect to my friends at these publications, if you think this is a sufficiently conservative agenda then you are as out of touch with the conservative movement as the House Republicans.
Since at least the days of Reagan, there has been a popular conception of the conservative coalition as a "three-legged stool"� consisting of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and defense conservatives. This is true only in rather limited sense. Unfortunately, the conservative intelligentsia long ago bought into the idea that the tripod metaphor represents not just varying emphasis within conservativsim, but broad, distinct, non-overlapping constituencies.
The reason they have done so is because most of the establishment elite and their organizations are oriented around one of the three “legs.” While they may brush shoulders while passing each other in the halls of the Heritage Institute, these groups rarely interact in any significant or meaningful way. Conservatives in Washington (and New York, for that matter) have a tendency to forget that their way of thinking is anomalous and deviates significantly from most conservatives in the flyover states. They work, and often live, in a liberal, urban environment in which a full-spectrum conservative is outside the norm.
But the fact is that most conservative Republican voters are from rural or suburban areas. As this map from the 2004 election shows, the dividing line in America is not between Red States and Blue States but between Red and Blue counties:
The difference between heartland conservatives and East Coast elites, however, is not a matter of geography but of an inadequately robust understanding of conservatism. The problem is not urbanism"”you can find "heartland conservatives"� everywhere in the country"”but rather the diluting influence of liberals and libertarians on the conservatives who live in those areas.
Admittedly, the advent of web-based media (which is overrepresented by liberals, libertarians, and liberaltarians) and the mainstreaming of the East Coast conservative media has had a similar effect on "Red State"� voters. But for the most part, rural/suburban Republican-voting conservatives (including Tea Partiers) still do not make sharp distinctions between the three branches of the coalition. You won’t find, for instance, many fiscally-oriented conservatives in rural Oklahoma that are squishy on the life issues or think that we should shrink the military. In fact, when you hear someone referring to themselves as a “economic conservative” or a “national security conservative” you can almost be assured that they are (a) a libertarian, (b) a pro-war hawk, and/or (c) live or work in an urban area.
Indeed, the very use of the term “social conservatism” is misleading and reveals how far the conservative elite establishment has moved toward libertarianism. The term can be used generically to refer to many groups that are neither Republican nor politically conservative. African Americans, Hispanics, and Catholics tend to be “conservative” on many social issues, though they do not constitute a solid base of support for Republican candidates. Even President Obama is conservative on a number of social issues; that does not make him a social conservative.
Still, while social conservatism (broadly defined) is not confined to the GOP, it is a central"”if not the central"”component of traditional conservatism. The idea that conservatism is not primarily about the preservation of faith, family, community, and ordered liberty, would be baffling to conservatives who came up during the eras from Taft to Reagan. That is why when these heartland conservatives are asked to rank issues of ultimate importance, abortion, marriage, and religion freedom naturally takes precedence over fiscal concerns. It is not that they think repealing the death tax is unimportant"”it's just that it is not nearly as important as repealing Roe.
Similarly, the term “economic conservative” has taken on a peculiar connotation. Nowadays the label has been adopted by those who can identify what taxes they want cut but not which spending. They also tend to support the interest of lobbyists and corporate oligarchies rather than workers and small businesses. House Republicans who claim to be economic conservatives are often quick to offer non-specific platitudes about fiscal restraint while maintaing a “business as usual” attitude to fiscal irresponsibility. Earmarks, for instance, are a relatively trivial concern compared to the more pressing economic problems we face. Yet it is disturbing to see so-called economic conservatives in Congress defend the practice as if it were their primary job to to bring pork back to their districts.
In contrast, one-legged conservatives are true fiscal conservatives. They are pro-capitalism, pro-growth, and pro-entrepreneur. They embrace the basic tenets of supply-side theory without falling for the magical thinking that tax cuts always increase government revenues. While they are tired of trillion-dollar deficits and out of control spending at the federal level, they understand that the role of state and local governments is to provide the infrastructure that makes economic growth possible. They don't, like the Club for Growth types, freak out on finding that a Republican governor supported using taxes to pay for roads, police, and prisons. One-legged conservatives understand the economy on a personal level. For them, it is not just a series of charts and statistics and abstract theories from a think-tank white paper"”weapons to be used to wrest power from the Democrats.
Likewise, the one-legged conservatives are conservative on defense because they are the ones that are defending the country. More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas"”which is why for many conservative families, “national defense” is a personal issue. Since the Reagan era those in the military have also had a tendency to vote for Republicans. In 2004 an unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel showed they supported President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. They trusted Bush and the Republicans to lead on issues of national security and believed the GOP when it made the case that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were genuine threats. What they did not give was a mandate to create a perpetual war machine that is fueled by the blood and sweat of their children.
Like most heartland conservatives, they tend to support the GOP and the conservative movement even when they are being ignored or dismissed. The few times they do raise a fuss, the GOP elite begins wringing their hands and fretting about dissension in the coalition. What they don’t understand is that the conservative coalition is composed primarily of us one-legged conservatives.
All too often conservative pundits claim that the movement would be better off if it were more like them. While I have a tendency to resort to that type of thinking, this is not what I am saying now. It is not that I think that the coalition should be more like me but rather that I am already a representative member of the largest, most essential group of conservatives in America.
Back home in Texas I’d be fairly typical example"”I’m a rural, evangelical, veteran, and former small business owner. You can find social-fiscal-defense conservatives like me in every church, diner, and public square. Yet in Washington, D.C., I’m something of an anomaly. Ask someone here about their political leanings and their answer will sound like they’re ordering from Starbucks: “I’m fiscally conservative on taxes and spending, a neo-con on foreign affairs, and lean libertarian on social issues like drug legalization, gay rights, and abortion.” In contrast, most people in rural areas would simply say, “I’m a conservative”"”and expect you’d know what they meant.
The problem with the conservative elite, particularly the policy and pundit classes, is that they have almost no interaction with actual one-legged conservatives. How many evangelicals or military veterans"”much less evangelical military veterans"”will you find in the think-tanks or on the mastheads of the elite conservative publications? Or what about small business entrepreneurs? Or rural Southerners? You’re more likely to find an agnostic Canadian who served in the Israeli Defense Forces.
There’s nothing wrong with that, of course (well, nothing wrong with serving in the IDF; being agnostic or Canadian is a bit suspect). But acknowledging that disconnect between the elites and the commoners can help illuminate why we keep seeing these “conservative crackup” stories coming from the East Coast. They think that when we express our disdain for this false fusionism that we are breaking ranks. Perhaps, if they would only get out more they would see the truth: There’s only one leg of our coalition"”and we’re the ones holding up the conservative movement. Comments (13) 13 Comments The Engaging Essentials atSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 9:54 am
[...] GOP Forgets the SoCons Again? – First Things takes the GOP’s recently announced “Pledge to America” to task for nearly entirely neglecting the social conservatives. But for Mike Pence, the GOP might have entirely written off the social issues. [...]
ahemSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 10:50 amEcclesiastes states there is a time for every purpose under heaven. Problems change over time, and with them, the solutions.
The purpose to be served right now is to save the United States from completely abandoning the republic and the Constitution and becoming a totalitarian state.
Toward that end, Republicans have to acquire the widest possible base of political support over the next 2 years–including the support of those whom it would ordinarily consider to be less socially conservative. It’s all hands on deck, big tent, and strange bedfellows time. This is a battle we can not afford to lose the very qualities in our society that enable us to indulge ourselves in flights of social conservatism.
Petulant insistence upon social conservatism at a time like this is out of touch politcally. It’s voters who insisted on ideological purity and withheld their vote that helped get a radical Leftist elected and put us in this mess.
Joe CarterSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 11:02 amThe people who are “out of touch politically” are the ones that use overheated rhetoric about “becoming a totalitarian state.” No one can take conservatives seriously when they use that sort of Leftist-style hype. Where were the people saying that we were moving toward totalitarianism when it was George Bush running up the largest deficits in U.S. history?
Also, you don’t save the country from liberalism by abandoning the core of conservatism. The reason we are in this fiscal situation we are in now is due largely to conservatives setting aside their values for short-term gains"”gains that never seem to come.
Bob MorrisonSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 11:34 amJoe Carter is quite right. The inclusion of support for the Hyde Amendment in the GOP Pledge is welcome. It also should be noted that Hyde was approved by a Democratic Congress in 1977 and signed by President Jimmy Carter. Is this all there is to the circus?
If the Republicans take over Congress this November, I’d like to know if they will continue to sluice billions of our tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, as they did under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush? The last time the Republicans ran Congress, they gave Planned Parenthood more money, proportionately, than the Democratic Congresses had done.
President Eisenhower, a most moderate Republican, said he could not imagine a role more “inappropriate” for the federal government than funding a national network of family planning centers.
If the Republicans think it is an appropriate role, is there any federal incursions, any federal spending that cannot be justified?
Fifty-two million abortions, 65 million STDs, and an out-of-wedlock birthrate approaching 40% are the legacy of this out-of-control federal intervention.
JmarSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 12:28 pmI think I understand your point, but what should have been in there that wasn’t? The pledge, as far as I can tell, is in response largely to the Tea Party sentiments, which is focused almost solely on Government spending, power, overreach, and issues of Constitutional respect/adherence etc. What social issues require a explicit pledge given the current political momentum and focus of a majority of the US population?
JmarSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 12:36 pm…I forgot to mention, that it seems Republican and Conservative are getting a make over. The push is toward a “classical liberalism”, which is different, if not subtly so, from Reagan conservatism which was co-opted by the Religious Right– the premise that less Evangelicals in politics is bad shows the faith one puts in Government to deal with social issues… solving problems such as those are best left to the Church and individuals within communities, not Washington DC. If the Christians of this country can’t help with “social issues”, what good will Government do?
KafbstSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 1:00 pmAs I peruse the web I see that many pro-life organizations are speaking out in support of the Pledge.
Joe, what else did you want the Republicans to put into the Pledge? Someone above mentioned no funding for Planned Parenthood, although the GOP pledge to examine funding and “sunset” programs that are past their prime may be an avenue for de-funding abortions. I guess I’m surprised that you’re so adamant about a fairly good document (if they stick to their word, that is). Your argument detailed why conservatives are important, which is a bit like preaching to the choir, but didn’t address how Republicans could have made the Pledge better from a social conservative perspective. A mission statement that covers support for the traditional family can encompass a lot of legislation, imo.
Barry ArringtonSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 4:14 pmGreat post Joe.
Let me make a prediction: If the GOP takes over the Congress, there will be a lot of huffing and puffing about how "things are gonna be different."� But they won't be. We have too few DeMints and too many DeLays to make a difference.
I have always been an outsider in the GOP even when I held office. I will never forget a conversation with a GOP old timer in the Colorado capitol a few weeks after I was elected to the Colorado state house. "You people,"� she said, "are great for the party. Now I hope you won't make too much noise while we govern."� I was gobsmacked. I remember thinking that the Republicans need us evangelical social conservatives if they have any hope of cobbling together an electoral majority, but here is a party elite saying, "thank you very much for giving us the votes necessary to win the election; now sit down and shut up."�
The more I thought about it, though, the more I came to understand that what she was saying made perfect sense from her perspective. Why shouldn't they think that way? Where are we going to go? Certainly not to the Democrats. They know that as long as they throw us the occasional bone, they can take us for granted. And that is a recipe for almost zero political influence.
It is the same at the national level. When Representative Marilyn Musgrave ran her proposal to amend the Constitution to protect traditional marriage, I helped her with speech writing and legislative history materials. When the big day for the floor debate came up, Tom Delay promised us a fight for the ages. He delivered squat. He paid no heed to the floor debate and couldn't even be bothered to ensure there were Republicans lined up to speak on behalf of the bill. It was obvious to me that he cared not one whit whether the bill passed.
And here we are again. The GOP party elites give us a pledge that all but ignores the 40% of the Republican base for whom social issues are the sine qua non of their political engagement. They’ve thrown us a couple of bones, knowing that’s all it takes to trigger our Pavlovian “vote GOP” response.
This is not to say that I won't turn out and vote for the Republicans (except for the Colorado GOP's candidate for governor; he is a buffoon whom I simply cannot abide). After all, the GOP elite are essentially correct in their analysis. Where else am I going to go? But as George Will put it before the last election, we have come to a sad turn indeed when the best the GOP can say to us social conservatives is "The other guy is even worse!"�
Mixed Conservative Reaction to GOP’s New ‘Pledge’ – The AtlanticWire (blog) | Conservatives for AmericaSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 6:18 pm[...] Mack Praises 'Pledge to America' for Conservative IdealsSunshine State News (blog)The One-Legged Conservative CoalitionFirst Things (blog)Daily Kos -msnbc.com -CBS Newsall 2,362 news [...]
AaronSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 6:23 pmBelow, is the text of a comment by Yuval Levin, a regular contributor at NRO. I don’t really see how the text below is “fawning”, and I don’t see how it exemplifies a pledge that ignores the social issues. Like previous commentators, I’m skeptical of the likelihood of follow-through, but I read NRO’s editorial, as well as the posting below, as being pretty circumspect, myself.
“The first thing that strikes me (especially in comparing this Pledge to the Contract With America) is how much progress pro-lifers have made both in the arena of public opinion and the intra-Republican debate on the abortion question. The Contract avoided the subject like the plague. This document speaks plainly of a commitment to human life several times, lists abortion funding as a key reason for repealing Obamacare, and promises a government-wide Hyde Amendment. We haven't been able to move the courts, and so there is much work to be done in combating this most grave injustice of our time (and not much that can be done by Congress, alas) but progress is progress, and this is definitely progress.
The pledge also positions the Republican agenda in the context of a larger case about American history and the character of the country. The preamble is a very nice touch, and the themes it raises reappear throughout. The importance of formulating this kind of underlying case should not be underestimated.
One thing that laying out that context allows the Pledge to do is to articulate an agenda with a sense of humility"”humility about what government can do and humility about what congressional Republicans can do (even if the election goes very well) given the fact that President Obama will still be in office for the next two years. In each of its sections, the document begins by laying out the (often very daunting) extent of the problem to be solved, and then offers some first steps toward a constructive solution. It doesn't offer the sky, it offers useful opening moves that are actually plausible.
And in each case (and especially with regard to the economic issues), it is informed by a sense that congressional Republicans first have to stop the damage being done by the Democrats' hyperactive liberalism, and only then can they turn to their own policies. The sheer hyperactivity of Washington these last few years has had a lot to do with keeping the economy sluggish: it has created uncertainty that has kept investors and consumers sitting on their hands. It is therefore essential to first create some stability by assuring Americans that there are not more tax hikes coming, that there are not more enormous spending programs coming, and that Congress is working to avert the impending disaster that is the new health-care law. Only then can we turn to more actively fostering the conditions for growth.
If anything is conspicuously absent from the document, it is the word "earmarks."� There is no doubt that the conservative crusade against earmarks is often more symbolic than substantive"”earmarks are hardly at the core of our budget woes. But symbols matter, and for many voters, earmarks are a symbol of the corruption of our system of government. Republicans already took a no earmark pledge this past year. Some Republican members, particularly those on the appropriations committee, would rather not take another one, and the party's leaders have been wobbly on the subject in recent weeks. They should straighten up, and make it very clear to voters that if Republicans win the majority, there will be no earmarks. That's almost certain to be the case whatever the leadership wants"”a massive new class of members elected for the first time this year is very likely to make sure of it. Why not make it clear in advance that this is where Republicans stand?
On the whole, in both substantive and political terms, the Pledge is a very smart and impressive document. Conservatives always love to complain that Republican members of congress and their staffs never get anything right. Here is some proof to the contrary.”
Mike P.September 23rd, 2010 | 7:14 pmJoe thinks there isn't enough on social issues; some people thought the document didn't go far enough on economics. But I think it is balanced. Just because discussion of the social issues occupies a lower word count does not mean that they "�matter less' to the GOP leadership. In fact, as K-Lo at NRO said earlier today, Chris Smith (R-NJ) stood up at the GOP House Conference to thank the leadership for including the opposition to abortion and said that he considers the current GOP leadership to be the most anti-abortion leadership ever. Is he just trying to suck up to Boehner? The lower amount of "�coverage' of the social issues simply means that there is not really much to say on the subject. This is not only the result of our present historical juncture, in which economic problems control everyone's attention, but because of certain long-standing and well-known facts about social issues. The leadership is only going to say things in a "�pledge' that they reasonably expect to be able to do. They can play a role in shaping the budget and economic policy, because this sort of thing has to be sorted out each year (although their power is obviously limited with President Obama in the White House). I agree with you that repealing Roe is more important than repealing the death tax. But it would take extraordinary forces for Congress to "repeal"� Roe. Much like foreign policy lies with the President, social issues lie largely with the courts. It is much harder for a single Congress to make dramatic changes in social policy. The main reason for this is that social issues -particularly life and marriage- are enormously wrapped up in the courts at the federal level. Congress can do very little about it apart from amending the Constitution, which is next to impossible. State legislators have much more power on these questions, particularly marriage, because amending most state constitutions is much simpler than amending the federal Constitution (to this end, I would encourage support for GOP state legislative candidates in IA, NC, IN, PA, and MN). Congress cannot pass the Human Life Amendment or Federal Marriage Amendment: I wish they could, but they can't. To do so they'd need 287 votes in the House and 66 in the Senate, and the last time a party had those numbers in both chambers at the same time was 1965. What exactly would you have the GOP leadership say in this pledge, Joe? That they will make sure DOMA is not repealed? That they will make sure the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is not repealed? Those laws are on the books. They cannot make any guarantees about what a federal court will or will not do, and they cannot promise to remedy some future Supreme Court decision with an amendment. They just can't. This is not their fault: it is just the way these issues are situated in our politics.
I agree with you that the Beltway has a distorting effect on the way GOP strategists think. I go to college at CUA and I certainly am aware of how different D.C. is from most of the rest of the country. I should say, however, I think this is true for everyone, not just for conservatives. Furthermore, if you asked people at Cato about how the GOP establishment elites are super-libertarian, they would seem pretty surprised. Most libertarians are not hawks, and regard the growth of the national security state under Bush to be very bad. Many regard this as worse than Bush's social conservatism. Furthermore, most Beltway GOP elites are also not really that libertarian on economic policy. The entire "compassionate conservative"� (i.e. moving to the left on economics) project was thought up by Beltway folks. So while I agree that they are often out-of-touch with their base, I do not think that it is because they are too libertarian. It is because they are too liberal. And it exists on many issues, not just on social issues.
I also agree with you about the strange distinctions between the "types of conservatives."� I refer to myself as just "conservative"� but there are usually different terms for people who agree with us sometimes but not always (libertarian and possibly communitarian are among them).
Politics is very predictable. People reluctantly vote for a party because the other guys are worse. When they take office, the voters become disillusioned and feel they are being ignored. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until the Final Judgment. To paraphrase Peter Hitchens, politics is about compromise and disagreement; it is not like religion; you don't choose it because it is purely good. You make a compromise by choosing to become involved at all. I think this is something to bear in mind. It does not mean rolling over and being lackeys for the GOP, but it does mean recognizing the limitations of politics. Social issues are judicial issues, and Congress cannot do much to change that.
Land: GOP ‘pledge’ shows social conservative progress – BP News | Conservatives for AmericaSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 7:15 pm[...] Mack Praises 'Pledge to America' for Conservative IdealsSunshine State News (blog)First Things (blog) -Daily Kos -msnbc.comall 2,383 news [...]
KingSeptember 23rd, 2010 | 11:45 pmWe are not going to change the culture through the Republican party. We send politicians to Washington to balance budgets, provision our military, and fix pot holes.
Politics is the art of the possible. It requires rallying around common causes and compromising with unprincipled opponents. It is sausage-making, not for the squeamish.
The Pledge is a fantastic development for social conservatives. That it does not check-off every box of Mr. Carter’s (or my) list is a hopeful sign.
We do what we can. In a messy democracy, sometimes the smart move is the short term gain. Mr. Carter’s in-your-face strategy will alienate the 80% of the country who do not share his almost left-wing impatience to transform the universe.
“What do we want?” CONSERVATISM IN ALL THINGS!
“When do we want it?” NOW!
Gentle persuasion. A nudge here and there. More victories than losses. More right turns than left. And eventually we’ll be home. Grabbing the wheel of the ship and yanking the vessel sharply right will only get Mr. Carter locked up in the proverbial brig where he can self-righteously denounce the rest of us reasonable social conservatives as moderates and compromisers.
Niebuhr famously wrote, “Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore, we are saved by hope.” The right loses when we adopt the left’s strategy.
You want to change the culture of death? Have ten kids and raise them right. Hyde Amendments and Mexico City Policies (and even decisions against Roe) are symbolic feel-good causes that identify tribes but ultimately do more harm than good: thinking we can persuade elites that evil exists will take more than a few adjustments in the law, and no lasting change will occur until we neutralize, transform, or replace those who truly hold the cultural power. Instead we expend massive energy on symbolism, like the causes Mr. Carter insists be inserted incongruously into a document of essentially fiscal pledges.
We get it, Joe. But the “conservativer than thou” shtick is the strategy of romantic lost causes that gets people like Chris Coons elected. National Review has sold us social conservatives down the river now? Even The Weekly Standard has traded its birthright for a mess of pottage? Really?
Mr. Carter’s vehemence is not the social conservative’s friend.
Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply.Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Comment (All comments are held for moderation.)Cufon.replace('h1'); Links Home Current Issue About Us Advertising Contact Us Media RSS Feeds Kindle Edition Store Print Subscription Digital Subscription Blogs First Thoughts The Anchoress Gateway Pundit Spengler Secondhand Smoke Evangel Postmodern Conservative Find Us Facebook Twitter Contact ft@firstthings.com p. 212.627.1985 Legal/Terms and Conditions _uacct = "UA-3008891-1"; urchinTracker();_uacct = "UA-7796747-1";urchinTracker(); _qoptions={qacct:"p-04kfJS4F5Z9Ro"};Read Full Article »
