Defending Social Conservatives

 I respectfully disagree with the author. As a life-long republican I recall how Reagan created a republican revolution: with a new generation of young republicans. Obama accomplished just that in this election. In additon to all minorities, two key groups went for him significantly: young voters and women. They see him and the democrats as the party of the future, of the 21st century and the republicans as a party of racists, anti-women, that are willing to destroy planet earth and that only care about war and telling people what they can and cannot do in the bedroom. The Palin rallies looked more like KKK meetings and I can assure you most young people who watched it were horrified enough to affect them for many election cycles to come. In Obama, what they saw was a candidate offering hope for the future not fear mongering. I think it was very telling that in the last debate the abortion question was a highlight for Obama and a low point for McCain. why? because McCain came off as the radical when he asserted that somehow women are faking health problems so they can have late term abortions (as if anybody would wish for that). I think the republican party needs to go back to its roots as the party of small government but with a more hopeful vision of the future, a new commitment to the environment and energy independence which most young people now view as critical, and to leave social issues in the hands of people. It is a new world, and a new time, and our party needs to rise to the challenge and redefine itself as a progressive party that keeps government in check. That is an important role and it needs to be preserved. Unfortunately, by getting in bed with the evangelicals , the party now looks medieval and unattractive to ethnically diverse groups, young people, and a majority of women.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment that these post-election analyses behave as if the results on that given Tuesday night portend permanent and irrefutable national truths (remember how 2004 meant the GOP had a permanent majority?).  Obviously these greatly overstate the importance of voting behaviors that may have been formed mere weeks before the election (like the financial crisis in 2008).  The other thing I've observed is these proclamations usually are completely devoid of nuance -- they're sweeping generalizations with no room for the details.

Here's a thought as it relates to social conservatism: is the problem that the GOP focused too much on appealing to social conservatives, or was the problem in HOW it appealed to them?  I don't know the answer, but I have to believe it's a little more complex than "social conservatism is SO 2004."

I was four years old in 1980, so my knowledge of what elected Ronald Reagan is derived from the history books, rather than what I felt in my gut at the time.  I have to wonder if the difference is that instead of appealing to the concerns of social conservatives in a manner consistent with the philosophy of conservatism generally, we've now created a contradiction. 

In 1980, social conservatives felt under siege by a Democratic administration threatening the tax exemption of churches and a Dept. of Education they felt was purging their local schools of anything resembling Judeo-Christian values, as well as an activist Supreme Court bent on imposing moral relativism with no accountability to voters.  Ronald Reagan came along with a promise to get government out of our lives - a message that applied to those social conservatives, as well as economic conservatives. However, I wonder if since (particularly post-2000 and 2004), the GOP at large (read: the Bush Administration and congressional leadership) was more intent on federalizing the desires of social conservatives, in the form of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, versus fighting it in the states -- as was advocated by the Bush campaign in 2000 -- or intervening in the Terry Schiavo case.  I believe both contributed to the belief that Republicans wanted to use Washington to impose a value system, while Republican candidates were making speeches about getting Washington out of our lives.  The Schiavo case in particular seemed to solidify the perception that when it was sought by evangelicals, Republicans were very much for getting Washington into our lives.  This strikes me as a stark contrast between the GOP of 1980 and 2006, even though in both cases the party was looking to appeal to social conservatives.

I don't know if this is the case, but it's question worth asking.  The saying about a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away comes to mind.  Reagan said government should be smaller, and told social conservatives how that would be to their benefit.  The modern GOP has said government should be smaller, except for when it comes to the wishes of social conservatives.  This is a more subtle difference than saying that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater by showing social conservatives the door.  Maybe instead of discussing how Republicans need to get away from social conservatism, we should be discussing how to get back to our small government principles, and how that will be good for everyone, social conservatives included. 

Not so much a statement on my part, as a question.

here in California, both Prop 8 (gay marriage) and Prop 4 (parental notification for abortions) were almost 50/50.  Prop 2 (gay marriage ban) passed in Florida with over 62% of the vote.  Somebody remind me which way California and Florida went in the electoral college? ;)  The GOP's traditional connection to social conservatives did not lose this election for McCain.

And regarding the connection to evangelicals; didn't anybody watch Barack describe his faith? He really gave a more classically-evangelical Christian answer than McCain did, getting very specific about what his faith meant, who Jesus was, and what Jesus had done. McCain was quite vague and inarticulate on the issue.  When in 2001, 76% of Americans identify themselves with some form of Christianity (protestant/catholic etc,) religion is not what's losing elections.

I'd solidly put the blame on: a) poor management. We've spent too much time trying to be big government (not having a balanced budget, social-programs up the wazoo) and b) getting caught in scandal after scandal.

You know . maybe some people actually take their faith seriously. Maybe some people really are not supportive of liberal social issue initiatives. Perhaps they've reached these conclusions in good faith, and not based on irrational prejudice.

Now there are some absolutists out there, like the folks who wanted Jeb Bush to send the state troopers in to seize Terri Schiavo. But then there's Keith Olbermann. Who has the national megaphone?

There's a well orchestrated effort to demonize and marginalize people offering principled opposition to the new crew in DC.  This RINO from New England ain't getting in line with the project.   

 "According to proponents of this view (David Frum is one; David Brooks is another), conservatives should propose more moderate, work-towards-the-center policies, such as accepting abortion and fighting climate change, which would, in theory, appeal to educated, upper-middle class voters."

I notice a lack of any quote or citation here.  Who said they would have to "accept abortion".  If you want to attack their argument, at least present it fairly.

They aren't arguing for a yes/no on social conservatism.  They are arguing that it has overreached.  They are saying be pro-life, but don't ban stem cell research funding and.  They are saying that Congress should not intervene in the medical decisions of individual women in Florida.

They aren't saying let in unlimited illegal aliens.  They are saying the tone matters.  If you talk like these people are scum, it's unsurprisng their relatives will not vote for you.  

And they aren't saying we need some Climate Czar Al Gore.  They are saying that we should be able to discuss how we deal with the negative externalities of climate change.  We should be at the table when the solutions are being written.  If we don't like cap and trade, then what solutions do we have.

But fundamentally, their concern is that the GOP is losing more and more moderate suburban voters.  It's not because these people are stridently pro-abortion, but they don't see social issues as their primary concern.  So if the GOP is focused on abortion and the Democrats are talking about foreclosures and new roads, the GOP can seem disconnected from their concerns.

One reason McCain appealed to me is that he is socially conservative on the vast majority of issues (pro-life, judges, anti-same-sex marriage), but not in a way that scares off people who disagree with him.  

Actually, the fiscal conservatives ought to make common cause with the social conservatives because the DC GOP sold both of us out. Terri Schiavo was a disasterous effort to quickly "make good" with these voters, and backfired badly.  The GOP may have been right on the merits, but approached this in a heavy handed grandstanding manner. 

One thing I like about Sarah Palin to date is she spends more time "walking the walk" as to her value system instead of just mouthing off. I hope she resists the pleas to put social issues front and center; bringing Trig into the world is enough documentation for the likes of me. 

My god, she campaigned in northern states telling the truth about Barack Obama. Clearly her strategy was intended to lead to the destruction of American society!

(that's sarcasm, mon gauche amies)