Home › Blogs › Pete's blog ›

David Frum, Social Conservatism and Sour Grapes

Submitted by Pete on Sat, 05/16/2009 - 18:47

David Frum on the news that Jon Huntsman is becoming ambassador to  China http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=b2289d5c-d34e-48bc-817b-ccf1682a6049

What is striking is Frum's demand that social conservatives need to do the giving in, if the Republicans are to win again.  As National Review has pointed out, it is tough to see how social conservatives are responsible for the last two Republican defeats.  2006 was a foreign policy driven election and 2008 was an economy driven election.  Social conservatism (rather than a rural/exurban identity politics) was not prominent as part of the GOP campaign in either election.  The one time abortion became an issue in the campaign (after the Rick Warren thing) Obama found himself on the defensive. 

Frum's timing is especially bad considering the release of the new Gallup poll that shows movement in the pro-life direction http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx?version=print  This doesn't mean social conservatives have it made.  The poll is ambiguous in many ways, but it does show that an incrementalist and principled pro-life politics is hardly a burden for Republicans. 

David Frum has been hoping to get a pro-choice candidate on a national ticket for a while now.  He supported Giuliani in the 2008 primaries and in a recent column (which was mostly wise advice) he suggested that Tom Ridge would have been a good choice as McCain's VP running mate. http://www.theweek.com/article/index/95947/How_to_rebuild_the_GOP 

I think Frum has it mostly backwards.  The GOP has not lost becuase it overemphasized social conservative issues in the last two elections.  It had overemphasized rural/exurban identity politcs, had had no coherent economic agenda, and had been discredited by foreign policy incompetence.  Job one is crafting a compelling free market economic agenda.  Without that you have nothing.  Job two is incorporating a style of social conservative politics that is more sensitive to urban and inner suburb voters (stop implying that they don't live in the "heartland" and thats only the first thing), and based more on principle than regional chauvinism. 

In fact, rather than sticking it to pro-lifers, truly moderate Republicans might join them in  dramatizing Obama's abortion extremism when it comes to an unlimited licence for late term abortions.  Whatever their ultimate differences with the more consistent pro-lifers, perhaps moderates could work tactically on an issue where moderates and social conservatives could agree and Obama's radical social liberalism leaves him with only a smallish minority of public opinion. 

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

Frum will use any excuse...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 05/16/2009 - 20:56.

...to dump on SoCons and Christians.  He thinks that by telling the drive-by's what they want to hear we can make the drive-by's like us more.  If that were true, McCain would have won in a landslide.

Not so sure I agree with your conclusions...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sat, 05/16/2009 - 23:47.

... but I definitely agree with your premise:

It [the GOP] had overemphasized rural/exurban identity politcs, had had no coherent economic agenda, and had been discredited by foreign policy incompetence. 

 

"...sticking it to pro-lifers..." Whaa...?!

Submitted by gs on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 10:56.

In fact, rather than sticking it to pro-lifers, truly moderate Republicans might join them in dramatizing Obama's abortion extremism when it comes to an unlimited licence for late term abortions.

So a "truly" moderate Republican is one who becomes a fellow traveler with the "pro-life" faction?  This supports my suspicion that the religious right doesn't want allies and coalition partners; it wants dhimmis. 

I'm a small-el libertarian who used to regularly vote Republican.  Back when Bush was riding high, I warned that the party was going down a bad path.  I was either ignored or scorned because I didn't understand stategery guhyuk nyuk nyuk.

IMO the social conservatives want Big Government as the means to ram their values down the country's throat.  Given no alternatives but Republican or Democratic big government, I'll take the Democratic brand as (probably) the lesser evil. 

social conservatives are good fiscal conservatives

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 14:28.

IMO the social conservatives want Big Government as the means to ram their values down the country's throat.  Given no alternatives but Republican or Democratic big government, I'll take the Democratic brand as (probably) the lesser evil.  

IMO this is a canard. 99% of Big Govt is on behalf of non-social conservative agendas - environment, socialized healthcare, public education, farm subsidies, roads, pork, welfare, DoD, etc.

If you look at the voting data for members of Congress, the best fiscal conservatives in Congress are also social conservatives.

 

99% of Big Govt is on behalf

Submitted by gs on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 15:22.

99% of Big Govt is on behalf of non-social conservative agendas - environment, socialized healthcare, public education, farm subsidies, roads, pork, welfare, DoD, etc.

Yet a Republican Congress passed, and a Republican President pushed for and signed, measures in most or all of these areas. 

Maybe no true Scotsman--oops, I mean no true social conservative--would have done so.

(Btw, that Republican Congress passed, and the same Republican President signed, legislation federalizing the Schiavo matter.)

the myth of big Govt social conservatism

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 16:12.

Yet a Republican Congress passed, and a Republican President pushed for and signed, measures in most or all of these areas.

So? 'Republican' and 'social conservative' are 2 different things.  The biggest boosters for say McCain-Feingold or Medicare part D were MODERATES in the Republican Party. The second biggest spending groups were the earmarking unprinciple panderers. One of the worst offenders on both scores was Arlen Specter, bane of social conservatives, RINO and now ex-Republican.

Your complaint really should be with them.

(Btw, that Republican Congress passed, and the same Republican President signed, legislation federalizing the Schiavo matter.

The budget this year is $3.6 trillion dollars. $3,600,000,000,000 dollars. How much of the budget is taken up by that, or by federalizing end-of-life court cases via 14th amendment due process appeals? what percent are we talking?

You may approve or disapprove, but where's the 'Big Govt' there? I don't see it. So us some better examples of Big Govt social conservatism. AFAIK, it's a myth.

Moderation

Submitted by Pete on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 11:23.

gs, I think that real abortion moderates and incrementalist pro-lifers have much that they can agree on tactically given current abortion law.  You would think that they would be able to agree on limiting the license on late term abortions (cases where the mothers life is endangered as an exception), while  still going their separate ways on abortions ealier in a pregnancy.  You would think that would be an issue on which moderate and socially conservative Republicans could agree on with each other and the majority of the public.

Or you would think that even a radically pro-choice Republican who really is a small - l libertarian would stay with the more free market party with the understanding that they are a minority within the party on the abortion issue (like radically  pro-life Democrats in the other party) and that this might limit their chances on being on a national ticket, but that in a given state (like New York or New Jersey) they can become state leaders if they are at least somewhat conservative on other issues.  The recent troubles with Republican "moderates" like Specter and Powell have not been over abortion and other social issues but over taxes and spending.  You would think that a small - l libertarian would agree with the policy critiques of the conservatives opponents of Powell and Specter even if you diagree about the wisdom running a primary opponent against Specter or whether one would rather have Limbaugh or Powell in the party.

On the other hand if keeping an unlimited abortion license in the ninth month of the pregnancy is a high salience issue for you, and that given a choice, you would accept Obama's higher tax, higher spending agenda as a price worth paying for keeping an unlimited license on late term abortions, then maybe the more radically pro-choice party really is a better fit for you.

1. Pete, I don't categorize

Submitted by gs on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 15:32.

1. Pete, I don't categorize my political priorities like you categorize yours.

2. If I didn't feel that the GOP has played me for a chump since at least the Clinton impeachment, I might take your remarks about finding common cause more seriously than I did.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice,...

3. I don't know if the GOP will recover; I certainly hope so.  There are some, ah, green shoots on this site.  But I don't see the GOP getting serious about rebuilding until at least one more electoral thrashing.  In fact, I think it would be bad for the country if Obama messes up so badly that the current Republican party gets back in power.  I take no comfort in the thought that Bush Republicans would probably wreck the country more slowly than Obama Democrats.

GS

Submitted by Pete on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 17:22.

GS, I don't see that the GOP can or should adopt a radically pro-choice politics simply because you have grown to distrust the GOP.  Most of the party's members are pro-life and even most of the pro-choicers like Kay Bailey Hutchison are on the more moderate end of the pro-choice spectrum , and of the kind tof pro-choicer hat incrementalist pro-lifers can tactically work with in the short and medium term.  I see you have lots of resentments regarding past GOP actions.  I probably agree with you on at least some of them, but your comment that you would refuse common cause not because of any principled or policy oriented reason, but because of suspicion of social conservatives means that maybe the Republicans would be better off hunting for votes among other more openminded folks while you get over some of your current resentments, and maybe accumulate some from the Democrats.

 

GS, I don't see that the GOP

Submitted by gs on Sun, 05/17/2009 - 19:34.

GS, I don't see that the GOP can or should adopt a radically pro-choice politics simply because you have grown to distrust the GOP.

I haven't expressed an opinion about what the legal status of abortion should be.  You don't seem to have noticed that.

...your comment that you would refuse common cause not because of any principled or policy oriented reason, but because of suspicion of social conservatives means that maybe the Republicans would be better off hunting for votes among other more openminded folks while you get over some of your current resentments, and maybe accumulate some from the Democrats.

I'd like to think you're a Democrat operative working to keep alienated swing voters alienated.  I fear otherwise.

GS

Submitted by Pete on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 04:30.

GS, not exactly, but my post was, in part about how abortion moderates and incrementalist pro-lifers could work together, and that very moderate and accomadationist suggestion seems to haave set you off.  And I think the intensity of your hostility to soical conservatives and your refusal to engage on principle or policy indicates that you are more alienated (from Republicans) than a swing voter at the moment.  When you are more ready to listen, the Republicans should of course be there with a coherent free market oriented economic policy and real respect for your opinions on the social issues - if not always giving you your own way.  In the meantime, it seems that you has well as the more strident Republican conservatives might take this moment of Democratic dominance to learn a few things, among them tolerance for intraparty differences.