Tim Dunkin
Conservatism's Cassandra
By Tim Dunkin
Conservatism in America is experiencing a resurgence, one could almost say a renaissance. Despite the predictions, or perhaps we should say the hopes, of some, conservatism did not disappear in disgrace. It did not wander off into the wilderness, never to be resurrected. It did not die, as Sam Tanenbaum so breathlessly cheered in his book The Death of Conservatism. Instead, just slightly more than one short year after one of the most seemingly disastrous elections in recent record, conservatism has found itself coming through the purifying fires of defeat to regain its footing on its core and fundamental principles. Movement conservatism — resting on the fourfold foundation of fiscal discipline, social traditionalism, respect for the Constitution, and an America-first foreign policy — has come to the forefront once again, driven by the Tea Parties and Town Halls and the millions of everyday American citizens who demand their liberty and who demand accountability from their own government.
Yet, as is always the case with popular movements whose star is rising, there are always those who want to hitch their wagons and use the movement to promote their own, often contrary, agendas. Such is the case with the gaggle of partway-conservatives — Ron Paulians, social libertarians, third partyists of every stripe and color — trying to latch onto the conservative freight train. One of the effects of this in recent months has been the attempt by many to downplay or even eliminate the place of social conservatism in the conservative alliance. Driven by libertarian types, there seems to be a concerted effort from some quarters to push social conservatism, and social conservatives by extension, out of the conservative resurgence. The argument (flawed, by the way) is that social conservatism — with its opposition to radical social lunacies such as gay marriage and unhindered access to abortion — is as inimical to freedom as economic socialism is. Hence, social libertarians and other supporters of social radicalism are using the opportunity to try to hijack the Tea Parties, hijack the activism, and hijack the conservative movement.
In the Greek myths surrounding the Iliad, Cassandra was a daughter of King Priam, the Trojan king. She was pursued by Apollo, who rewarded her beauty and virtue by giving her the gift of prophecy — she was able to accurately foretell the future. However, when she spurned Apollo's advances, he coupled that gift with a curse — nobody would believe her prophecies. Hence, Cassandra was in the unenviable position of being able to warn her people of the dangers to come and of the right paths to take, but was always ignored and disbelieved, eventually seeing her city destroyed because her (correct) advice was not followed. By warning conservatives and other opponents of big government — of all stripes — against the attempt to "kick out" social conservatives from the conservative movement, I hope that I will not be a "conservative Cassandra," giving good warning, but seeing it go unheeded to the movement's destruction.
Disinheriting social conservatives from the conservative movement would be a supremely bad idea, for a number of reasons. First, of course, is that it is always a bad idea to drive away a large portion of your political allies. We need to keep in mind that while economic issues are at the forefront now, this will not always be the case. We are not always going to be in deep recession, we are not always going to have a radical Marxist for a President. At the same time, people retain their fundamental values and beliefs. Drive away social conservatives, and you cut out a large portion, perhaps the majority, of those who are also inclined to support fiscal responsibility. Conservatives are generally socially conservative as well as fiscally so. This is because their underlying worldview supports both aspects of their conservatism. Telling them to take a flying leap will, at best, split the conservative movement into two hostile and non-cooperative camps. At worst, it will create a rift that the socialists will exploit to gain ascendancy for a generation. The social libertarians need to ask themselves if banishing their allies who happen to oppose gay marriage or abortion on demand is really worth handing the radical Left a generation of power.
Second, we should understand that, as I've pointed out before, you cannot really and truly have liberty if you don't have the self-government that comes with moral conservatism. Most social conservatives don't — at least none that I know of — take the stances on these sorts of issues that they do because they get a kick out of "running other peoples' lives." Instead, they understand that there are certain public expressions of behaviors that are deleterious to the order and longevity of society as a whole. They understand that without good order, you don't have liberty — at least not anything that the Founders, with their basis in the Lockean sense of ordered liberty and commonwealthianism, would have recognized as such. Liberty can only truly exist when people govern their own behavior. And if people don't do that, but continue to engage in behaviors that are harmful to other members of society, then they need to be restrained from these behaviors. We will always be governed — the question is whether we will be self-governed or governed by others. The failure to maintain the former always leads to the latter. Social conservatism seeks to instill in the citizenry a sense of self-government, and is truly a better bulwark against tyranny than is social libertarianism, which simply opens us up to anything and everything, no matter how harmful to the lives and well-being of others these may be. Social libertarianism, perversely, leads to exactly the sort of social control that the social libertarians fear.
When we consider the question of whether or not social conservatism is inimical to freedom, we first need to delve the nature of the beast. What is social conservatism, as it is routinely and commonly expressed on the American political scene today? Well, really, it seems to boil down to concern over two major issues that I have already mentioned — abortion and gay marriage. These are certainly the two issues that would come to most people's minds when asked to describe what social conservatism in American politics consists of. So let us deal with these two topics, since they make up the lion's share of what's at issue here.
What we should understand about both of these issues is that neither abortion nor gay marriage are "private" matters. They do not belong within the realm of res privata (private things). Neither of them is about, to use the stereotypical language, "what people do in their own bedrooms." Both of these issues are public expressions of activity.
Abortion is public — any time that a human life is taken, it becomes a concern for society at large. I cannot kill someone in cold blood in the privacy of my own home, and then make the argument that the state has no interest in the matter, since it happened on private property, away from the public eye. Murder is murder, and is always falls into the category of res publica (public things). "Now," one might argue, "I don't consider abortion to be murder since I don't consider the fetus to be human life." This is, of course, an absolutely foolish and self-serving argument. There is no point — between conception to death by old age — at which we can draw a line and arbitrarily say that the human organism was not human and was not living before this point, and became human and became living after. None. Human development, from start to finish, is analog, not digital. There is no point at which humanity "switches on." Further, there is no point to be made by arguing from viability. After all, a three-year old child is "viable" outside the womb, but certainly couldn't survive for very long on his or her own. What's the difference, other than immediate geography? There is none (which is why "ethicists" like Peter Singer have carried the abortion supportive arguments to their logical conclusion and have argued that even toddlers can "rightly" be "aborted.") No, either that child is human — and as deserving of the rights of humanity as you and I — from the moment he or she is conceived, or else he or she is NEVER human. Hence, your desire for an abortion is the business of the rest of us.
In short, what you choose to do in your own bedroom is your business. What you want to do with the human product of that decision, however, is ours.
Now, to the other issue under discussion — gay marriage. Once again, this is not a "bedroom issue," despite the effort by leftists and libertarians to confuse it with such. Gay marriage is not about what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes. Gay marriage is about the effort by radical homosexual activists to force the rest of society to both accept their lifestyle choice and affirm it through codification into our system of contractual law. Again, we are not talking about the extension of any civil right here. Homosexuals already possess the exact same access to marriage that straights do — any gay man can marry any woman on the market that he chooses, and no straight man can marry another man. The issue of "preference" is irrelevant — civil rights don't cover matters of "preference," they pertain to equality before the law. This is not a civil rights issue. It is entirely a matter of the attempt by a tiny minority to force the rest of society — who does not desire its normalization through legal codification — to cater to its particular lifestyle choice. And note that term — lifestyle choice. There is no gay gene. Homosexuality is not "hardwired" into anybody. It is a choice freely made by individuals. You might ask, "Why would anyone choose a lifestyle where they'll go through so much trouble, heartache, and difficulty?" Well, why do drunkards start drinking and choose a lifestyle that will destroy themselves and their families? Why do drug addicts choose to do the same? People make bad lifestyle choices everyday that seem, to the outside observer, to be madness. Homosexuality is in this same category.
Hence, in neither of these issues can social conservatives rightly be said to be "forcing their values onto others." That is a spurious argument. Now, I will grant that there are times where my fellow social conservatives overstep the boundary between res publica and res privata, one example being the ban on internet gambling back in 2006. Likewise, I certainly agree that when the issue truly is what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes, that it is not the government's business to interfere, no matter how immoral or disgusting I find their behavior to be. Certainly, I do not approve of gambling, fornication, or any number of other activities that people engage in. I find them immoral, and certainly will note that their practitioners will stand before a holy God in judgment if they do not repent and turn to Christ and away from these sins. However, the government that is intrusive enough to tell two homosexuals what they can't do in their house is likewise intrusive enough to tell me what I can and can't teach my kids in the privacy of my own. Are we interested in seeing a reduction in sin and immorality? Well, I submit that this is what part of a Christian's being salt and light is all about — preaching the Gospel, seeing people turn to Christ and away from sin as they choose to repent and accept Him as their Savior. While I don't believe we ought to use the power of government to tell people what they must do, we certainly ought to use the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution to tell people what they should do. Subtle difference there. One uses the power of government, the other uses the power of persuasion.
However, I reiterate that when it comes to matters of public concern — and abortion and the codification into law of the gay agenda both fall into this category — social conservatives have a duty to stand for right in the public square.
Further, I would note that when it comes to matters of "forcing values" onto others, social conservatives, the occasional internet gambling ban aside, have not typically done this. Contrariwise, social conservatives have typically been the ones to whom this has been done. Usually, those doing the "values forcing" are those who are pushing for radical social change, over and against the objections of average, everyday conservative American citizens who are undergoing a never-ending assault on our own lifestyle, families, and private affairs. After all, what do you think is involved when:
So, you social libertarians who are tired of hearing Christians preach against sin, remember that the same government that can prevent the fundamentalist church down the street from speaking out against homosexuality can also tell you that you have to accept the dogma of global warming, and make you pay through the nose for it.
It would be wiser, would it not, for those of a more libertarian persuasion to work together with social conservatives — who are, when you look at the whole picture, not that far different on most issues — instead of trying to hijack the conservative movement and make social conservatives into pariahs? It wouldn't work anywise, of course, but great damage to the cause of liberty will be done in the process, if you keep going down that path. I have no problem working with folks who are likeminded on fiscal, constitutional, and sovereignty issues. I am happy to work with Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, and Third Partyists in support of smaller, less-intrusive, constitutionally-restrained government, though obviously I will oppose them when they try to manhandle the movement and misuse it to advance their particularist agendas. Conservatism is only conservatism when it has all four foundations in order. Removing any one of them — including conservatism's support for traditional values and social order — will undermine the movement and our country.
Here's hoping that I'm not going to end up being a Cassandra for conservatism.
© Tim Dunkin
Conservatism in America is experiencing a resurgence, one could almost say a renaissance. Despite the predictions, or perhaps we should say the hopes, of some, conservatism did not disappear in disgrace. It did not wander off into the wilderness, never to be resurrected. It did not die, as Sam Tanenbaum so breathlessly cheered in his book The Death of Conservatism. Instead, just slightly more than one short year after one of the most seemingly disastrous elections in recent record, conservatism has found itself coming through the purifying fires of defeat to regain its footing on its core and fundamental principles. Movement conservatism — resting on the fourfold foundation of fiscal discipline, social traditionalism, respect for the Constitution, and an America-first foreign policy — has come to the forefront once again, driven by the Tea Parties and Town Halls and the millions of everyday American citizens who demand their liberty and who demand accountability from their own government.
Yet, as is always the case with popular movements whose star is rising, there are always those who want to hitch their wagons and use the movement to promote their own, often contrary, agendas. Such is the case with the gaggle of partway-conservatives — Ron Paulians, social libertarians, third partyists of every stripe and color — trying to latch onto the conservative freight train. One of the effects of this in recent months has been the attempt by many to downplay or even eliminate the place of social conservatism in the conservative alliance. Driven by libertarian types, there seems to be a concerted effort from some quarters to push social conservatism, and social conservatives by extension, out of the conservative resurgence. The argument (flawed, by the way) is that social conservatism — with its opposition to radical social lunacies such as gay marriage and unhindered access to abortion — is as inimical to freedom as economic socialism is. Hence, social libertarians and other supporters of social radicalism are using the opportunity to try to hijack the Tea Parties, hijack the activism, and hijack the conservative movement.
In the Greek myths surrounding the Iliad, Cassandra was a daughter of King Priam, the Trojan king. She was pursued by Apollo, who rewarded her beauty and virtue by giving her the gift of prophecy — she was able to accurately foretell the future. However, when she spurned Apollo's advances, he coupled that gift with a curse — nobody would believe her prophecies. Hence, Cassandra was in the unenviable position of being able to warn her people of the dangers to come and of the right paths to take, but was always ignored and disbelieved, eventually seeing her city destroyed because her (correct) advice was not followed. By warning conservatives and other opponents of big government — of all stripes — against the attempt to "kick out" social conservatives from the conservative movement, I hope that I will not be a "conservative Cassandra," giving good warning, but seeing it go unheeded to the movement's destruction.
Disinheriting social conservatives from the conservative movement would be a supremely bad idea, for a number of reasons. First, of course, is that it is always a bad idea to drive away a large portion of your political allies. We need to keep in mind that while economic issues are at the forefront now, this will not always be the case. We are not always going to be in deep recession, we are not always going to have a radical Marxist for a President. At the same time, people retain their fundamental values and beliefs. Drive away social conservatives, and you cut out a large portion, perhaps the majority, of those who are also inclined to support fiscal responsibility. Conservatives are generally socially conservative as well as fiscally so. This is because their underlying worldview supports both aspects of their conservatism. Telling them to take a flying leap will, at best, split the conservative movement into two hostile and non-cooperative camps. At worst, it will create a rift that the socialists will exploit to gain ascendancy for a generation. The social libertarians need to ask themselves if banishing their allies who happen to oppose gay marriage or abortion on demand is really worth handing the radical Left a generation of power.
Second, we should understand that, as I've pointed out before, you cannot really and truly have liberty if you don't have the self-government that comes with moral conservatism. Most social conservatives don't — at least none that I know of — take the stances on these sorts of issues that they do because they get a kick out of "running other peoples' lives." Instead, they understand that there are certain public expressions of behaviors that are deleterious to the order and longevity of society as a whole. They understand that without good order, you don't have liberty — at least not anything that the Founders, with their basis in the Lockean sense of ordered liberty and commonwealthianism, would have recognized as such. Liberty can only truly exist when people govern their own behavior. And if people don't do that, but continue to engage in behaviors that are harmful to other members of society, then they need to be restrained from these behaviors. We will always be governed — the question is whether we will be self-governed or governed by others. The failure to maintain the former always leads to the latter. Social conservatism seeks to instill in the citizenry a sense of self-government, and is truly a better bulwark against tyranny than is social libertarianism, which simply opens us up to anything and everything, no matter how harmful to the lives and well-being of others these may be. Social libertarianism, perversely, leads to exactly the sort of social control that the social libertarians fear.
When we consider the question of whether or not social conservatism is inimical to freedom, we first need to delve the nature of the beast. What is social conservatism, as it is routinely and commonly expressed on the American political scene today? Well, really, it seems to boil down to concern over two major issues that I have already mentioned — abortion and gay marriage. These are certainly the two issues that would come to most people's minds when asked to describe what social conservatism in American politics consists of. So let us deal with these two topics, since they make up the lion's share of what's at issue here.
What we should understand about both of these issues is that neither abortion nor gay marriage are "private" matters. They do not belong within the realm of res privata (private things). Neither of them is about, to use the stereotypical language, "what people do in their own bedrooms." Both of these issues are public expressions of activity.
Abortion is public — any time that a human life is taken, it becomes a concern for society at large. I cannot kill someone in cold blood in the privacy of my own home, and then make the argument that the state has no interest in the matter, since it happened on private property, away from the public eye. Murder is murder, and is always falls into the category of res publica (public things). "Now," one might argue, "I don't consider abortion to be murder since I don't consider the fetus to be human life." This is, of course, an absolutely foolish and self-serving argument. There is no point — between conception to death by old age — at which we can draw a line and arbitrarily say that the human organism was not human and was not living before this point, and became human and became living after. None. Human development, from start to finish, is analog, not digital. There is no point at which humanity "switches on." Further, there is no point to be made by arguing from viability. After all, a three-year old child is "viable" outside the womb, but certainly couldn't survive for very long on his or her own. What's the difference, other than immediate geography? There is none (which is why "ethicists" like Peter Singer have carried the abortion supportive arguments to their logical conclusion and have argued that even toddlers can "rightly" be "aborted.") No, either that child is human — and as deserving of the rights of humanity as you and I — from the moment he or she is conceived, or else he or she is NEVER human. Hence, your desire for an abortion is the business of the rest of us.
In short, what you choose to do in your own bedroom is your business. What you want to do with the human product of that decision, however, is ours.
Now, to the other issue under discussion — gay marriage. Once again, this is not a "bedroom issue," despite the effort by leftists and libertarians to confuse it with such. Gay marriage is not about what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes. Gay marriage is about the effort by radical homosexual activists to force the rest of society to both accept their lifestyle choice and affirm it through codification into our system of contractual law. Again, we are not talking about the extension of any civil right here. Homosexuals already possess the exact same access to marriage that straights do — any gay man can marry any woman on the market that he chooses, and no straight man can marry another man. The issue of "preference" is irrelevant — civil rights don't cover matters of "preference," they pertain to equality before the law. This is not a civil rights issue. It is entirely a matter of the attempt by a tiny minority to force the rest of society — who does not desire its normalization through legal codification — to cater to its particular lifestyle choice. And note that term — lifestyle choice. There is no gay gene. Homosexuality is not "hardwired" into anybody. It is a choice freely made by individuals. You might ask, "Why would anyone choose a lifestyle where they'll go through so much trouble, heartache, and difficulty?" Well, why do drunkards start drinking and choose a lifestyle that will destroy themselves and their families? Why do drug addicts choose to do the same? People make bad lifestyle choices everyday that seem, to the outside observer, to be madness. Homosexuality is in this same category.
Hence, in neither of these issues can social conservatives rightly be said to be "forcing their values onto others." That is a spurious argument. Now, I will grant that there are times where my fellow social conservatives overstep the boundary between res publica and res privata, one example being the ban on internet gambling back in 2006. Likewise, I certainly agree that when the issue truly is what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes, that it is not the government's business to interfere, no matter how immoral or disgusting I find their behavior to be. Certainly, I do not approve of gambling, fornication, or any number of other activities that people engage in. I find them immoral, and certainly will note that their practitioners will stand before a holy God in judgment if they do not repent and turn to Christ and away from these sins. However, the government that is intrusive enough to tell two homosexuals what they can't do in their house is likewise intrusive enough to tell me what I can and can't teach my kids in the privacy of my own. Are we interested in seeing a reduction in sin and immorality? Well, I submit that this is what part of a Christian's being salt and light is all about — preaching the Gospel, seeing people turn to Christ and away from sin as they choose to repent and accept Him as their Savior. While I don't believe we ought to use the power of government to tell people what they must do, we certainly ought to use the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution to tell people what they should do. Subtle difference there. One uses the power of government, the other uses the power of persuasion.
However, I reiterate that when it comes to matters of public concern — and abortion and the codification into law of the gay agenda both fall into this category — social conservatives have a duty to stand for right in the public square.
Further, I would note that when it comes to matters of "forcing values" onto others, social conservatives, the occasional internet gambling ban aside, have not typically done this. Contrariwise, social conservatives have typically been the ones to whom this has been done. Usually, those doing the "values forcing" are those who are pushing for radical social change, over and against the objections of average, everyday conservative American citizens who are undergoing a never-ending assault on our own lifestyle, families, and private affairs. After all, what do you think is involved when:
- The government, at the behest of leftist educrats and "social service" apparatchiks, seek to criminalize legitimate discipline of children in the privacy of the home, as has been done, or is trying to be done, in California and a number of other states?
- These same educrats are able to place all kinds of roadblocks in the way of parents who want to homeschool their children as they see fit, as happens in many states?
- "Hate crimes" laws are used to forcibly prevent churches, pastors, and average individuals from exercising their free speech rights when it pertains to homosexuality or other "politically correct" issues, as has already been done in Canada, and it starting to happen here?
- Citizens are forced to fund government-provided abortion, even though this is obviously not a constitutionally-legitimate role of government?
So, you social libertarians who are tired of hearing Christians preach against sin, remember that the same government that can prevent the fundamentalist church down the street from speaking out against homosexuality can also tell you that you have to accept the dogma of global warming, and make you pay through the nose for it.
It would be wiser, would it not, for those of a more libertarian persuasion to work together with social conservatives — who are, when you look at the whole picture, not that far different on most issues — instead of trying to hijack the conservative movement and make social conservatives into pariahs? It wouldn't work anywise, of course, but great damage to the cause of liberty will be done in the process, if you keep going down that path. I have no problem working with folks who are likeminded on fiscal, constitutional, and sovereignty issues. I am happy to work with Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, and Third Partyists in support of smaller, less-intrusive, constitutionally-restrained government, though obviously I will oppose them when they try to manhandle the movement and misuse it to advance their particularist agendas. Conservatism is only conservatism when it has all four foundations in order. Removing any one of them — including conservatism's support for traditional values and social order — will undermine the movement and our country.
Here's hoping that I'm not going to end up being a Cassandra for conservatism.
© Tim Dunkin
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
