-
It’s Not About Abortion—Except It Is
April 15, 2013 | 148 comments
-
A Think Tank With Action
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
I Know Victoria’s Secrets
March 29, 2013 | 17 comments
-
The New Feminism
March 25, 2013 | 49 comments
-
Rand’s Band of Brothers
March 8, 2013 | 41 comments
Political Hay
Social Conservatives in the Age of Red Ink
Moral fervor needn’t be their only weapon.
Social conservatives have long been described as the Silent Majority. But amidst the recent Republican resurgence, they have been even quieter than usual. When Dr. James Dobson was king of the pro-family airwaves, he needed only ask his listeners to call their congressman about family, marriage, or life issues and they would shut down Capitol switchboards. After the 2004 elections, pro-life activists led a campaign to deny pro-choice Arlen Specter the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The social issues have since receded into the background, thanks to a faltering economy and swelling national debt. Today, the Tea Party — channeling Adam Smith more than Dr. Dobson — lights up Capitol Hill switchboards in opposition to tax increases and Obamacare.
Though a 2009 Gallup poll found 51% of Americans consider themselves pro-life, over and over, polls report the economy, healthcare, and government ethics trump voters’ concerns over the decline of marriage or rise in the number of abortions. A Rasmussen poll this week found 83% of those surveyed said the economy was (still) the most important issue to them.
Even at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, (CPAC) the much-predicted showdown between the gay Republican group GOProud and social conservatives failed to materialize — and not entirely because of the anti-GOProud boycott. Of the thirty-some forums during the three-day event, two emphasized social conservatism (three if you count the one that covered judicial activism). The one I attended, “The Pro-Life Movement: Plans and Goals,” drew a small crowd and little vocal enthusiasm from the audience.
Anna Franzonello, staff counsel at Americans United for Life (AUL), was one social conservative who tried to connect moral issues with the movement’s fiscal focus. AUL is partnering with others including the also-present CitizenLink to urge Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, the country’s leading abortion provider. In an op-ed for the Washington Times Franzonello said: “Mr. Obama and Planned Parenthood have not been shy in announcing affection for each other over the past several years. However, less well known is the de facto advisory role the abortion-industry giant has been given by the president and the extent of the government funding it receives.”
Likewise in their pro-life agenda for 2011, the Texas Right to Life said first on the list was to “decrease state money that funds the abortion industry.” A freshmen representative has already pre-filed a bill that, if passed, would accomplish this. Several of the additional points boasted similar financially motivated ways to encourage their local legislature to start saving the lives of Texas’s unborn.
It wouldn’t be the first time religious conservatives found a way to promote their views through something other than moral fervor. The great abolitionist William Wilberforce had struggled mightily to end slavery but failed. As portrayed clearly and beautifully in the film Amazing Grace, Parliament actually adopted the first ban on the slave trade out of wartime patriotism.
Wilberforce estimated 80% of all slave ships sailing to the New Indies were flying the neutral American flags to prevent them from being boarded by privateers. This bill removed that protection. Wilberforce hoped much of the slave trade would, by default, end almost overnight. He was right; the Foreign Slave Trade Bill passed; one year later the Slave Trade Act passed.
Could today’s social conservatives similarly use popular concern about red ink to defund the social liberals who threaten the sanctity of marriage and innocent human life? Wilberforce’s partner in passing the Foreign Slave Trade Bill, Thomas Clarkson, said: “We need to tuck this bill away somewhere and disguise it.” Social conservatives in a Tea Party era may need to be similarly shrewd.
About the Author
Nicole Russell writes from Northern Virginia.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Nicole Russell
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/17/social-conservatives-in-the-ag
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Louis Jenkins| 2.17.11 @ 7:48AM
Yes they could, if they would. Abortion is wrong, just as slavery was wrong. Defund abortion, now.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.17.11 @ 7:49AM
I always lumped James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jimmy Swaggar, into the same crowd as Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye (rightly or wrongly), as the type of people who talked the talk on TV, and then drive home to their mansions at night in their big limousines. "God needs you to send me some money tonight, so that I can buy a new boat, and if I have anything left over, maybe I can send a few bucks to this great cause I was just talking about". They always seemed like big phonies to me, and I never wanted to be on the same team as them, even if I supported a particular idea that they supported too. That's why I don't want them leading the Tea Party (even if they're already in it), even if the Tea Party's ideas will lead to a reasonable solution to some of the same problems that they are fighting to fix, I just don't want them to be talking for me, so I hope they stay out of this movement, or at least stay quiet. Sam Kinison had a great bit about God talking to Pat Robertson in the middle of the night, and telling him to go outside and check the air in his tires. It was a great bit, but I can't find the transcripts to post here.
Ryan| 2.17.11 @ 9:28AM
Dobson always seemed to be more down-to-earth than the prosperity types on TV (like Swaggart was and Robertson can be). He at least seemed more honest in his estimation, and I don't think that he ever espouted the whole "prosperity theology" teaching.
Vern Crisler | 2.17.11 @ 8:38AM
It would be a mistake to think all social conservatives are followers of TV preachers and the like. At one time, you didn't need the term "social" to modify conservative. It was merely assumed that conservatism held to traditional moral values.
The problem is that college kids tend to be more libertarian than conservative. They are still relatively immature.
In addition, economic issues are important because it's the biggest problem we face right now, not because the moral issues aren't important.
I'm afraid that Republicans are too easily swayed nowadays by the culture, and it's everything we can do to prevent them from pandering to perverts and wandering off the reservation at the slightest bit of media criticism.
Derek Leaberry| 2.17.11 @ 9:19AM
Social conservatives such as I have been told to be quiet, vote Republican, and accept the moral degradation of the country. It isn't just the liberal elite or the Democratic Party who have told social conservatives to shut up. Many who call themselves conservative have joined the left-wing bandwagon. The evil Davids, Frum and Brooks. David Keene and CPAC. Jonah Goldberg. Mark Mehlman. Grover Norquist. The Bush family. At least two writers at this site, Philip Klein and Aaron Goldstein. Rather than be quiet and accept a nation not worth conserving, it would be best for social conservatives to sit out elections and watch as the nation implodes in so many ways. Better to spend time building families, churches and communities and let the Republican-"conservative" elite stew in a liberal sea. A nation of degenerates is not worth conserving.
Anommynous| 2.18.11 @ 3:21PM
George W. Bush was a steadfast supporter of the right to life and held his ground on embryonic stem cell research, a topic on which so many lesser Republicans have conceded to the liberals. George W. Bush, was guided by his faith and always, I believe, tried to do the right thing, even when I disagreed with him.
GavInTucson| 2.19.11 @ 12:35AM
I agree. This is one of the few times I actually considered W. a conservative.
Petronius| 2.17.11 @ 9:45AM
The total cost of immoral behavior is paid by those who are not; in treasury, property, and blood.
FTM| 2.17.11 @ 9:49AM
Petronius is wise.
Quartermaster| 2.17.11 @ 8:25PM
Just one more reason to end any kind of social welfare. The Libertines are subsidized by it and saddle everyone else with the cost of their "freedom." As a result they steal from everyone else to live their lifestyle.
WM| 4.18.11 @ 6:11PM
Then stop paying.
DCD-in-Indiana| 2.17.11 @ 10:10AM
I consider myself a social conservative, and I agree wholeheartedly with Mitch Daniels. Reducing the size of government and getting our fiscal house in order must be the top priority, and accomplishing that will require the biggest tent possible. We simply cannot afford to push wedge issues that divert the public and legislative branch of government from the task at hand.
Two things social conservatives must consider.
First, economic collapse, which is inevitable if we don't right the ship of state, is the worst possible outcome for social conservatives. Is Greece a more virtuous place for being broke? Is social anarchy conducive to public morality? How does economic chaos prevent or limit something like abortion?
Second, downsizing government and restoring it to its proper, more limited role in society will do more to advance the cause of social conservatives than any amount of shouting from the rooftops. The welfare state undermines individual responsibility and public virtue, creating a society where the handouts are the order of the day and the rewards of hard work and sacrifice are diminished. The process of dismantling the welfare state, thus giving the public greater responsibility for and control over their own lives, will advance social conservatism more than any attempts to legislate morality.
One more thing, social conservatives lose public support by espousing small government on the one hand and demanding that government intrude into places most feel it doesn't belong on the other. You can't have it both ways if you want to have any credibility with the average voter.
bobmontgomery| 2.17.11 @ 11:45AM
I think socons in the House are already proceeding along these lines, and I don't think there's any need to be "stealthy" about it.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 2.17.11 @ 12:04PM
I would like to personally thank two posters here, Lullabys, Legends, & Lies & DCD-in- Indianna for confirming to me I made the right decision by putting GOD first & ceasing all involvement in the Republican Party, the "modern conservative" movement, & "The Tea Party". Instead of hanging around & being told to "shut up & stay quiet about GOD & the effects of societal immorality on the economy" by fiscal-only "conservatives" so they can "get more votes" & "win more elections" I will stay on the sidelines & watch as the fiscal-only "modern conservative" movement get behind a "Money Is My GOD" loser of a candidate & get smoked by the Obama machine in November 0f 2012. The "modern conservative" movement cannot win without the votes of the social conservatives they loathe so much & GOD will not bless an immoral nation which has turned it's back on him & made the almighty American dollar it's god in place of Him with fiscal prosperity. Good luck fiscal-cons, you're going to need it.
Seek| 2.17.11 @ 12:49PM
Nobody on the Right is saying, "Money is our God." But most of us would agree that when people run out of money, their sense of virtue often takes a vacation. That's been a key lesson of thousands of years of recorded history. When people, even "Godly" ones, are hungry and jobless, they can do ungodly things.
I'm with the economic conservatives on this one.
Johnny H| 2.17.11 @ 1:10PM
Certainly it is your right, but staying on the sidelines is a pathetic excuse for a strategy for righting this country's ills. Tough choices have to be made and our form of government requires vigilance on the part of the citizenry to ensure the survival of the republic. To stay on the sidelines (IMHO) is an abdication of your civic responsibility to this country and your fellow countrymen. So get a mitt and get in the game, all you like minded that would like to take the easy way out! Disengagement is NOT a winning strategy! Surely the blood of the patriots shed in the defense of liberty wasn't shed in vain! Retreat is only a winning strategy if it allows a regrouping and preparations for further engagement! Semper Fi!
Seek| 2.17.11 @ 3:17PM
A lot of what are derided as cultural ills are simply forms of consenual behavior that don't require a "cure." If that makes me a spectator rather than a player, fine. An economic collapse -- should it ever occur -- by contrast is the whole nation's concern. There's nothing "pathetic" about facing up to fiscal reality, while letting people do what they want in the bedroom.
Quartermaster| 2.17.11 @ 8:33PM
"Doing what they want in the bedroom" would be fine if it were restricted there, but it isn't. An immoral lifestyle has many effects outside that bedroom. Immorality sunk Ancient Greece and Rome, just as it is sinking Europe now. It is no coincidence that places like Kalifornya, Illinois, Michigan, are New York are hot beds of immorality and also economic basket cases. You can not disconnect morality and conservatism. And if people like the queers want to be taken seriously, they can declare a truce anytime they wish and put their depravity back in "the bedroom."
"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."
Seek| 2.21.11 @ 6:18PM
So be righteous on your own time. It's not the job of governments to be buttinskis in someone's bedroom. What two people do in privacy doesn't affect me -- or you.
I don't buy the Michael Novak-Irving Kristol line, by the way, that prosperity and piety go hand in hand. The wealthiest cities in the country -- at least among whites -- are also the least religious. The fastest-growing metro area in the nation, Las Vegas, swimming in wealth as never before, is by Religious Right standards, "immoral."
johnee| 2.23.11 @ 11:04AM
Yeah Seek! Ha! I couldn't have put it any better myself. The old "Gee we can't allow consenting adults to do what they want behind closed doors because it will affect society and hurt all of us" line has been used since civilization began. It's B.S., and it's just another way of controlling people.
What's ironic though, is that Quartermaster and people that think like him will say they stand for "freedom and smaller government", and in the same breath say that anti-sodomy laws should be put back on the books. Excuse me but huh? If this isn't inconsistent and contradictory, then I guess 2+2=7 , green is red, and up is down.
The biggest con job though is how Jerry Falwell and others like him blended religion and politics ( an un-holy union if there ever was one ) and created their own version of the conservative movement. As we can read from some of the posts on this site; social and Christian conservatives are equating fiscal politics and economics with piety and spirituality. As you pointed out , wealth and prosperity have absolutely NOTHING to do with piety. It's a separate issue entirely.
Barry Goldwater, the father of conservativism, summed it up quite nicely when he commented on the religious right's hijacking of the modern conservative movement. He said he wanted to "stick his foot up Jerry Falwell's a#$ for trying to turn the GOP into a religious party."
Vern Crisler | 2.17.11 @ 8:36PM
Love your nom de plume.
rhonda lee welsch | 2.17.11 @ 12:36PM
If the true conservatives continue in their oath of silence the current poltical movement-Tea Party Movement will fail! This lack of courage will define our nation's future if we do not stand up now-Go,Stand,Speak the truth and do not compromise. Liberty or Tyranny!
Join the Sisters of the Second American Revolution and tell the truth!
www.thesosar.wordpress.com www.thesosar.com
chris haynes| 2.17.11 @ 1:20PM
Mitch Daniels.
What are his numbers for balancing the budget?
Social Security, Medicaid, Taxes, Military. He says we have to accept legal abortion. In return for cliches and platitiudes?
kiltmaker| 2.17.11 @ 3:17PM
There really should be not be Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives. Conservative is conservative. To parse out anything else is weaseling on the issue. You can't really be one of the other. Money and morality are linked.
Actually, GOD has a lot say about money. About 23,000 verses worth I'm told. And he is both a fiscal conservative and social conservative.
Using money wisely is a Godly thing. Our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are endowed by Him and we pay Him respect and praise when we use those freedoms wisely.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 2.17.11 @ 5:15PM
Thank you for your thoughts kiltmaker. Unfortunately, people who call themself conservative & view conservatism as you put forth in your post are becoming more & more rare. As the economic problems continue to escalate more & more so called conservatives are losing faith in GOD as our provider & pinning their hopes on politicians who want to focus solely on economic issues while ignoring social concerns out of an insane fear of alienating potential voters. As you said, money & morality are linked. A movement which turns a blind eye to moral problems while focusing totally on fiscal problems is 1) not remotely conservative, & 2) will fail miserably. I will not be a part of this type of movement. You're either & fiscal & social conservative or you're not conservative at all. I am glad to know I am not alone in feeling this way. Take care & GOD bless kiltmaker!
Jim Hlavac | 2.17.11 @ 5:32PM
Gay folks are not threatening the "sanctity" of marriage -- we are asking to be included in it by any name -- "marriage" or otherwise. But first you tell us we don't have "committed relationships" and then you outlaw them -- such is rational thought among the NO GAYS groups.
Nor are any public funds which any congress person could cut off "funding" any gay group to threaten it -- we pay our own way thank you. The idea that there's a federally or state funded Rights for Gays groups is nuts. The charge is spurious. Indeed, gay folks actually fund the government lawyers against us, just as we funded the police state against us not all that long ago. Just as we'll probably wind up funding the coming onslaught against us - -in the name of "values" we are to be stomped -- and pay for the privilege of being so. So much for "Liberty for All" Eh?
Gay folks have nothing to do with abortion. Indeed, the chief complaint about us is that we don't have children. And maybe, just maybe, if you explained to your nice new gay friends that 5% of the babies are aborted are going to be gay anyway, then maybe, just maybe you'll find a new ally to end the slaughter. But no, sometimes I think some of you would be fine with aborting known gay babies.
Why, it seems many are intent on publicly despising gay folks just to lose an election - -Carl Paladino comes to mind -- we're "dysfunctional"? I want disability already!
Furthermore, gay folks are not at war with the culture --we're so embedded into it that we're often known by other names - -son, brother, cousin, uncle -- and our families have no problem with us. It's some other family I don't know, and don't want to know. However, there is a crowd who is trying to get the culture to be at war with gay folks -- by fabricating the most salacious and ludicrous charges.
And then in the name of "family" values is going to rip me out of the bosom of my family -- and spend untold billions of dollars to either arrest me, incarcerate, cure me or export me. The concept is bizarre. But the Family Research Council (which has yet to find a mother with a gay son to ask if it's OK with her!) is leading the NO GAYS movement. They, and AFTAH, and NARTH, and the rest just want to rid the nation of gay people. They are clear on their goal. Their NO GAYS agenda is far clearer than the "gay agenda" of Let My People Go!
Sure, sounds rational, "exporting" or "curing" the gay folks. Like an alchemist getting gold from a stone. But I'm just fighting self-defense as an American taxpayer against a pillaging army of NO GAYS people who are intent on installing a theocracy against what's natural -- though is a tiny bunch indeed.
To somewhat quote a great conservative: Never before have so many fretted about so few.
Stop this "debate" about us -- and go play phrenologist at a gay bar already - and see nature-made sissies by the score. But no, none are so blind as those who will not see. And if you think you will punish us by throwing us into jail with all those other gay men, like Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg of the FRC want, all I can tell you is that it will be the weirdest Club Med every devised by the folly of men.
And finally, learn the command of Jesus: Treat others as you want to be treated. For that is sore missing when it comes to gay folks and this nation.
Vern Crisler | 2.17.11 @ 8:35PM
And he also said go and sin no more.
Quartermaster| 2.17.11 @ 8:44PM
People like yourself like to take Jesus name in vain, when he taught nothing like you wish everyone would accept. Christ came to die to save people from their sins, not save them in them. Nor did he come to abolish the law, but to fulfill and establish it.
Christ said it like it was. he did not in any way contradict the Mosaic Law, but taught what it really meant. God stated, point blank, that all forms of adultery, heterosexual and homosexual, are an abomination, and he commanded death for offenders. This is a picture of what Christ will do at the final judgment. The sexually immoral are on all the lists of those who will not be admitted to the Kingdom. There is only one other destination.
Intentional sterility, thereby, is condemned by God. You may not like that, but God really doesn't care about your little snit fit. He resist the proud, but will honor a broken and contrite heart. Your screed is a demonstration of the fact of your arrogance and desire to have it your way. God will allow you to have it your way. All the way to the pit.
michigander_sandusky| 2.17.11 @ 7:47PM
I'm a social and fiscal conservative. I'm religious but recognize that people like Swaggart and Robertson are not preachers, but Elmer Gantry want-to-be's. Our founding fathers recognized that the uniquie gift to mankind called the USA would never have happened without the help of divine providence. Most conservatives, and undoubtedly all liberals, either deny this truth or fail to appreicate its ramifications. Divine providence can provide the answers to our economic woes but only after our nation stops the murder of innocents (abortion) and such nonsense as gay marriage. Remember the words of George Mason, “As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.”
Quartermaster| 2.17.11 @ 8:45PM
michigander_sandusky, such insensitive raving! Please don't confuse the poor darlings with the facts. After all, they think religion had nothing to do with the founding of the US.
johnee| 2.18.11 @ 2:45PM
(Sigh) Quartermaster, you make the same mistake that some elements of the far left make. You selectively pick and choose the statements ( or just a few words ) from the founders that you like and completely ignore the rest. Wait, on second thought that might not be fair. Many social and Christian conservatives like yourself may be ignorant of many of the things the Founders said.
First off, the Founders were not trying to make this a "Christian Nation." ( and please don't any one out there give me " Judeo-Christian philosophy". When social conservatives say "Christian Nation" they mean in the religious sense ) The words "creator", "clockmaker", or statements like "divine providence" are as religious neutral as you can get! Devout Christians do not speak in ambiguous terms. The devout would use words like "Christ"or "God". Words mean things, and the Founders were very aware of this. Which brings me to my next point.
Two of our greatest founders, namely Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne, were not religious ! This is not open to interpretation. It is a fact! Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson ( not in part but as a whole ) and there will be no doubt in your mind. He embraced certain philosophies of Christ but he rejected the supernatural elements as myths.
The same goes for Thomas Payne. Hello? Anybody read the "Age of Reason"? How come this book is hardly ever mentioned on conservative radio or social conservative websites? Again, while Payne embraces certain philosophical and moral elements, he completely rejects religious/supernatural teachings and encourages critical and rational thought.
Am Freemen| 2.17.11 @ 11:02PM
---When talking about social policy, ALWAYS
overlooked, is the over-arching dominance of
the capstone, Globalist, eugenist, ultra-rich,
TAX FREE foundations, NGO's and their 'think tanks' (i.e. actuarial whorehouses).
NOT UNTIL their influence, indeed, CONTROL
is called out, exposed and prosecuted UNFLINCHINGLY ---will we see morning again in America or anywhere in this fallen world.
Forget even 'Seperation of church and state'
issues --take a good look at those seperation of church
and cult issues!
The systematic leveling of American religious
life itself deserves years of attention and prosecution.
JTWilliams | 2.18.11 @ 4:11AM
The problems in this country are too great to focus on social issues, not that the govt should have any place in settling them. Conservatives have failed in retaining a moral society, period. Just take a look around the culture: anything goes. Using govt to push a social agenda only pushes the youth, who see the handwriting on the wall for their future, in the opposite direction. There is a coalition to be had. A growing libertarian movement can align with the right or left; whoever is open to coalition building. Neocons certainly aren't the most tolerant of people, and their numbers are fading fast! We need economic populism and a primary focus on liberty!
Ken Hill | 3.6.11 @ 6:12PM
Manchester Escorts Premuim Exclusive Company Escort Agency, Based In North West England For Out Call Services
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:28AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 5:03PM
thank you
very nic