I wrote a piece for the Acton Institute’s Religion &
Liberty on the question of whether the old Reagan coalition
has a future.
Check it out here.
Here’s a big teaser:
As the standard bearer for American conservatism for two
decades, Ronald Reagan effortlessly embodied fusionism by
uniting Mont Pelerin style libertarians, populist Christians,
Burkean conservatives, and national security voters into a
devastatingly successful electoral bloc. Today, it is nearly
impossible to imagine a candidate winning both New York and
Texas, but Reagan and that group of fellow travelers did.
In the meantime, the coalition has begun to show strain as the
forces pushing outward exceed those holding it together. The
Soviet Union, once so great a threat that Whittaker Chambers
felt certain he was switching to the losing side when he began
to inform on fellow Communist agents working within the United
States, evaporated in what seemed like a period of days in the
early 1990s. Suddenly, the ultimate threat of despotic big
government eased and companions in arms had the occasion to
re-assess their relationship. The review of competing
priorities has left former friends moving apart. Perhaps
nowhere is the tension greater and more consequential than
between the socially conservative elements of the group and
devotees of libertarianism.
The two groups have little natural tendency to trust each other
when not confronted by a common enemy as in the case of the
Cold War. Libertarians simply want to minimize the role of
government as much as possible. For them, questions of
maintaining strong traditional family units and preserving
sexual and/or bioethical mores fall into an unessential realm
as far as government is concerned. The government, echoing the
thought of John Locke, should primarily occupy itself with
providing for physical safety of the person while allowing for
the maximum freedom possible for pursuit of self-interest.
Social conservatives similarly view the government as having a
primary mission of providing safety, but they also look to the
law as a source of moral authority. Man-made law, for them,
should seek to be in accord to some degree with divine and
natural law. Rifts open wide when social conservatives pursue a
public policy agenda designed to prevent divorce, encourage
marriage over cohabitation, prevent new understandings of
marriage from emerging (e.g. gay marriage or polygamous
marriage), prevent avant garde developments in biological
experimentation, and a variety of other issues outside (from
the libertarian perspective) the true mandate of government
that cannot seek to define the good, the right, and the
beautiful for a community of individuals. To the degree social
conservatives seek to achieve some kind of collective
excellence along the lines suggested by Aristotle and Thomas
Aquinas, libertarians see a mirror image of the threat posed by
big-government leftists. (READ
ON …)
frost| 11.19.08 @ 8:22AM
While I'm not ready to quite refer to myself as a Libertarian, I certainly am an independent Independent with very Libertarian leanings. All in all, even with his built in prejudices, gool ol' Hunter did a pretty good job of nailing those differences. I just find it repugnant that those sanctimonious pontificators who fancy themselves as "social conservatives" are constantly looking down their collective noses at we "unwashed" who seek only to have the idiot bureaucracy Out of our lives, minimalized, period.
Candidly, they make me ill, and to presume that their misplaced priorities matter (or, should matter?) to the rest of the populace is nothing less than monumental presumption. It was the hypocrisy of the religious right that found me Running from the Episcopal (and the rest of "organized") religion and becoming a Deist.
The main difference between the "social conservatives" and we Libertarian types is that they constantly try force-feeding their zealotry in such an audacious (yet, often condescending) manner that they'd gag a maggot. Arrogance beyond belief. Almost.
Hunter Baker | 11.19.08 @ 9:59AM
So, Frost, I can't be sure from the comment. Did I manage to be a cool analyst or am I a sanctimonious pontificator?
frost| 11.19.08 @ 10:46AM
In the eye of the beholder? Check the mirror and see if there is that glint of (at least) semi/pseudo-objectivity in y'r comments. At least you tried to categorize the Libertarian position a whole bunch better than most of the extreme "social conservative" types who love to lecture....
William R| 11.19.08 @ 12:23PM
Of course it can. The GOP needs to find more candidates like the esteemed congressman from Texas, Ron Paul.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4579.html
I know the GOP establishment did everything but throw the kitchen sink at him in 2007-08, but if the GOP is going to survive it will be well served to follow his ideas.
frost| 11.19.08 @ 12:46PM
Ron Paul is my congressman, here on the Texas Gulf Coast -- and I agree with a lot of his positions, 'cept for the immediate withdrawl from Iraq. We're there. And, sure, Dubya screwed things up with his McClellans, and he let it drag on 'way too long; Petraeus was just a couple tads late - - why not vistory?!?!? Frankly, I don't see ANYONE who I'd be pleased to vote For in the next presidential election (held my nose and voted for McCain -- no, actually, voted against Obama).
Perhaps we will buy some property in our next visit to Costa Rica next month.....