And this, my friends, is where the conservative movement has lost the battle. Poll after poll indicates that the American public likes President Obama, but are against every single one of his actions and policies. On a broader scope, they actually are against the very tenants of the liberal agenda. The people love the trailer and the poster, but the movie itself gets two “big thumbs down.”
Mr. Scott has a very valid point about marketing the conservative message. The comments on his post point to why this is a problem (poster: simkatu):
There is a fundamental difference between the "libertarian wing" and the religious wing of the Republican Party that probably cannot be further mended together. Libertarians want smaller government with few laws and more freedom, while the the religious nutjobs want to force their religious rules into the private lives of the citizens, much like they do in many moslem countries.
I think conservatives best hope at regaining the majority in congress is to either conquer the Republican Party or start a new party that is truly conservative in the fiscal sense and libertarian in the social arena.
The above is the fallacy of false dilemma that is the marketing point for the Democrats and libertarians (small or big L), against Republicans and conservatives: If you're not a libertarian you are a "religious nutjub." It is similar to the Democratic talking point that if you oppose Obama or his policies you are a racist, i,e., there's no middle ground.
Commenter simkatu has defined the term conservative to his liking: fiscally prudent and socially progressive/radical.
The Republican Party has not done a very good job crafting its message, which was Mr. Scott's point; however, it is highly possible (and often probable) to be opposed to social progressiveness and radicalism without a religious bias, nor a religious-only argument. There are principled individuals who champion traditional values without exclusive reliance on God or Bible. There is no utopia or grand vision in conservatism, which is why it is difficult to present it as a viable alternative, or to add enough bling to it to present it in the sound bytes Mr. Scott suggests we need. It is an ideology of what works, not defining for everyone what must be in some unimaginable future. It is about good habits and reality, not temples of Utopia, and mythical and unrealistic expectations of what societies are and what individuals are capable of.
Heather Mac Donald, for example, was excoriated in her comments for presenting a secular argument against same-sex marriage (Gay marriage and unintended consequences, May 4, 2009):
And as has been pointed out many times before, it is exclusively heterosexuals who have eroded the institution of marriage through easy divorce, increasing rates of single-parenting, “blended” families, and co-habitation. But just because marriage is already in bad shape, for reasons wholly unrelated to gay marriage, doesn’t mean that gay marriage won’t weaken it further.
Mrs. Mac Donald's argument was framed around the effect that degrading marriage further would have on the Black community. Earlier she states:
Again, if someone can persuade me that the chances are zero, then I would be much more sanguine. But anything more than zero, I am reluctant to risk.
The above is the essence of conservative principle, i.e., that change is acceptable, but only after a careful consideration of the risks and benefits, and certainty that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Reluctant to risk is, by definition, what conservatism is all about, as opposed to its opposite, progressivism, which is all about going full-bore, regardless and without consideration of risk.
Mr. Scott suggests that the Republican Party should champion the fact that it is the "Party of Liberty," but he's missing the important bit, which is that with liberty comes responsibility. The Progressives are always about liberty, too, but it is a different kind of liberty: it is a flagrant liberty, without risk or consequences, to the individual taking the action. The collective is supposed to take on his risks, and carry the burden, for any of the known and unknown negative consequences of his actions.
Fine tuning the message is important. Where the Democrats were successful in the simplicity of "Yes, We Can," the Republicans would be equally successful with an adulteration of that message to: "Yes, You Can."
You can do it, without requiring others to shoulder your burdens, carry your load, or pay for your mistakes. If an individual is willing to take on all the downsides of his own actions, then conservatives are willing to give him enough rope to hang himself or to swing free to enjoy his happiness and success. If, however, there are behaviors and actions that have shown themselves to be universally risky, and too dangerous, then we will oppose them, because we have evidence to support the position.
In addition, we are the Party of Enabling Success, because we believe that every person is capable of success, as each person defines it. We expect each person to rise to the occasion, to wipe the dirt from their brow, dust themselves off, and to make trying harder and doing better a habit.
We are the Party of Opportunity and Reward: We laud success rather than envy it. Hard work and success has perks, beyond the monetary and materialistic benefits, and shouldn't be punished by progressive tax rates, nor should successful people be made to be scapegoats for the failure of others.
The achievement of happiness cannot and should not come at the expense of others. Arguments relating to same-sex marriage seem to focus almost exclusively on the happiness quotient for same-sex couples, with little recognition that marriage is a privilege (not a right), with responsibilities associated with it, and it is the acceptance of those responsibilites that are rewarded by civil society, i.e., an ROI. It is not marriage itself that is rewarded, but the benefit-outcome of marriage that improves society as a whole, and is thus, rewarded. That successful outcome has not been demonstrated for same-sex couples, and until it does, we are pessimistic about it welcoming it into the fold. The reluctance is not limited to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is only the latest incarnation of dangers to the value of the institution. It is a general reluctance to make any sweeping changes to the institution of marriage that may further degrade its value and importance, or to minimize the responsibilities of those who enter into marriage.
Protecting established institutions (building a wall around them to protect them from political meddling), such as marriage, are the second pillar of conservative principles. We are loyal to our families, to our churches and temples, and to our personal oaths. These have primacy over our duties as citizens. For many, the order is as follows:
- God
- Family
- Country
The first two are not in the purview of the Federal government. We have not ceded authority for them to meddle in our affairs of conscience nor of family, and rely on the First Amendment as our shield against intrusions in those arenas. Society defines what a family is, not the Federal legislature. Further, society defines what is appropriate and proper, and may establish rewards and penalties to encourage people to behave in ways that are not damaging or risky to others.
If we discover that we got it temporarily wrong, such as limiting marriage to a single race, or the abomination of slavery, we'll correct it, but only after careful consideration, weighing the risks and benefits.
It was the Republican Party that came to power on the coat-tails of Abolition. It was the Republican Party (and a Republican president) who went after Jim Crow laws and gave meat to the desegregation of schools. It was conservative institutions that educated Booker T. Washington. It was conservatives who led the Underground Railway. It was conservatives who were the proponents of education for freedmen.
It is Republicans who continue to champion, yes, you can, and secular conservative arguments from people like Heather Mac Donald who continue to trumpet the value of hard work, marriage, family values, and education as a way of improving oneself.
Mr. Scott is right that we do need to do a better job at marketing our message, but we're not in agreement on the message, which is why it is blurry and ineffective. Becoming libertarian or democratic-lite is not the answer. Restoring the Republican Party to conservatism is what we need to do, and we need to throw all progressives to the curb, regardless of how colorful their clothing, or even if they call themselves conservatives, but have no idea what that means. We have evidence and history on our side and rely on it exclusively to form our opinions and to frame our arguments.
Burke has frequently been represented as a reactionary. But Burke was not defending or advocating a return to an aristocratic or monarchic order. He was defending the mixed system that existed in the Britain of his day—a combination of aristocratic, commercial, oligarchic, and democratic elements. Far from opposing all reform, Burke insisted, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” The issue was not reform versus no reform; it was between the view that reform was a simple matter that could be engaged in sweepingly and the view that it required prudence and was best approached incrementally.
That Burke sometimes sided with those in authority, and sometimes with those resisting it, has led to the charge that he was inconsistent and opportunistic. But Burke was perfectly consistent in that he opposed the abuse of power, whoever was abusing it—king, corrupt company, intellectuals, or mob.- Owen Harris, What Conservatism Means
Posts
