The Acton Institute asked me to write a piece for Religion & Liberty. I took on the question of whether parts (so-cons and libertarians) of the Reagan coalition can be put back together.
Here’s how it begins:
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.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Great article
chemjeff (Diary) Tuesday, November 18th at 9:51PM EST (link)Kudos on writing a terrific article. As a person who describes himself as half-libertarian/half-conservative, I absolutely agree with your premise. Furthermore I would argue that libertarians and social conservatives must work together if we are to preserve religious liberty, as huge overweening government is a threat to all liberty, religious liberty included. It also reminds me of a recent column from Jonah Goldberg who reminds us that Republicans shouldn’t take the social conservative vote for granted.
Step-by-step
Aquinas (Diary) Tuesday, November 18th at 10:29PM EST (link)The way to keep the coalition together is for social conservatives to understand that for the moment (and that moment continues to be a very long one – 30 years and counting) libertarians are on their side.
Social conservatives desire to see things like Roe v. Wade overturned which fits great with what libertarians desire – removal of government interference in personal life, which is exactly what a public agenda of abortion is opposed to.
Both should work together to accomplish their shared goals. I think that the rift between the two is overblown and overreported anyway.
To toil and not to seek for rest.
A.M.D.G.
Speaking as a libertarian...
jesdynf Tuesday, November 18th at 11:22PM EST (link)I disagree completely. “Social conservatism” is implemented by naming acts consenting adults engage in illegal (or “seperate but equal” in the case of marriage and civil unions, and I do think we’ve heard the Supremes weigh in on that score?). It is antithetical to the libertarian position.
You cannot legislate according to the tenets of Leviticus and you cannot completely fail to learn the lessons of the 18th and 21st Amendments and still call yourself a libertarian at the end of the day.
I’m looking forward to the coming schism because, one way or another, I think it will add new (and maybe, dare I hope, sane) people to the Libertarian ticket.
Well folks... I think the time has past for both
dbecraft Tuesday, November 18th at 11:37PM EST (link)Liberal Conservative and Conservatives to come together. The last election has shown the divide and it actually should be respected.
Yes, the Conservatives are not a majority, but neither are the other factions of this party. You can trend left at your own peril…
Sorry, Libertarian’s, your ideal of a grand society is a bit much. It would be nice if government had an insignificant role but that will NEVER be! You really need to understand corruption to begin to realize that fact!
Oh well… We can always fall back on our Socialist saviors to get us though this decade…ha. You idiots that elected this government are the responsible ones – and will probably never know what you wrought!
Obama is the ONE (Socialist)! Hehe…
Formally known as Deagle… “Golf is a way of life…”
Well folks... I think the time has past for both
dbecraft Tuesday, November 18th at 11:38PM EST (link)Liberal Conservative and Conservatives to come together. The last election has shown the divide and it actually should be respected.
Yes, the Conservatives are not a majority, but neither are the other factions of this party. You can trend left at your own peril…
Sorry, Libertarian’s, your ideal of a grand society is a bit much. It would be nice if government had an insignificant role but that will NEVER be! You really need to understand corruption to begin to realize that fact!
Oh well… We can always fall back on our Socialist saviors to get us though this decade…ha. You idiots that elected this government are the responsible ones – and will probably never know what you wrought!
Obama is the ONE (Socialist)! Hehe…
Formally known as Deagle… “Golf is a way of life…”
Great article, Hunter.
Bill S (Diary) Tuesday, November 18th at 11:46PM EST (link)That one goes in the files.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
The two aren't separate
chemjeff (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 1:11AM EST (link)In reality, social conservatism and libertarianism aren’t two separate ideologies. They work together, in the sense that a socially conservative society is one in which the best parts of libertarian thought are permitted to thrive. You don’t need to worry about people violating each others’ rights if people are normally disinclined to do that already. This isn’t an automatic assumption.
This libertarian isn't going
JoeG Wednesday, November 19th at 1:11AM EST (link)Everything that I stand for is pretty much is opposed by the democrats. They are anti-libertarian.
They support stifling of opposing viewpoints.
They ignore the existence of the second amendment.
I do not for one minute think that I’m about to be told how to worship by social conservatives. I do believe that liberals wish to create a national Church of atheism.
I believe that democrats will whine about the supposed violations of privacy by the Bush administration, then turn right around and abuse governmental power to dig on every private detail of someone who dares to ask a question of their nominee that the nominee doesn’t like.
That said, I’m more than happy to embrace a candidate like Jindal or Palin. I am certain Jindal can attract the social conservatives all the while not being a sellout on taxes, social spending and economic regulation. I’m a little less certain on Palin, but have a very good feeling about her.
I can not ask social conservatives to support Juliani or Romney. In turn, I ask that they understand why I can’t support someone like Huckabee.
meet
mollyp Wednesday, November 19th at 1:58AM EST (link)That’s a very well-written essay.
This sentence from the essay says it all for me:
‘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.’
Indeed, this is the paradox of the Republican party that I’ll never be able to reconcile. Let’s face it, this is a marriage of convenience in order to build a majority coalition given a 2 party system.
But a similar parallel can probably be said between liberals and fiscal conservatives in the Democratic coalition. Such is life.
they are separate
duckhawk Wednesday, November 19th at 3:32AM EST (link)chemjeff, it sounds to me like you’re saying that once everyone agrees with socially conservative values and implements socially conservative policy, then they will have liberty.
I see two problems with this:
Not everybody agrees with social conservative values, so not everybody agrees when to assign which rights to whom.
There’s no evidence that socially conservative policy actually causes people to be disinclined to violate others’ rights.
Hunter, great article.
Libertarians need SoCons
AceInTX (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 10:49AM EST (link)I’ve made this case elsewhere…I’m a libertarian that puts a higher priority on a socially conservative construct as the only environment that is conducive to a truly libertarian society.
I know…the Libertarians out there are saying I contradict myself…but not really if you bare with me.
To my mind and I would say this is borne out by the founders who built this society to favor a libertarian form of government, Libertarianism can not exist in the absence of a moral order where the citizenry follows the golden rule, (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). In a morally bankrupt society where each individual is out tending to his own wants needs and desires liberty will invariably give way to government as police state policies are implemented to deal with the chaos.
Have SoCon’s over reached?…Absolutely…there is a faction in the SoCon movement who have gone too far. The Terry Schiavo situation is an example…I’m one who was against allowing her to be starved to death…but the idea that the Federal Government could pass legislation that was specifically tailored to one individual went against every tenet of liberty and libertarian governance I can think of and I was horrified when Delay pushed that through. There is also a faction that believes in using government to achieve SoCon ends…the Compassionate Conservative crowd…I do believe that the SoCon influence in this group is greatly exaggerated…If you look at who wrote the bill that gave us the biggest expansion of government since the new deal…the prescription drug benefit…They were all of the northeastern liberal Republican faction who is a far greater threat to liberty in my mind than SoCons…
I think the Socialist/Communist left understand this which is why the first and foremost target for their assaults on the Constitution deal with the first amendment guarantees of Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of worship. They know that by stripping morality and the moral order from the population…the more outcry there will be to increase the size of government to deal with the disorder and chaos that results.
That said…Gay Marriage is an issue for this society not because it gives someone more rights…it’s because Government is recognizing and bestowing government’s imprimatur and encouragement to a lifestyle that is destructive to society. Traditionally government has encouraged marriage between a man and woman not because it’s trying to force religion on everyone but because it’s been recognized that the traditional family is the most beneficial and best structure to raise children. A child thrives academically, socially and in every other way when raised by a father and mother therefore government and society has an interest in promoting that construct…the problem with government recognition of Gay marriages is the havock it wreaks on society by turning that construct on it’s ear!
I would also add that the gay lifestyle shouldn't be encouraged...
AceInTX (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 11:03AM EST (link)due to the public health costs placed upon all of us because sexually transmitted diseases exist in rates that far outpace society as a whole…Ditto non monogamous heterosexual relationships…this is in addition to the negative effects on children and the resulting problems when they become adults…
SoCon ends compliment Libertarian objectives in most instances because contrary to the propaganda surrounding SoCons, having been the target of government censorship, regulation and outright persecution throughout our 2000 year history, SoCons are far more distrustful of government than society as a whole.
Irony.
birdmojo (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 11:30AM EST (link)“It would be nice if government had an insignificant role but that will NEVER be! You really need to understand corruption to begin to realize that fact!”
It is because I understand corruption that I wish that government had a more insignificant role.
On the issues that matter most to me, both parties are pretty awful. On secondary and tertiary issues, both parties have pros and cons (mostly cons) and they both reach the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons.
It’s not an issue of this party being the party of the angels and that party being the party of the devil, it’s an issue of “do you want to be punched in the face or punched in the gut?”
When I say “neither please”, it’s pointed out to me that those other guys punch a LOT harder.
You’ll understand if I find that argument not particularly moving when it comes to why voting for the other puncher is the worst thing that could possibly happen… and discussions of “what went wrong?” tend to center around either “are you still whining about being punched?” and “being punched builds character”.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. –Voltaire
Well, sort of.
chemjeff (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 1:04PM EST (link)I know I wasn’t clear in my last post so let me see if I can be more lucid. When I say “socially conservative” I don’t mean a list of policy prescriptions. I mean a general view of how one should conduct oneself in society. Hunter put it best when he wrote:
So in this sense, the pro-life movement really serves multiple purposes. One very direct purpose is of course to save the lives of unborn children. But a more ethereal purpose is to foster a society in which people generally have a greater respect for life. That can only lead to increased social capital.
Libertarians and SoCons together
GB221 (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 2:06PM EST (link)I agree with your position. There is a disagreement between Libertarians and SoCons only when the SoCons want more government to support their cause. But theocracy is not part of the Christian doctrine. In fact, the concept of separation of Church and State originates from Christianity.
The only religions to fear are those that the state wants to impose on us. Currently the only church that does this is the “National Church of Atheism”. Libertarians and SoCons can and should join forces against the pervasive presence of this “church” by fighting together for a diminished the role of government in our lives, beginning with the schools.
that makes sense
duckhawk Wednesday, November 19th at 2:23PM EST (link)While I don’t consider early-term abortion murder, I do think that abortion in general might decrease social capital in some sections of society. So on abortion in particular we can agree in principle.
I’m sure there are other examples where this is true to the extent that libertarians can work with social conservatives. But it doesn’t automatically hold that everything social conservatives consider “moral” actually results in increased social capital. Hunter’s two-parent marriage example is a good one, but in order for some kind of coalition we would need convincing examples for the whole range of top issues (and I don’t think these exist).
what about monogamous homosexual relationships?
duckhawk Wednesday, November 19th at 2:32PM EST (link)Surely monogamous homosexuals transmit STDs at the same rate as monogamous heterosexuals (which is to say not at all).
The real problem here is that many homosexuals are not monogamous. Our current solution for heterosexual promiscuity happens to be marriage, so why is it so difficult to apply the same solution to homosexual behavior?
The facts are that Homosexuals experience STDs
AceInTX (Diary) Wednesday, November 19th at 6:14PM EST (link)and live far shorter lives than the society as a whole whether they say they are in a committed relationship or not…most studies say that this is because they are far more promiscuous than society as a whole…
The issue of marriage is a simple issue aside from the disease issue which is important as well…The institution of marriage has long been recognized as the optimal environment to raise children and has been proven so since the sexual revolution and the destruction wrought by single parents and broken households…and please spare me the outrage and petty slaps about, “so Gay people can’t be good parents”?
I’ve heard it all before…my sister is gay and I love her more than I can say…so save your breath…the issue is the standard we set for our children…Children are best raised when they have the influence of a father, (male) and mother, (Female), Povert statistics as well as crime statistics bear this out…so…the government has an interest in promoting traditional marriage to undergrad and support the moral society necessary for a truly libertine society!
I know Libertarians are uncomfortable with SoCons fighting to protect this institution but the fight wouldn’t be necessary of the Liberals and Democrats would leave well enough alone…but there it is…as we’re pushed…we push back as should libertarians because once traditionalists are out of the way…there will be no one left to fight along side them!