RSS Feed MenuI want to believe in some new “centrism”, really, I do. But there’s a certain amount of tunnel-vision to the project, I fear.
In yesterday’s FrumForum symposium on revitalizing centrist politics, contributor Steve Bell wrote:
The emphasis on “social issues” — abortion, values training, sexual policies — that many of my colleagues have seems out of place in a national government dedicated to maximum freedom for the greatest number of people.
Maximum freedom for the greatest number of people? Did Jeremy Bentham enter the pantheon of Founding Fathers while I wasn’t looking? No, a country is not about maximizing freedom, or liberty, or any other abstract value. If anything, statecraft is about tempering values, and balancing them against others. That much is obvious — or should be.
Les Francis added:
I support the right of gays to marry – in fact, I think we should have ‘civil unions’ for everyone and then let various churches decide who to marry – if church ‘A’ wants to show tolerance and acceptance while church ‘B’ wants to propagate bigotry, go ahead and let the ‘marketplace’ decide who and how many will affiliate with either.
I haven’t been to Church B recently, but I have heard of one church called the Roman Catholic Church that has traditionally stood opposed to many accepted and once-accepted forms of marriage, and has a well-known history of being persecuted for their beliefs on marriage as well. In the case of America, saying that such a church would be “propagating bigotry” for declining to believe in gay marriage would not seem to be a sound electoral strategy; it didn’t work out well for Martha “Maybe Catholics Shouldn’t Be Pharmacists” Coakley, after all. And let’s not humor believing Catholics with the foolish idea that the state and its educational organs would leave the diagnosis of bigotry to “the marketplace.” We are men of action, and so is the state.
John Avlon wrote:
Let’s take that most passionately held culture war third rail, abortion. Roughly 20% of Americans believe that there ought to be a constitutional ban on abortion. And roughly 20% believe there should be no restrictions on abortion. Sixty percent of Americans are in the middle – which is as close to a durable consensus as ever likely to be achieved in a democracy. They believe broadly in reasonable restrictions to reduce the tragedy of abortion (such as a ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification and incentives for adoption), while recognizing that ultimately the woman involved must make this decision, not the government.
That’s one possible compromise. But, alas, it requires that pro-lifers just… shut up about things like the right to life and the personhood of the unborn. Or at the very least, it permanently enjoins them from fighting for their beliefs in the courts and legislatures of the country, all the way down to the smallest municipality. Centro locuta est, causa finita est. Like that’s possible. Of course, a future Republican Senate could confirm a fifth or sixth or seventh vote against Roe v. Wade, recreating an actual compromise that used to exist on the matter; but goodness knows the country will crash in on itself before that happens. Perhaps, then, pro-lifers should quietly withdraw and tend to their own gardens on cultural matters, like the Amish, or the Orthodox? Good luck electing centrist politicians when that happens!
Or perhaps, centrists should look at that other model of centrism, as modeled by Chris Smith and Joe Cao; “strong” on social issues from a conservative perspective, “weak” on fiscal issues from a libertarian perspective. Chris Smith, of course, was a supporter of the climate change bill, and Joe Cao was the single Republican vote for the healthcare bill, both of which put them under the gun with their conservative supporters. But Chris Smith wins consistently in a union-dominated district. Joe Cao pulled off a thrilling victory in a very Democratic district. It’s not like orthodox fiscal conservatism or foreign policy hawkishness are that much more popular than social conservatism. From a Republican perspective, does it not take all kinds? Or are some centrisms more equal than others?
sinz54 // Feb 12, 2010 at 9:45 am
anniemargaret: They are deeply interested in abortion, but say little to nothing about poverty and abused children; about divorce and parents who are more interested in upward mobility than their children.
Social conservatives have railed against no-fault divorce laws numerous times. They blame liberalized divorce laws for the dissolution of family ties.
As for poverty: Mike Huckabee strongly supported the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. He’s a social conservative I have liked, because of his compassion for the less fortunate.
As for children: Here in MA where I live, Catholic Charities used to run the oldest and most successful adoption program for placing orphan children with loving parents. They shut down the program when gay activists got a judge to rule that CC had to place children with gay parents, something that CC said was counter to their Catholic principles.
This illustrates an important point: Most social conservatives are motivated by religion. They prefer that the Church take the lead in charitable functions, not the Federal Government. But when religious organizations perform secular functions (like adoption services), they must comply with all secular laws and court rulings, some of which run counter to their religious principles.
That’s a big problem.
sinz54 // Feb 12, 2010 at 9:47 am
anniemargaret:
Continuing on with my previous post:
Bush tried to bridge the gap with his “faith-based” initiative. This would enable faith-based organizations to compete on an equal footing with secular organizations for Federal dollars.
DFL // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:23 am
I don’t see any room for social conservatives in any sort of “vital center” defined by the gentlemen who responded to the roundtable questions asked of them. Social conservatives are not only politically powerless in modern America, they have no reason to give succor to a majority culture that they fundamentally oppose. Better to turn their backs on a corrupt society and concentrate on their own institutions. With the nation collapsing in so many ways, why would social conservatives wish to rescue it.
balconesfault // Feb 12, 2010 at 11:30 am
Here in MA where I live, Catholic Charities used to run the oldest and most successful adoption program for placing orphan children with loving parents. They shut down the program when gay activists got a judge to rule that CC had to place children with gay parents, something that CC said was counter to their Catholic principles.
Indeed, Massachussetts has a non-discrimination law, and adoption agencies must be state licensed, and it the will of the state that discrimination against gays is as much discrimination as discrimination against blacks. Would you be ok if an adoption agency declared it was against their principles to place children with black families?
Note that placement of children for adoption is specifically a civil action. It is not a sacrament. As such, it must be governed by civil laws. It is particularly sad that the Catholic Church believes that they must discriminate in their civil duties in order to fulfill Christ’s will on earth.
DFL // Feb 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Would you force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions? Abortion is the law nationwide and would be in Massachusetts whether Roe v- Wade was struck down or not. Would you force the Catholic Church in Massachusetts to ordain women as priest? It can be argued that the Roman Catholic Church discriminates against women. For that matter, the Roman Catholic Church discriminates against married men and women as well as homosexuals.
balconesfault // Feb 12, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Would you force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
Complicated question. In a number of communities across America Catholic hospitals receive direct public funding in order to serve as the public hospital for the community. In such cases, I believe that the community certainly has a right to mandate that the hospital provide abortion services as part of their contractual obligations, or is willing to refer women to another facility which does provide abortion services if they do not want to provide them themselves.
If the hospital is operating independently, then I would not require them to perform tonsillectomies, or open heart surgery, or hip replacements, or abortions, if they did not want to. Their scope of services is properly their own decision.
Would you force the Catholic Church in Massachusetts to ordain women as priest? It can be argued that the Roman Catholic Church discriminates against women.
The constitution of the priesthood is totally a religious, and not a civil function. Thus, the state has no right to make any claims as to who might be ordained.
For that matter, the Roman Catholic Church discriminates against married men and women as well as homosexuals.
The Roman Catholic Church will also not provide communion to declared atheists. I don’t have a problem with that, either – and the ACLU would actually support the Catholic Church in court if their right to deny sacraments to anyone they want was challenged somehow. Nobody’s trying to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriage, either.
connor25 // Feb 12, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I don’t believe there is room for social conservatives in the center. Their little litmus tests for the GOP completely wrecked the party nationally and I’m glad that test to the RNC was killed. Scott Brown proves that the GOP can win in blue states, but they have to adjust some views in order to appeal to a different audience. Massachusetts is not South Carolina (and if some people in the party don’t get that, they should just leave the GOP and form their own party) But the so-cons and some conservatives call them RINOs and Democrat Lite and would rather see these candidates lose because they’re not “purely conservative”. Believe me, I’ve gotten in fights with these people.
GOProud, you are right about the GOP’s loss of face with Hispanic voters. The so-con’s nativitism destroyed all the efforts the Republican Party did to reach out to Hispanic voters. All the effort Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes did all gone by people like Tancredo and so-con’s. I remember on one conservative blog, they said in a nice way about immigration how the GOP should write off Hispanics just like what they do with black voters every election. They are really stupid to let another voting block go 90% Democratic.
It really sickens me sometimes these type of conservatives think just talking to themselves will win elections with the changing demographics of this country and the GOP needs to win significant percentages of voting groups to win elections.
sinz54, good point about Huckabee. He had a lot of interesting ideas for economics while being socially conservative. I don’t mind their views, I just don’t think they’ll be accepted in 10 years time.
anniemargaret, you took the words out of my mouth about abortion and abstinence.
torourke // Feb 14, 2010 at 10:30 pm
sinz54,
I’m rather late to the party, but your comments on #14 are way off. Go ahead and Google Red State and Scott Brown and you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of posts about him are positive. There was one post calling for lawyers to go to Massachusetts to help with potential legal challenges. There was another post from Moe Lane–one of the major players on that website–touting Scott Brown’s moneybomb and how he had personally contributed money to the effort. And National Review, which is far more influential–and likewise socially-conservative–wrote an editorial promoting his candidacy with Jim Geraghty touting his moneybomb as well. This is in vein with the sheer wrongness of your entire post. Social conservatives not being team players as opposed to social moderates? Seriously?
I seem to recall a recent contest in NY-23 where the socially moderate hand-picked candidate endorsed her Democratic rival days before the election out of spite at the rise of the more conservative (including socially conservative) challenger from the right. I seem to recall the socially conservative Rick Santorum swallowing hard and endorsing Arlen Specter, who then did nothing for the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, and then bolted for the Democrats when it became convenient. There are other examples, particularly in House races, where the moderate Republican refused to endorse or campaign for the Conservative challenger in the general election, contributing to the conservatives’ defeat (eg. Andy Harris in MD -01) Can you find examples of the reverse being true? I doubt it.
Social conservatives are also winning the fight on the embryonic stem cell research. Even the State of California has begun diverting funds to adult stem cell research (from the funds that were slated for ESCR) because it has proven to be more successful in actually producing treatments. That and the promise of iPS cells are showing the prescience of President Bush in his handling of the issue.
torourke // Feb 14, 2010 at 10:36 pm
balconesfault:
“Well, yeah. Just like you’d be appalled at some group fighting at that level for a belief that any woman on welfare out there who has already born a child should be sterilized. There is actually a good argument to be made for why that would be the right decision for a woman to make – but we shouldn’t go imposing it as the will of the state, should we?”
Your ability to torch strawmen is truly impressive, as you compare advocating against the deliberate destruction of innocent human beings to the state forcibly sterilizing women against their wishes. No, that chestnut rests comfortably in the history of progressivism, with Buck v. Bell being the high-water mark for that line of thinking.
rabagley // Apr 1, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I would be thrilled if the so-cons were the fringe of a vital, majority Republican party. At the moment, however, so-cons are running the show and have made the Republican party so-con-only and that means that the Republican party is a regional party without nationwide appeal.
Are so-cons welcome in the middle? The middle of what? The middle of the political spectrum? Pretty difficult to explain how that works when you support positions that clearly label you as authoritarian (but just for keeping abortions illegal and keeping gays second class citizens, really!)
As a “l”ibertarian, it occurs to me that the real question being asked is, “How do we get the vital center hold their nose and say that so-cons are ‘in the club’?”. If so-cons really want to join the liberty-seeking-center, start by looking at each issue on a liberty-authority axis, and start voting for the most liberty. But that will mean that mandating a single definition for when life begins is a non-starter, and the central issue most important to so-cons goes out the window.
Basically A != !A is the central problem and there’s no way around it.
TheRightsWriter // Apr 8, 2010 at 12:22 am
“if church ‘A’ wants to show tolerance and acceptance while church ‘B’ wants to propagate bigotry, go ahead and let the ‘marketplace’ decide who and how many will affiliate with either.”
Is this individual serious? The National Council of Churches has experienced such precipitous decline it receives more funding from tax-exempt foundations than its member churches. A quick review of recent trends, as of February:
“Propagating Bigotry”
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee): up 1.76 percent;
Mormons (conspicuously involved in the Prop 8 battle): up 1.71 percent;
Roman Catholicism: up 1.49 percent over 2009;
Assemblies of God: up 1.27 percent;
“Tolerance and Acceptance”
Presbyterian Church USA: down 3.28 percent;
United Church of Christ: down 2.93 percent;
The Episcopal Church: down 2.81 percent;
American Baptist: down 2 percent;
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: down 1.92 percent;
The marketplace is deciding….