RSS Feed MenuThe 2010 elections are still in the future, and yet already thunderstorms over conservative unity are hitting the Right again. Just recently, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggested that conservatives should “call a truce” on social issues so as to focus on rolling back the economic excesses of the present regime, and like clockwork, the socially conservative elements of the Right have sprung into action to refute him. Whether you think Daniels’s truce would actually produce positive results is a live question – Mike Pence has expressed mild disagreement with the concept, and I have my doubts over its effectiveness on all social issues – but I would suggest that this question isn’t actually the point. What is currently going on with Daniels is a time-tested ritual within conservative discourse – someone suggests leaving social issues alone, social issues advocates respond angrily, the original speaker apologizes, and the next field of GOP candidates… leaves social issues alone in favor of economic issues. Ho hum. Let’s all go home.
But now Mike Huckabee is involved, and if anything is sure to prolong a conflict on the Right, it is the presence of Mike Huckabee. In response to Daniels’s call, Huckabee has blasted out an aggressive fundraising email/essay savaging Daniels’s idea:
Many of you saw the comments made by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels last week when he said the next president ‘would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues’ so he or she could focus on the fiscal problems facing the country.
As I’ve made clear, I really like Governor Daniels, and I consider him a friend and colleague, but his comments mirror those of the GOP establishment who view values voters dismissively as ‘single-minded.’ The fact is that every value voter I know is truly committed to fiscal conservatism, but many fiscal conservatives and libertarians range from disinterest to contempt for social issues.
Now, to be fair, what Huckabee’s doing is employing time-tested and deservedly respectable rhetoric – the language of fusionism – to justify his attack. However, Huckabee himself is a distinctly unconvincing spokesperson for this sort of thing, especially when you consider that he has called for libertarians to be run out of the conservative movement as “faux-cons.” Huckabee is good at using the language of fusionism, but he uses it to practice the politics of division – for instance, within the aforementioned essay, you’ll notice how he singles out “fiscal conservatives and libertarians” as the evil dissenters who make it impossible for us all to get along. This is while writing in opposition to a “truce,” so if the English language means anything, we must conclude that Huckabee wants to see war on the apostates he mentions.
Moreover, Huckabee’s larger point in the essay – that social decay affects the economy – is classic misdirection insofar as it willfully refuses to notice the opposite point – that the economy impacts social decay. Most social conservatives realize this. Michele Bachmann, for instance, in one of her less-disciplined moments, called Planned Parenthood the Wal-mart of abortion (an insult to Wal-mart, by the way), which suggests that she understands the issue of abortion as primarily one of supply and demand where prices can reduce the number of abortions (hence the battle over public funding). However, this is a live issue for Huckabee, who has accused libertarians of harboring “heartless, callous and soulless” beliefs with respect to welfare, yet wants to play bad cop on the social issues such as family illegitimacy. How he proposes to do this without taking away the welfare benefits that incentivize family illegitimacy, or without gutting foreign aid so as to reduce dependency and dysfunctional economic practices overseas is anybody’s guess.
Without turning this into an extended attack, though, this gets to a much larger problem with Huckabee’s argument – and with his role on the Right generally: much as he argues that unity is justified because fiscal conservatives need social conservatives, his idea of unity seems to be a political protection racket. That is, he never explains why social conservatives need fiscal conservatives, except maybe for their money, and clearly thinks that fiscal conservatives should live in fear of having their kneecaps broken at the ballot box by the socially-oriented masses. In any case, he is in no position to attack Mitch Daniels for discouraging fusionism.
medinnus // Jun 17, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Your Mileage May Vary *grins*
easton // Jun 17, 2010 at 6:58 pm
YMMV equals your mileage may vary.
And no, pedophiles are not born that way. Sorry but that is totally ridiculous. It might be true some people are born sociopaths, but pedophiles are made not born. Many are sexually abused themselves while young etc. and while they don’t have a choice in that, they have a choice in their future actions, which would only continue the cycle on unnecessary abuse generation to generation. It simply has no equivalency that it should be discussed with homosexuality in any way, because there is no real analogy where the two apply. Gays, like Pedophiles, are born that way, is both a lie and is rubbish in its backhanded implication (though I understand that is not the intent)
One other question, what is anti-multiculturalism? Abolish Columbus day? No more St. Patricks day?
Close down the Chinese restaurants, only American food must be sold? I take it WASP is the default culture and if you aren’t WASP you aren’t American? Seriously, that can’t be what Social Conservatism is about (or shouldn’t be) I get the whole, no bi-lingual education (though I don’t agree, I think all children should be bi-lingual from Kindergarten on) but I do not get anti-multicultural.
JonF // Jun 17, 2010 at 7:04 pm
How about the following terms of truce: the gay issue goes on the back burner– it’s no longer a major vote getter anyway, and especially not among the young. But the abortion issue stays on the front burner. After all, abortion is about very basic questions of life and death and human personhood, and the public is no more pro-Choice now than it was 30 years ago, in fact there’s been some movement in the opposite direction, especially among the young.
busboy33 // Jun 17, 2010 at 10:10 pm
@JonF:
If abortion is not on the negotiating tabe for you, then it isn’t on the table.
As a “pro-life” proponent, maybe you can answer some serious off-topic questions from an uncomfortably pro-choicer. I appreciate the ethical superiority of the pro-life camp (and honestly would like to take the flag up), but I can’t jump the fence without answering these questions, so if you’re willing I’m a Seeker willing to listen to some preachin’:
*) When should the law consider “life” to have begun?
— What objectively verifiable evidence is there for this answer?
*)If the state has an interest in making sure babies come to term, do they have an interest in making sure women who have sex not undertake any activity that could lead to a miscarriage (ex: exercise)?
— What is the difference between these two cases from ther perspective of the government?
*) Societal Consequences. I can’t accept “too bad” in response to the back -alley abortions. Is there another answer?
If I could find answers to these questions, I’d officially flip fro pro-choice to anti-abortion.
busboy33 // Jun 17, 2010 at 10:54 pm
@easton:
I’m not too concerned whether pedophelia is inherent or generated. As far as I’m concerned, the issue is a red herring. I’m not disputing what you say, and you certainly sound like you actually know something about this, or at least more than me (I’ve never thought about the topic, so I’m completely ignorant).
The two relevant questions are sitll (a) is there are credible societal threat and (b) does restricting the class of person reasonably prevent the threat in the least restrictive way? Whether gay is inherent or chosen, whether pedophelia is inherent or learned, it has no bearing on the two questions. As an aside, I also personally think the topic itself (in the thread, not attacking you dealing with the question) is nothing more than a transparently cynical ploy to create a subconcious association between “Teh Gay” and something negative. It’s dirty pool, logically speaking. But that’s just a personal opinion.
So you’re probably right. I assume you ARE right. Its certainly an interesting topic I’d love to discuss for a few hours over beers at the bar, but I hesitate to think too much about it in this thread at least because I’m enjoying the discussion of all this in a non-emotional, practical fashion and I don’t see how the topic can even be mentioned without reinforcing the subliminal connection.
Baby Gizmo Baby Planet Unity Sport Double Stroller Review // Jun 18, 2010 at 10:06 am
[...] Huckabee Rips Daniels' Call for GOP Unity | FrumForum [...]
easton // Jun 18, 2010 at 2:17 pm
busboy, actually, I have zero interest in that topic which is why I protested it so strongly. That aspect is a total red herring. And it is just not this I don’t want to talk about. My wife is a nurse and while I understand her desire to share her day I simply don’t want to hear about the horrendous things that happen, like the child beaten by the alcoholic stepdad because he had the TV too loud. Don’t want to hear it.
So like you said, let gay marriage stand on its own merits, lets leave inflammatory issues on the side.
rectonoverso // Jun 19, 2010 at 6:46 am
Nice example why the one dimensional progressive-conservative (or left-right) political “spectrum” makes no sense.
Even cartoon characters have more degrees of freedom than that.