Thoughtful Social Conservatism

A visitor commented on Wednesday’s post, relative to compromises on the sanctity of life. It and my reply represent an importantant conversation that is rarely undertaken even among social conservatives. Pondering the question made me think that there are many questions that we do not fully enough flesh out. “Thoughtful Social Conservatism” would be a suitable title for a discussion of these questions, though such discussion is not well-suited to the sound bites of a political campaign.

Here is the comment and response:

Notes below posted to "Greatest story never told":

Land’s “Greater Good v. Greater Evil” argument has been the GOP left’s argument for as long as I can remember. You may remember Hannity shilling for Schwartzenegger in the California runoff that made him the “Governator”? Now it’s illegal to use harmful words like, “parents,” “mommy,” “daddy,” etc. in classrooms in the Golden State because they "discriminate" against homosexuals.

We have come to a major decision point in this country. One in which we need to risk eight years of Hillary at the helm in order to forge a new pro-family coalition.

Ethically, the best choice should be the only choice. If all voters operated this way, Hillary at the helm would not be risky because she would not win in a race where people of conscience voted their conscience. With Rudy or Mitt as her opponent, the eventual victor wouldn’t matter since their views are so similar to hers. In other words, we should rally around a true social conservative and let the electoral chips fall where they will.

Short version: We can all support candidates like Huckabee because it won't matter whether they can beat Hillary.... but I believe Huckabee can win anyway.

I couldn’t find either your profile or the post you referred to. But of course you're right, that the social left of The Republican Party has long given us "Land’s 'Greater Good v. Greater Evil' argument." But, we must be certain to note that Richard Land, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer are not of the social liberal left of the GOP.

So, theirs is not an animus of antipathy to social conservatism. Theirs is what at bottom, may be the more ignoble animus of a spirit of fear, rather than a positive spirit of exalting the standard of a clear an unambiguous ideal of the sanctity of human life.

The problem is not a Narcissistic one of whether we tarnish our own integrity with respect to our values. No, the big problem is the sacrifice of what war laid down as a foundational should be an American standard and which, in fact, one major political party in The United States has unapologetically abandoned.

If The Republican Party puts that most basic of principles on the negotiating table:

1) Republican strategists need never consider it, again. Its advocates can be taken for granted.

2) We are affirming as Republicans, a chief executive of The United States who is lost on the ABSOLUTELY MOST BASIC of founding American principles. That's the individual you want charged with protecting and defending The Constitution.

By the way, this is hardly a unique example of Giuliani's oblivion to American principle. Such ineptitude at comprehension of principle is a dangerous condition that will repeatedly reappear, and it has.

3) If American society assimilates and becomes passive to the denial of this most basic principle, self-centered incivility will become an acceptable and standard disposition. I believe that civility in America will be well down the path of dissolution.

By the way, one may look at my posture and assume that I am a reflexive follower of whatever position that most social conservatives and their perceived leaders espouse or embrace. Anyone is free to believe that, of course. But that assumption has the incomparable flaw of being untrue.

It is true that this blog has been generally devoted to the cause of nominating a social conservative as the Republican candidate for President of the United States in 2008. But, though we largely agree, the most important basis for my support is Mike Huckabee’s positive character, more than a perfect correspondence between our inclinations on policy questions. The latter are negotiable. The former is not.

I can point to many examples and in a book, I might. But right here on this very fundamental issue of respect for the sanctity of human life, we are presented with a good example:

Many will consider me an inflexible, unreasonable, and detrimental ideologue because I am intransigent about the morality and essential Americanism of respect for the sanctity of human life. However, I do not advocate for an amendment to The US Constitution, banning abortion, which puts me at odds with almost every social conservative that I can think of, including Mike Huckabee.

Understand, if I were president (which is a most slightly greater likelihood than that of hell freezing over), I would be glad of it. But, 1) presidents have no part in the process of constitutional amendment. Such must be at first proposed by ²/₃ of the US Senate AND the US House of Representatives and then ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. In short, as things stand, it ain’t gonna happen. Heck, a majority of a Senate CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS couldn’t even convict a Democratic president of high crimes and misdemeanors, who had repeatedly and brazenly perjured himself before a federal grand jury!

So in the first place, talk of such an amendment as of today is just a sentimental expression that abortion is wrong and/or Roe vs. Wade is an unconstitutional fabrication. I believe both of those things, but mere talk does nothing practical to rectify the really tragic problem.

Secondly, if such a process became a realistic possibility, we will have already progressed considerably in the necessary direction of public understanding that there is something very fundamentally amiss in American society. At this point, states and localities should reassert themselves in regulating or rejecting the practice of abortion. This process would of course, be greatly assisted by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, which seems now a more attainable ambition, but I think states should challenge their captivity to this grotesquely unconstitutional ruling, regardless.

Also, the process of public and state assertion would also be greatly eased by the election of an assertive and articulate president of principle and character. And, so we return to Mike Huckabee...