A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism

The American Thinker ^ | 11/23/08 | Randall Hoven

[Dawnsblood]

Social conservatism is taking a beating lately. Not only did it lose in the recent elections, it is being blamed for the Republican losses. If only the religious right would get off the Republican party's back, the GOP could win like it is supposed to again. I beg to differ.

I'm anything but a social conservative. In nine presidential elections, I voted Libertarian in six. I am a hard core "limited government" conservative/libertarian; I want government out of my pocket-book and out of my bedroom. Concerning my religion, it's none of your business, but I'm somewhere in the lapsed-Catholic-deist-agnostic-atheist spectrum; let's just call it agnostic.

Having said all that, I have no problem with "social conservatives" or the "religious right" and their supposed influence on the Republican party. I base this not on the Bible or historical authority, but on the love of liberty and the evidence of my own eyes.

Who are the true liberty killers?

The most obvious point to me is that it is the do-gooding liberals who are telling us all what we can and can't do. The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years. Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.

[Tempest]

That’s the dumbest extrapolation yet.

[neverdem]

It makes a lot of extrapolations in all the wrong way anyone with half a brain could figure that out. For goodness sakes.

So you prefer to engage in ad hominems instead of giving examples of why it is a stupid article? There's a great deal of talking about leaving the GOP. Guess what? Self identified conservatives are only about a third of the electorate in the last two national elections. Small 'l' libertarians are estimated at ten to fifteen percent of the electorate. We need each other if we want to stop the marxists.

[neverdem]

One reason why this is a stupid article is that it starts off with a complete boner. How can this author overlook the victory of pro-marriage Prop. 8 in California?

By a whopping 52 - 48, it wasn't exactly a landslide. Meanwhile how many OpEds are saying the GOP needs to ignore the social conservatives and become more moderate? There's a lot of stupid commentary going around. I didn't think this article was one of them.

[neverdem]

ping

[LowCountryJoe]

So, the article wasn’t entirely correct: social conservatives just cannot accept someone that is tolerant of homosexuals and who will not promote a pro-faith agenda at the federal level. So much for inclusiveness of the limited government conservatives.

[narses]

David Duke is out as well. Embrace evil (abortion, sexual nihilism, socialism, etc) and you are not part of anything I will associate with.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[bamahead]

Thanks for the ping!

[Yardstick]

Thought this was an interesting point:

Using the National Journal's ratings of Senators in 2007 , the correlation coefficient between "economic" scores and "social" scores is 90%. That means they almost always go together; financial conservatives are social conservatives and vice versa. Every Senator scoring above 60 in economic issues, scored above 50 in social ones. Every Senator scoring below 40 in economic issues, scored below 50 in social ones. If there is such an animal as a "financial conservative, social liberal", it does not exist in the US Senate.

[elkfersupper]

Religious freedom is under attack in this country. If we don’t defend the freedom of belief, we lose it all.

If any of your fellow citizens actually believed in individual liberty, this would not be an issue.

[fnord]

I’ll never understand how religious socialists end up as the “religious right”. They more properly belong on the left-wing side, some further left than others.

Elitism is elitism, it matters little who the rulers are other than a subjective opinion on the comfort of the manacles.

And yes, so-called “social conservatives” cost the GOP a lot of votes. Many more people fear religious elitism over political elitism than vice versa, and that’s how they vote.

[curiosity]

Excellent article.

Thanks for posting.

Next we need an article setting straight the soCons who think they can ditch the econoCons.

All three legs of the conservative stool are necessary to win elections.

[murdoog]

The recent eharmony lawsuit is strong evidence that libertarians and social conservatives have significant common interests. I don’t even have to give two sides-— neither would want a private business to be forced to accommodate homosexuality if it violates the owner’s conscience.

[SunkenCiv]

Social conservatism is taking a beating lately.

Huh. Amazing remark, considering that California -- one of the most flat on the floor liberal havens on the planet, with perhaps a fifth of its population made up of illegal immigrants -- just decisively rejected gay marriage at the ballot box. Thanks neverdem.

[Eric Blair 2084]

bttt