Mitch Daniels Reveals an Inconvenient Truth about the Right

American Thinker ^ | 06/14/2010 | John Guardiano

[SeekAndFind]

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has disappointed many social and cultural conservatives with his call for a "truce on the so-called [sic] social issues. We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while," until the economic issues are resolved, Daniels told the Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson.

But as the American Spectator's Joseph Lawler has observed, it's doubtful that Daniels' truce would change anything. After all, Lawler rightly asks:

"What typical Republican policies would he [Daniels] have to suspend and they [social and cultural conservatives] have to sacrifice? It's not clear to me that it would be anything more than simply the usual social conservative rhetoric..."

Lawler doesn't think this is a problem. I do.

That's because, unlike Lawler apparently, I am not willing to join a conservative movement that has retreated from the culture wars and surrendered to the left in key cultural battles like so-called gay rights, "affirmative action," "diversity," speech codes, and "multiculturalism."

Sure, like Lawler I have a modern-day sensibility. I am happily single and live and work in an affluent and diverse urban village in the Washington, D.C. area. I have friends and colleagues who happen to be black, gay, Hispanic, and Asian; and I really don't think anything of it.

In short, although culturally conservative, I am, I believe, thoroughly modern and socially progressive.

Nonetheless, I believe in cultural and educational standards, the rights of religious believers, and equal rights, not special rights. Consequently, I am adamantly opposed to "affirmative action" (read: reverse discrimination) and to so-called gay rights.

"Affirmative action" and "gay rights" are unjust in my view because they give special rights and privileges to people based on their race and sexual status, and innocent Americans get wronged -- that is, discriminated against -- as a result.

Unfortunately, Lawler is right about one thing: Daniels' "truce" in the culture wars is more a recognition of reality than a call for action. The right, after all, long ago abandoned the cultural playing field to the left. Thus, conservatives seldom even give lip service anymore to cultural issues like "affirmative action" and "gay rights."

In fact, many conservatives -- especially younger, Gen Y conservatives -- go out of their way to flaunt their liberal credentials on these and other cultural issues so as to gain street cred and social acceptance. The Tea Party movement, moreover, seems to view cultural issues as political baggage that best be discarded.

This is one big reason -- the other is defense and foreign policy issues, where Daniels again inadvertently revealed an inconvenient truth about the right -- that I am not particularly enamored of the modern-day conservative movement: for too many on the right, politics begins and ends with economics; and cultural conservatives and defense hawks need not apply.

So don't be angry with Mitch Daniels He simply said aloud what's become increasingly apparent for some time, which is: on some of the most important cultural and military issues of our time, the right has lost its way and has ceased even to be conservative.

John R. Guardiano is a writer and analyst in Arlington, Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano

[muddler]

Mitch Daniels has grown Indiana state bureaucracies by raising taxes,(for the children).

[GlockThe Vote]

What good is fighting over gay marriage and affirmative action while our economic livlihoods are being destroyed.

[DManA]

We can get along fine as long as they don’t try to stop us from undoing the damage they’ve done.

[what's up]

What about the lowered property taxes?

I hear he's against all the bloated school construction projects (for the children).

[MadIsh32]

Because most social conservatives ARE NOT fiscal conservatives

See George W

[EyeGuy]

“We can get along fine as long as they don’t try to stop us from undoing the damage they’ve done.”

####

And we’ll need to go back AT LEAST to the mid-sixties, with the kick-off of the disastrous, trillion dollar racist theft known as the “War on Poverty”, with a significant stop at 1973’s Roe-Wade disaster.

[Servant of the Cross]

Bye Mitch. Social Issues vs. Fiscal Issues (Schlafly)

[ChildOfThe60s]

The Tea Party movement, moreover, seems to view cultural issues as political baggage that best be discarded.

Not so, pure baloney.

And an interesting angle that he (and many) miss is that much of the left's social agenda would take a serious hit if we rein in the government and government's spending/entitlements/power.

Shrinking government *is* a vital part of the conservative social agenda. Economics and culture are linked. Apparently a lot of pundits can only think one dimensionally. Which says little for their reasoning capabilities.

[dforest]

Daniels is a nanny stater and is soft in illegals. Financial issues cannot be solved unless the illegal situation is ended.

[SeekAndFind]

Too bad really. I was kinda hoping Mitch Daniels would be presidential material.

Well, back to the drawing board... next candidate please ( if there’s anyone acceptable ).

[Tribune7]

Because most social conservatives ARE NOT fiscal conservatives

Oh, like Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin?

LOLOLOL. You got it absolutely backwards. See Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Bloomberg, Crist, Schwarznegger etc.

In fact, name me one pol who claims to be fiscal conservative/social liberal that doesn't cave in to the fiscal libs when it's time for a vote.

Tom Ridge might have been one but they are few and far between.

[BlackElk]

A “truce” on social issues will do for social issues what the Ron Paul love slaves would do for our foreign and military policy. I had thought that Mitch Daniels might make an interesting dark horse. I was wrong. He would be a disaster. The economic issues are merely a matter of money. How much is spent is dependent on the most recent elections. There is never a permanent solution to money issues. OTOH, each baby slaughtered is a baby permanently slaughtered. Each breach in the societal policy on marriage is likely to be permanent. Social issues do not call for pacifism any more than military situations do. Smash Ahmadinijad and smash the domestic social revolutionaries. “Truce” is surrender.

[BlackElk]

The delusion of “fiscal conservatives” being actual conservatives is rising here. Please do the honors.

[Mr. Lucky]

You do know the identity of President Reagan’s Chief Political Advisor, right?

[Chi-townChief]

Daniels has a point but doesn’t express it very well - somehow, we need to make the New Right Coalition work again.

[Ol' Sparky]

What good is fighting over gay marriage and affirmative action while our economic livlihoods are being destroyed.

What good is beating back socialism if we destroy what marriage and the nuclear family are and kids continue to be harmed, dysfunctional and more prone to be wards of the state?

No Republican can win the Presidential nomination without a commitment to fighting for the right to life of the unborn and protecting what marriage is. Get to used it.

[Hoodat]

When good compromises with evil, only evil can profit.

[Ol' Sparky]

However the disasters of cap and trade, obamacare, etc are of much more immediate concern imho.

It's straw man argument. Obama has been pushing his a pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda while pushing Obamacare, spending trillions, taking over car companies and, now, pushing for cap and tax.

There is no reason why a Republican President can't implement a pro-life, pro-marriage and socially conservative agenda while tackling the economic problem. Claiming one can't do otherwise is an intentional slap in the face of social conservatives. And, it just cost Daniels any chance he has to win the GOP nomination.

[Ol' Sparky]

Daniels has a point but doesn’t express it very well

What point is that? The whole comment is an absurd straw man. A President can focus on the economy while at the same time tackling social issues. Obama has done so, albeit in a socialist way.

Daniels made a boneheaded political calculation to slap social conservatives in the face.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’ve never been particularly impressed by Daniels. He’s too wonky. I’ve argued you can’t ignore any of the legs of Conservatism. Focus exclusively on the social end and the economy can suffer, focus on the economy exclusively and the soul suffers. A little effort and you can cover both, but ignoring one or the other and your Conservative credentials become suspect.