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

[EyeGuy]

“We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.”

####

Utter nonsense.

Committed conservatives should be fully capable of conducting a two front war with the Communists.

[MadIsh32]

We have won the major battle, which is the gun war.

The 2nd amendment reigns supreme and nobody can take away my right to bear arms.

Winning that battle has been by far the biggest victory in the culture war.

We don’t need a truce per say, we simply need to re-focus on the econommic takeover which Obama and his minions are plotting over the rest of his term.

[a fool in paradise]

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,"

Um, it's the socialist/social activists who are pushing an agenda. We are trying to "hold the line" on the right.

Condemning those who say "don't change the military, marriage laws, adoption laws, etc..." aren't pushing for changes. Telling us to surrender on these issues "for now" means forever giving up these issues to the Left.

[Lakeshark]

Gee Mitch. You're right.

Reagan would have never increased our military strength, fought for social issues, and championed free enterprise at the same time.......and for those who think Mitch is right....../sarcasm......

[Huck]

I am not willing to join a conservative movement that has retreated from the culture wars

The right doesn't even have a complete team on the field. The political/legal realm is but one facet of the game. Call it defense.

But where is the offense? What is the offensive squad in the culture war? In my view, it's....culture! TV, movies, music, art, literature. The right has virtually no presense at all in these areas.

This is why "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. " Why is cultural liberalism necessary to gain "street cred and social acceptance?"

It is because the popular culture--our art, our music, our dramas, our stories--are what shape the cultural thinking of individuals. So where are the conservative film makers--or film studios? Where are the conservative media conglomerates? Where is the corporation that specializes in music and films that glorify and promote conservative values?

Instead of trying to buy the St Louis Rams, why isn't the enormously wealthy Rush Limbaugh, or other monied conservatives, creating such institutions?

In the culture war, conservative is like a soccor team with one player--a goalie. The best you can achieve is a tie, and that will seldom be the case.

[PORD]

“We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.”

The “economic issues” have been caused by caving in to the socialistic nonsense...and now we are to capitulate more...tell the lie-berals to quit, I’m sure they will comply!!!

[a fool in paradise]

How can you tighten the purse strings when “you” are unwilling to have more personal accountablity and responsibility?

An expanded social safety net means you’ll never be able to control spending.

Things like the global warming scare and illegal immigration are economic issues.

[ScottinVA]

As Mitch jettisons any aspirations for higher office.

[rintense]

Sounds like he’s stumping for the RINO title.

[GlockThe Vote]

We need to first deal with immediate economic threats this communist regime poses. Yes oppose gay marriage and dadt repeal.

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

[Altura Ct.]

"We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,"

No we don't! You are suggesting we acquiesce to your cowardliness and PC crap. You could always come on over and join us. You are more than welcome, otherwise ES&D

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Go along to get along? This is why we’re in trouble now!

[Tribune7]

And we are winning the abortion war, and how does "gay marriage" help the Democrats?

BTW, McCain didn't lose on social issues. He lost because Republicans were seen as big spenders.

Maybe Republicans should start being socially conservative AND fiscally conservative.

[what's up]

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

I believe that is Daniels' point.

He has said his first priority is reforming entitlements. Good for him. This alone will take care of a while host of "social issues".

Also, he has called the enviros "zealots" and out to devastate the economy. I like his thinking.

[kalt]

It wasn’t clear to me from the Weekly Standard piece that he wants to run anyway. But I think that all of the attacks on him for this “truce” thing are misreading what he said. He said truce, not surrender. A truce is a two-way street. Now maybe some folks would like him to stay on the offensive, and that’s fine, but let’s not act like he said he wants to roll over and let the left have its way on social issues.

[ExGeeEye]

We have not won the gun war until I can buy a pistol by mail-order and carry it concealed on public and "public accommodation" property without government permission.

Like my grandfather could, back when this was a free country.

nobody can take away my right to bear arms

They don't have to. Just deny their permission when you apply for it.

There are more battles ahead on this issue.

[Theophilus]

Abortion: Economic suicide.

[Lakeshark]

Sorry, if you haven't learned this already, a "truce" never means a two way street from the left.

It's just naive prattling, sort of like McCain's "reach across the aisle" crap.

[alloysteel]

The “social issues” are all bound up inextricably with the economic issues. The “social issues” come down to spending money by government, that would have been covered by individual acts of charity and by relying on the individual’s own initiative. And the money spent there, directly impacts economic issues.

You cannot have both guns and butter, nor eat your cake and still have it in reserve for future pleasure.

Mortgaging our future to secure these “social issues” is no way to bring the economic problems under control.