At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Christians weren’t the only conservatives in attendance. Contrary to what liberals think, not all conservatives are Christians, either. That should go without saying, but sometimes you have to be explicit.
In that same vein, not all bloggers at Bloggers Corner were Christians. In fact, I noticed a high libertarian quotient. After the conference, when all was calm, I realized why. Bloggers Corner was sponsored by Tech Central Station (TCS), a right-of-center, free market (read: libertarian) publication. I’m not implying they were playing favorites, but the presence of several libertarians among bloggers at a conservative conference is worth mentioning.
Ryan Sager, a libertarian and fellow CPAC blogger, wrote a piece for TCS about what he calls the “arrogance” of the Republican Party in general and CPAC in particular, titled The Right’s Right. The arrogance we social conservatives show toward liberals isn’t the problem, he says. It’s the arrogance we show toward libertarians like himself that will be our downfall. He mocks:
[T]he arrogance that will prove problematic, ultimately, was that directed at the libertarian-leaning conservatives by the social conservatives. The message in that regard was clear: We Christians can do this alone, y’all who ain’t down with J.C. best be running along.
I believe “J.C.” stands for Jesus Christ. Arrogance isn’t limited to conservatives, I see.
Sager bases these and other claims on Ann Coulter’s stand-up-comedy-routine speech (I do wish she’d cut back on the one-liners) and Phyllis Schlafly’s denunciation of illegal immigration, although neither woman is known as a “religious” conservative. Sager just lumps social conservatives into the same group. The contempt he shows toward the “Religious Right” is palpable, but as a Christian quite used to it, I find it very instructive in this case. Sager’s real problem is with conservatives who openly profess Christ. To Sager, we’re arrogant and intolerant, yet at the same time, he displays his own intolerance toward us. For example, we’re “extremists” who foist our “version of morality” on others. He is talking about people like myself who believe the Bible is truth, the very word of God from which morality derives.
By the way, do you know why conservatives are perennially labeled intolerant? Because we understand the important distinction between acceptance of lifestyles we think are immoral and destructive and allowing people the freedom to self-destruct. For instance, I don’t accept homosexuality as normal, but I’m “tolerant” of homosexuals’ freedom to do whatever they want with whomever they want as long as they’re consenting adults. I have neither the right nor desire to force homosexuals to stop doing anything.
Sager adds: “But precious little libertarianism came from the stage, and what little did was seldom well received…..Now, perhaps CPAC just isn’t any place for libertarians. But that, in itself, is a problem. The conservative movement should be reaching out to people who, well, just aren’t as bothered by ‘Will & Grace’ as some other people are.”
I don’t agree with this at all. Social conservatism, distinct from other forms of conservatism, has a moral component. That is, the agenda I have as a Christian and social conservative is to persuade people that “my side” is better than the other guy’s. Reaching out to people who condone homosexual “marriage” or activity is something I hope never to see social conservatives engaged in. (Notice that I said conservatives, not Republicans. ) I have similar distaste for the party courting the “black vote.” Present your ideas, what you believe, and go from there. If people don’t agree, that’s what the Democratic or Libertarian parties are for.
Sager and I agree one thing: the Republican Party has given up on being the party of small government. To my dismay, George Bush is a big government, not-conservative-enough Republican. It’s times like this I’m glad to be an “Undeclared” independent conservative to the right of Bush.
I didn’t talk much about my faith in Bloggers Corner. We were so busy and distracted by people walking by that the topic didn’t come up. But on the last day of the conference, near the end of the day, the topic did come up. Mike Marshall of Pajama Hadin attended the conference and hung out at our table from time to time. He and I had a great conversation with radio talk show host, Nick Steward, a conservative Christian and up-and-coming politician.
We talked about our faith and how Christ had changed our lives. The space we were assigned was rather tight, so I’m certain the other bloggers heard some or most of the conversation. It felt good to talk about Jesus Christ, if only for a little while. He is the most controversial figure of all time, and his name is bound to make some uncomfortable and others rejoice. God and man at CPAC, indeed.
As alarming as it may seem to some, my higher authority is not myself, but the Creator, the living God who sacrificed his Son to pay for the sins of those he came to save. I believe the Bible contains the truth of God, his nature and plan for the whole world. I cannot and will not separate this belief and compartmentalize it for politically correct notions of “tolerance,” and I won’t turn my back on these principles if “reaching out” to libertarians requires that I do.
Here’s how others responded to Sager:
Erick Erickson (CPAC blogger): It may just be me, but I thought the first “C” in CPAC stood for Conservative. In fact, it does. Sager believes the conservative movement is wholly represented by Schlafly and Coulter. The truth is something other than that, which I think Sager understands, though the Kossacks will be confused….Conservatism is not a monolithic platform of ideas. We do have some conservatives who favor open borders and gay marriage. We do have some who think God needs to be toned down in the public debate. But, the majority of conservatives do believe there is an inherent need for morality in what we do and we are near united that the one moral heritage we can agree on comes from the Bible.”
Can I get an Amen?
Mary Katharine Ham: As a conservative, and a social conservative in most regards, I’m thankful for libertarians. As far as I’m concerned, people who love free markets, guns, and America are welcome in a coalition with me.
Amy Ridenhour: “[I]t is silly to draw excessive conclusions from who speaks at CPAC…Similarly, the CPAC audience is not a demographically pure slice of modern American conservatism — neither are Ann Coulter’s fans.”
Karol Sheinin (CPAC Blogger): ” It’s true that at a meeting of Republicans, you may find a wide range of both conservative and libertarian thought. But, I thought it was safe to assume that if you attend a conference explicitly marked ‘conservative’, you shouldn’t be stunned that that’s exactly what you find.”
Ramesh Ponnuru: “[Sager] says that “conservatism can’t survive by religious extremism and tax cuts alone.” (The ‘religious extremism’ seems to consist of opposition to same-sex marriage.) He wishes that the CPACers had been more libertarian and suggests that the lack of libertarianism ‘threatens to undo Republican gains in the long term.’ I’m certainly all for friendliness and alliance between conservatives and libertarians where possible. But of course it’s not as though libertarians are always respectful of conservatives. Some of them are awfully quick with the ‘religious extremist’ tag, for example. If conservatives brush off libertarians more often — and I’m not sure that they do — that may reflect the simple fact that conservatives have a stronger position within the Republican coalition. If Sager’s got any evidence or even an argument that the party’s political success requires increased libertarianism, I’m sure a lot of people would be interested in hearing it.”
Phillip Klein: “Sager’s description of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference as a place where ‘evolution is a wild hypothesis’ is neither accurate nor constructive. It is unfair to begin an article with a mocking tone toward social conservatives and end by arguing that these same conservatives should reach out to libertarians.”
By the way, I used the word “mock” before I read Klein’s piece. We had the same reaction to Sager’s column, I see.
Side note: In the mail is a review copy of the controversial new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. I will follow-up the review with an interview of author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Can’t hardly wait…
Update: Dignan shares his thoughts on the “Religious Right.” If you’ve written a similar post or have something to say about the so-called conservative/libertarian divide, trackback and I’ll include your link.
The Regular Stable, Banana Republican, brightMystery…
Hmmm….I was under the impression that Bill at INDC Journal was a “total conservative”: socially, fiscally, and everything in-between. I was wrong.
CPAC Blogger Bryan Preston joins the discussion.
{ 8 trackbacks }
{ 28 comments }
Religous/Social conservatives being called religious extremists by liberatrians is fiery language. Islamists are called religious extremists. Civil language that defines rather than degrades seems to be in order.
In addition to your points above, Sager seems to go through some mental gymnastics regarding his own beliefs. They call themselves libertarians, but seem to by moderates instead. I’ll post part of what I said over there:
It seems to me that you’re contradicting yourself here in a couple of ways. First of all, do any of these people who are “disgusted with runaway spending” think for a minute, that Kerry (or any other Democrat, for that matter), would have spent less? The democrats have no history of spending less than the republicans, no matter how much republicans spend now, so I don’t know where this point even comes from.
Secondly, for those folks who consider themselves libertarians, what is YOUR most important issue, other than the war? Is it reducing government? Or less government-mandated morality? I always thought that the core belief amongst libertarians is that government should be as small as physically possible. If any of you libertarians would have voted for Kerry over Bush (if there were no war on terror), then it seems to me that you’re contradicting your own libertarian beliefs, considering that the democrats are more of a big-government party than the republicans.
TV (Harry)
Extremism comes in all religions. Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Agnostic…what have you.
It’s simply the degree to which those extremes are driven that really matters.
The Christians led their Crusades and the Muslims are leading theirs. Both with unfortunate consequences.
I will say, though, I’ve never known a Christian extremist to blow up a World Trade Center equivalent in another country.
Mike – Can you tell me what you know about the Crusades?
A great problem I see in modern Libertarianism is indeed the moral component. That is, a great strain in Libertarian thought is: all should be legal (examples: abortion, drugs, open borders, prostitution) and, furthermore, that which is legal should be condoned and even celebrated on a moral (or a-moral) basis.
For those of you interested, some excetions include the Von Mises institute and Lew Rockwell. They seem to understand that, while some disagreeable things ought to perforce be lawful, there are just some things that ought not be done.
Dirty harry -
The core believe of libertarianism is that the utmost ideal is to pursue and protect personal liberty. That is done through small gov’t but it isn’t necessarily the objective. Where I disagree with Sager is that libertarians would be part of a ‘right’ coalition. Libertarian principle and GOP policy seldom intersect in theory and almost never in practice. I’m not sure what he is expecting conservatives to embrace. also let it be noted that the Libertarian candidate has never received more than 600,000 votes so I’m not sure what split he expects to see on the national level. But there are few who would like to see both parties embrace libertarian principles more than me.
La Shawn, you got my Amen!!!
Mike M. you can get up to speed on the crusades here and compare that historical info to the current Terroist High Valedictorian going to trial for treason.
http://www.joshuatreevillage.com/601/laryabra.htm
Now I’m confused… Isn’t libertarianism one of the puzzle pieces that makes up modern conservatism? Isn’t that what Bill Buckley has spent the last four decades working on? Why should liberaterians be crossing swords with social conservatives? I don’t get it.
I will say, as a conservative who leans pretty libertarian, that I have no beef with any of the principles or concerns of social conservatives. I have from time to time disagreed with some of their proposed solutions, but generally that has been when they proposed legal solutions whose unintended consequences would likely have been worse than the problem they were trying to fix. Anyway, most of those things were already hashed out and agreed on back in Reagan’s day.
There are two aspects to governing:
1. Making and enforcement of the law.
2. Ethical and moral leadership.
Of all of the various political groups today, only social conservatives understand and appreciate both. Libertarians, because they concentrate on minimizing the aspects of #1, have a tendency to overlook #2. Leftists, on the other hand, want to maximize #1 and actively work to destroy #2 — that’s one reason they hate Bush so much. Of all the Presidents we’ve had in the past half-century, only W, Reagan, Truman, and maybe Kennedy have understood and made use of the leadership aspects of government. W might be one of the best ever in this area: he has made a moral and ethical case for all of the major issues of his Presidency, and he has stuck to his principles in executing his plans. In doing so, he influences the behavior of ordinary Americans in ways that laws cannot. The fact that the rise of the blogs and the challenging of the moral bankruptcy is occurring during Bush’s Presidency is not just a coincidence.
So I really don’t get where Sagar is coming from. Libertarianism includes both freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. (If you remove the responsibility, you have libertineism, which is a different thing altogether.) A responsible libertarian need not fear a social conservative whose main focus is to get people to accept their responsibilities as adults and citizens. I actually think the two philosophies compliment one another nicely, as they work together in reasonable fashion and each tends to restrain the other’s excesses.
Inspector, I’ll take up your challenge. First of all, I wouldn’t have voted for Kerry if you put a gun to my head. The man is a patrician statist, about as far from libertarian as you can get. Any libertarians that voted for him, assuming that they were being honest about being libertarian, did so strictly out of a badly mistaken nostalgia for what they think the Democratic Party is or used to be. Second, as far as the most important issues to me: I don’t know that I can pick just one. So here, in no particular order, are a few issues that I am concerned about in America:
1. Tort reform. I see a move afoot to turn the judicial system into a shadow regulatory regime, usurping some of the powers of both the legislature and the executive branch. I also see an effort being made to more or less randomize the outcome of court cases, as a way of creating social disorder by the people who would like to see such. (Why? Because they think that in conditions of chaos, they can assume power without anyone noticing.)
2. Property rights. I am encouraged to see that some courts are starting to rule that severe property use restrictions under the Endangered Species Act constitute a “taking” of private property for public use, and the property owner must be compensated. That’s just one example. America is just now overcoming a 1960’s radical hangover that created the gut feeling in many citizens that private property was somehow immoral in and of itself, and it’s about time.
3. Corruption of media and entertainment. I’m not limiting this to one particular thing, I include the whole ball of wax: sleazy “reality” TV shows, falsified news reports, sexual materials being pushed to kids, the general dumbing-down of entertainment, everything. This is particularly one area that law cannot adequately address. The marketplace is now starting to address it, and it will do a much better job. (And again, I don’t think it is coincidence that this is occurring during W’s tenure.)
4. Lack of thought for, or focus on, the future. When I was a child, in the early ’60s, it was a time when everyone looked forward to the future — an improved standard of living, where the mundane concerns of survival would be easier and more people would be free to accomplish great things. Today, when people think about the future at all, they often view it with cynicism or even fear. Leftists nihlism has managed to put the idea in everyone’s heads that the future is bound to be worse than the present; you see all kinds of evidence of it in today’s youth. Yes, some of our ’60s plans might have been a bit grandiose, but many of them could have been realistically accomplished if America had stayed on-message through the subsequent ten years. And besides, what’s wrong with foreseeing a grand future? It beats sitting around and moping, and it really pisses off the Europeans.
You can see here that #1 and #2 are things that are matters of law, and #3 and #4 are things that are matters of leadership.
Andy,
Thanks for the reading. Here’s what I’ve always thought of the Crusades in reference to the present as well as the past. The Middle East is the disputed holy land of three major religions.
Muslims kept Christians away from said Holy Land through continued persecution. Christians got angry and decided to unleash hell through the Crusades.
So, in hindsight, my comment was very off. Muslim extremists brought it out of the Christians.
I think all three religions need to get over it when it comes to the Holy Land. Neither Muslim nor Jew nor Christian has any divine right over that strip of desert so coveted by billions.
All I will say is our incursion into said strip certainly won’t stop the Muslim fanatics from wishing death upon us.
To answer your question La Shawn: I was always fascinated with the Children’s Crusades.
But, yes I do know a bit about the crusades. Muslims took Jerusalem around the 6th or 7th century I believe. Many Christians were persecuted and exterminated by the Turks and other Muslim parties of shame. Rightfully so, Christians wanted back their piece of the pie and went on the Crusades (about 10 Crusades…not counting the ones going on today, of course), in turn killing many Muslims.
Again, in hindsight, my comments were way off…though I still stand by my believe that though not as disgustingly evil as Muslim extremists, Christians do have their very own fanatics.
Mike M. now we have a common ground to discuss the excesses of the crusades.
And yes we do have our own fanatics, such as BJU, Jesus the pimp-daddy (Rev Ike) or the God Hates Fag jerk
Andy,
C’mon now! The God Hates Fags Rev. is pure hysteria! I laugh every time I see him interviewed. That’s one fanatic I wish’d I’d see more of.
Just as an aside, the cartoon where Ted Rall calls Condoleeza Rice a “house nigga” is just unreal….it’s amazing that liberals seem to allow themslves the privilege of expressing racist views
Hysterical for you, red with embarassment for me
LaShawn, it happens that everyone’s advice to conservatives is always the same–leftists and libertarians agree, the winning strategy for conservatives is to stop being conservative. Obviously, this is horse puckey. Libertarians could probably become more politically successful, in the sense of winning elections, if they let go of all those hang-ups about liberty and the state. But, of course, that’s just another way of saying that they’d be more successful if they weren’t libertarians and were instead leftists, which seems to go without saying.
As long as I can remember, the advice has always been the same. But invariably, the motivation seems to be dismay at the fact that America is basically conservative, and it would be so much easier for non-conservatives to get on the score-board if it wasn’t. While Sanger is obviously correct that libertarians and conservatives have an uneasy partnership, it’s less clear why conservatives ought to be the ones making endless concessions.
I’m kind of an odd duck.
I’m more conservative than your average libertarian-I’m against abortion, open borders etc-and less conservative than conservatives-leaning toward supporting same sex unions,support “right to die”-NOT like Terri Schavio-and having no use for religious fundamentalism -from any religion.
Btw-I ‘m Jewish born turned theologically-ONLY theologically- liberal Christian.
All that said -I stay with the GOP because I agree with the GOP more often than not and as I libertarian I would have almost NO chance of helping affect positive change.
Simple enough.
Very well written La Shawn!
Cousin Dave, that was SPOT ON!!!
Thanks, Stephen. Sans typos, it’s alright!
“For instance, I don’t accept homosexuality as normal, but I’m “tolerant” of homosexuals’ freedom to do whatever they want with whomever they want as long as they’re consenting adults. I have neither the right nor desire to force homosexuals to stop doing anything.”
Except marrying or adopting children, right?
The disingenousness of this is that Conservatism is a political movement. Politcs is about making policy and laws. Policy and laws, more often than not, are about “stopping people from doing things”.
You are not merely a witness to your faith. You are an advocate for specific laws which ultimately set limits to the actions of those who do not believe as you do.
So we shouldn’t prevent murder, because of the 10 commandment linkage? Whatever
Thank you, Andy!
“So we shouldn’t prevent murder, because of the 10 commandment linkage?”
Not in the least. But I see no reason to hide from the essential hostility it implies to the actions of the people on the other end of the law.
Gays are to be prevented from marrying because they are gay. Period. They are to be prevented from raising children because they are gay. Period.
It would further the discussion considerably if the people who advocate these things would simply come out and admit it, rather than hiding behind the claptrap of the “sacredness” of marriage.
Insofar as that word has any meaning, only Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have the right to use it–for, dogmatically, they call marriage a “sacrament”, and they call it so only in the case where both married parties have received Christian baptism.
Protestants, who seem to make up at least the most vociferous segment of “social conservatism” are simply talking theological nonsense when they are defending the “sacredness” of all marriages. The issue is about being gay, and its time we all stopped evading it.
I am an outspoken committed Christian Conservative who knows that it is Jesus Christ alone who gives me strength and allows my faith in His Word be preached to individuals. I must proclaim His name because it is His name and His word that defeats our enemy.
God said to Moses, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring’” (Deuteronomy 34:4).
Mike, I would think that the title is clear, and would not want to be on the wrong side of this one.
Joseph Marshall raised a good point. From La Shawn’s statement about tolerating homosexuals’ freedom, a person could say that La Shawn supports Gay Marriage. Maybe not Gay Marriage in a church, but at least through an office of the Government.
I think Mr. Sager has a very good point, as does Christine Todd Whitman.
Religious Conservatives may be happier in the Constitutional Party? And why aren’t they? Because they feel they cannot get a candidate elected.
Here in my offfice there are 3 social Conservatives who are always at odds with other Republicans like myself. This has been my suggestion to them and one of them is seriously considering joining after visiting the Constitution Party’s website.
I’ve thought about voting for a Constitution Party candidate next time around; however, no matter who I vote for, I will remain an “Undeclared” voter belonging to no party.
Hi La Shawn, I came over from this column on townhall. I was a little confused as to your point – are you just aiming at those conservatives and libertarians who insist you downplay the Christian and morality aspects, or just those who ask you to keep that seperate from your politics. I’m Christian and libertarian myself, but I really emphasize the fact that what’s right for me shouldn’t be LAW for other people. People have the freedom to be stupid or whatever they want, and it isn’t right for the government to force them to be moral. (except where you hurt other people, naturally) Part of politics and leadership is knowing that the world doesn’t revolve around you and what you want for yourself.
Anyway, I do like reading your perspective and I’ll be bookmarking your blog to keep reading!
Comments on this entry are closed.