Rudy Vs. The Myth Of Social Conservatism

At The American Spectator, Jennifer Rubin has an interesting piece: Rudy's New Social Conservatism. Disclaimer: I consider myself a Social Moderate, whatever the hell that is.

The better, at least the more interesting, question is whether Giuliani can establish a new description of what it means to be "socially conservative." Perhaps to be socially conservative means something more than just fidelity to pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions. Giuliani has a convincing argument that he is an ethical or cultural conservative who in the end will protect the values that most conservative Republicans hold dear. What does this mean? It means that he sees the world as a battle between good and evil, and politics as a struggle between decent hard working people and elites who have too little respect for their values -- public safety, respect for religion and public virtue.

I'd prefer it were there no such term being bandied about as Social Conservatism. It's something of a misnomer, as we've allowed our politics to become too infected with social demands from the Left and the Right. Perhaps this happens because we get lost in sort of a gray line between our system of politics (Democracy) and our system of justice, founded upon the Constitution.

In essence, as a population we should be able to embrace or prohibit anything we choose through the democratic process, provided it doesn't conflict with the Constitution. The mis-named Social Conservative moment has basically vacated any higher ground by attempting to rely on the very same structure, the Courts, that Liberalism has to have its way. Consequently, every four years or so we have these battles simply to see who is or isn't going to have the authority to appoint judges. And all the while there's no purity to the system, as the legislature has such a critical role to play in said appointment process. It's a broken system causing America more harm, than benefit.

Social Conservatism should be nothing more nor less than what the society wants, again, assuming it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution. Yes, I know, that appears to leave a mile wide opening to drive through. However, that's only true if activist judges are appointed to the bench. So-called Social Conservatives today can impact that process as much through the legislature, as they can through electing a President. Unfortunately, conservatives in general have given their legislators a pass on some critical issues, precisely because they have adopted the tactics of the Liberal.

When I say I am a social moderate, what I am really saying is that I believe in my ability to accommodate myself to mostly any law being upheld or struck down, assuming it jibes with our founding document - and more importantly, assuming it is the product of the democratic process, not simply the decree of this or that judge.

I believe it would benefit the Nation and the Right were we to put aside issues and begin to focus more on preserving, or re-instituting, if you prefer, process into our politics. Pressure our legislators and our Presidents to embrace the document they swear to uphold, protect and defend in its basic simplicity by pressuring them to approve and appoint judges genuinely mindful of the constitution and its limitations on the power of the judiciary, and also pressure our legislators to enact the laws and policies that, as a democratic majority, we want. Whether or not that means gay marriage or choice should be the product of votes, not verdicts.

The process has always been and was always meant to be the salvation of America - not the disparate needs or wants of this or that group or political party. By ensuring good process in government, I believe we would all find ourselves living in a society in which we could be contented.

Doing that would also have tremendous benefits for the Center-Right and the Right. We too often allow ourselves to be mis-characterized by things we are said to be against, when, were we genuinely conservative, that shouldn't be true. What we must be for is democracy. And the more we speak it, teach it and, yes, even preach it, the better off we would be in terms of how we are defined in the publics eye. Embracing process over position and yielding to the Constitutional majority, whatever that may end up being, should be the goal of every good conservative, not this or that particular position, or law.

Given good democratic process, our system of government can yield all the good law our society requires. Ultimately, what you need to ask yourself is, do you trust democracy, or not. I do.

But then I consider myself a conservative first and an advocate for certain democratically achieved positions second. And we can't know what those might be until everyone is given an opportunity to vote. If we stop voting for the policies we think we're going to get and start voting for capable politicans with a dedication to living within the confines of a truly democratic process, I think we'd all be better off.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"In essence, as a population we should be able to embrace or prohibit anything we choose through the democratic process, provided it doesn't conflict with the Constitution"

By "we" do you mean 50% plus one?

[seekeronos]

I think we would be 120% better off if we let the states determine thier own social polices vis-a-vis abortion, gay rights, smoking in public, and even the criminalization of controlled substances and all those other uncomfortable things instead of trying to force the entire nation (be it thru the courts or normal legislative venues) into a particular mold.

The National Government really shouldn't have any say in Educational standards, LGBT rights, Choice vs. Life among many others; the reason being is that people living in Alabama probably have widely different views on some social issues than Californians or Nebraskans.

Conservatism = "the government that governs least to attain the most benefit, while affecting the least negatively, is best"

[TheSpartan]

"In essence, as a population we should be able to embrace or prohibit anything we choose through the democratic process, provided it doesn't conflict with the Constitution."

Cool, so when do we repeal Civil Rights!

[TheSpartan]

Oh, and a question Dan, you consider yourself a social moderate? What are your positions on Gay Marriage and Abortion?

[Dan Riehl]

"Gay Marriage and Abortion?"

I'm opposed to gay marriage, just as is a majority of America, which makes my position moderate. Abortion doesn't enter into my voting decisions. I think it is good for society to encourage the value of "life," but as I have never had to make that choice with a female partner, I don't feel 100% comfortable projecting my opinion on another. It's like I said, I'd be comfortable with whatever a majority felt was the correct law. Personally, I think rape, incest and the life of the Mother should be exceptions - but I'm also definitely for parental notification.

[Hard Right]

I cannot support Rudy. Just his stance on the 2nd amed. is enough to keep me from voting for him. He's the one who kicked off the series of lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. He also recently stated he was for "firearms collecting" and "hunting". I take that to mean he would support various firearms bans. He sounds like a typical liberal. If I wanted that I would vote for one.

[splashtc]

I don't think think gay marriage and abortion are issues for a president to dwell on. Rudy gets the GWOT, the ecomomy/capitalism, firearms -related to gang violence, and.... he's very sincere not full of b.s. like most politicians.

[Dan Riehl]

Just his stance on the 2nd amed.

I can appreciate that. But I don't think his stance was about the 2nd amendment, it was about trying to keep people from getting killed in NYC. IMO he did what he had to do and the voters of NYC supported it. You can argue it'as much about democracy as it is anything else. So, he governs by what people want and is willing to do what it takes to get a tough job done. There are worse things to have in a Prez.

[templar knight]

Frankly, I consider myself a social conservative, and I am in favor of allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, and whenever the mother's health might be an issue. I oppose abortion as a means of birth control. I believe women who use abortion for birth control endanger their health, both mental and physical, and also affect society by cheapening the value of human life. IMHO.

I am opposed to gay marriage or any form of union that is used as a sham marriage, although I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own property or home.

I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, and the other 9 for that matter, and would find it hard to support someone like Rudy, who has a track record of not supporting the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean I would absolutely not support Rudy? No.

People should remember that Rudy was a big-city mayor, and they have a different set of priorities than a President. If Rudy would meet us(social conservatives) halfway on these issues, I believe he might garner more support than many would think possible. But, he has to be willing to change just a little bit.

[Phoenix]

"People should remember that Rudy was a big-city mayor, and they have a different set of priorities than a President. If Rudy would meet us(social conservatives) halfway on these issues,"

Good point. I think he is smart enough to do just that. I don't get all the sound and fury about his personal values making him unqualified to be president. Presidents are not dictators. They have to play by the rule of law and the rule of the majority.

[TheSpartan]

There was a time when most americans supported slavery, were they soicially moderate?

[Fred Beloit]

The poster from the Peloponnese doesn't seem to understand that civil rights are covered in the Constitution. Personally, I'm for either of two men who haven't announced for a candidacy as yet, Newt and Tommy Franks. The announced crop simply worry me. Maybe I'll mellow to one of them with more exposure, or maybe not. I sure know who I won't vote for.

[Fred Beloit]

Slavery was ended over a hundred years ago, primarily through the efforts of a Republican President.

[scarshapedstar]

"Slavery was ended over a hundred years ago, primarily through the efforts of a Republican President."

You can be the Party of Nixon, or you can be the Party of Lincoln, but not both.

[Crazy Politico]

I love one issue voters, they've dumbed down the election process so far we can only getidiots in office. And the great thing is they are pretty well equally distributed left to right, so both sides are equally responsible for the numbskulls we have elected.

[TheSpartan]

The poster from the Peloponnese doesn't seem to understand that civil rights are covered in the Constitution.

I get it, but if it were left to a vote back then don't you think it might have taken longer to end? It ended up taking a war. And as for Lincoln ending slavery, good for him it was the right thing to do but there's plenty of evidence out there that he didn't really want to do it.

[Fred Beloit]

s...star, I'll bite, why not? Yes, Spartan, sometimes it takes a war to set things right. Glad you agree.

[greenwing]

I listened to Rudy on the radio the other night and his position on judges (no litmus test on specific issues; uphold the constitution rather than legislate from the bench), states' rights issues (gun control back to the individual states) and representatives/senators in DC that vote for something rather than non-binding political rhetoric grandstanding hold a lot of promise. I also think he has great first-hand knowledge on the war on terror.

It's good enough to get my vote.

[LOL]

"The poster from the Peloponnese doesn't seem to understand that civil rights are covered in the Constitution."

then how come only after about 100 years of having the 14th amendment did we have civil rights for all races?

[templar knight]

Because we don't live in a perfect world, LOL.

[Purple Avenger]

"gun control back to the individual states"

They already have that. VT's state gun control laws fit on one sheet of paper, others take as much as a small book.

The federal set (in 27 CFR) is really quite adequate if its actually enforced to the letter, but it never is.

[Purple Avenger]

"how come only after about 100 years of having the 14th amendment did we have civil rights for all races?"

Because racist southern democrats had trouble reading plain english.

[tally]

it's my opinion that the social issues have screwed everything up. how can a true convervative demand the federal government limit personal freedom and one's ability to manage their own life.
i can make my own choices about owning a gun, taking a morning after pill, etc.. their control freak attempts are very liberal like.

[seekeronos]

I am more in the same vein as a social moderate, I reckon.

I _personally_ do not support state-sponsored abortion clinics, or gun control or gay marriage to be enshrined alongside the standard definition of male-female marriage... I believe that in the end, the One True Judge of the Living and the Dead shall render His Righteous Judgment against all who have sinned.

But in the meantime, we must be careful to excercise our ability to govern wisely, and ensure that issues are adjudicated at the appropriate level of government...

...These are things that cost the federal government too much time and money to be concerned with.

The Fed.Govt should be concerned with most external issues (foreign policy, trade, defense, and other things that are representative of the Union toward foreign powers. Regulating interstate commerce as needed, or labour laws.

But the issues that can be handled by the states should. If gays want to marry in MA, HI, VT, NJ, CA, or NY, then let those states do so, and recognize one anothers' state marriage licenses. Same for morning-after pills, gun control, etcetera, where such power to legislate is not directly abridged by the COnstitution (re: 2d Ammendment)