The actual battle lines have been drawn for years. And there have been flare-ups along the periphery several times, most recently last year’s dust up over the life and death of Terri Schiavo. Perhaps only the uniting factor of the War in Iraq has kept the two sides from each other’s throats.
But make no mistake. With Tuesday’s election debacle and the ever growing realization that we are probably leaving Iraq sooner rather than later, the long delayed war between social conservatives and Republican libertarians is about ready to explode into a series of recriminations, name calling, and eventually, a parting of the ways.
The ideological incompatibility of the two groups makes one wonder how they ever ended up on the same side in the first place. It was to be sure, a marriage of convenience and, on the part of the libertarians, the fact that there was no place to hang their hat in the Democratic party.
Social conservatives have a long history of activism in the Republican party going back to the abolitionists right on through the fight to ban abortion. Libertarians are relative newcomers, having abandoned the Democratic party in disgust thanks to their fiscal policies and social engineering schemes. But the built in friction between libertarians and social conservatives never erupted into open warfare in the GOP because both factions were not considered important cogs in the Republican machine. That is, until 2000.
While social conservatives (and their close allies in the evangelical movement) had been gaining strength throughout the 1990’s by taking over several state parties, they also began to realize that they held the whip hand in Republican presidential primaries. How the social conservative/Christian right came to prominence in the GOP during the 90’s is a subject for another day, perhaps some rainy afternoon when I’m depressed and am drinking enough Glenlivit so that I can figure out how the party of Lincoln, TR, and Ronald Reagan – confirmed deists all – could have morphed into an organization where religion was allowed to play such a prominent role.
To be sure, this is the rub between libertarians and social conservatives. The prominence with which George Bush has featured Christian conservatives in his nominations to fill important posts (too many to list but Paul Bocelli to head USAID is one I wrote about here) as well as virtually turning over parts of the State Department to ideologically driven religious conservatives who have changed American policy as it relates to family planning, AIDS education, and even some aspects of women’s rights has grated with libertarians. And the prominence of social conservative issues (some have called them “wedge” issues) has also worried the libertarians who seek a broader agenda in order to attract more independents and moderates.
I suppose I should note that while an atheist, I share many of the concerns expressed by social conservatives relating to the toxicity of our culture and the decline of western values. The fact that libertarians have chosen (for the most part) to sit on their hands as our culture goes to hell in a handbasket not to mention their silence in the face of the left’s attack on western values makes me a reluctant ally of many social and religious conservatives. I am uncomfortable with a host of positions taken by the social right on abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools (although I agree with them regarding the pernicious attempt by the left to kick religion into the gutter), flag burning, and other less visible issues. But I believe for the most part, they are on the side of the angels. The left is not.
Fair or not, the perception has been fostered by libertarians that these social conservatives, now prominent and in the ascendancy in the Republican party, have in fact become big government advocates themselves. They wish to use the government, so the argument goes, to affect social change every bit as unacceptable as the left’s desire to reshape society into some kind of multicultural paradise, eschewing the “melting pot” model of American assimilation for a nightmarish riot of cultural conceits.
Conversely, social conservatives believe libertarians to be hedonistic libertines, not far removed from their enemies on the left who practice what Richard Baehr at The American Thinker has called “aggressive secularism.” And no issue revealed this deep divide more than the Terri Schiavo matter.
I wrote at the time of Schiavo that both sides surprised themselves with the virulence of their opposition to one another, drawing a parallel with the pre-civil war insurrectionist John Brown:
The gulf that has opened up today between Americans who believe that starving Terri Schiavo to death is wrong and those who believe it to be a tragic but necessary act has some parallels with the aftermath of the John Brown raid on Harper’s Ferry. Both sides believe they are in the right. Both are astonished at the other side’s lack of a moral compass. “Hypocrisy†cry those who wish Terri dead. “Callousnessâ€scream the pro-Terri forces.And more than that, it is the recognition that this huge divide exists not as some fancy political expression but as a living, breathing thing that has fueled the debate and turned it into into an “us versus them†cultural Armageddon. Both sides see the forces of darkness at work; people in favor of life seeing the “culture of death†in the ascendancy while the supporters who believe it was Terri’s wish to end her life see their opposition as “The American Taliban.â€
The two sides couldn’t be farther apart. And looking across the divide at one another, each see strangers where they should see brothers and sisters.
The wounds from that battle have yet to heal completely. The incident radicalized the Christian right and drove many libertarians out of the party thus setting the stage for the coming bloodletting.
The problem for both factions is that there really is no place else for them to go. Libertarian hawks avoid the dovish Libertarian Party like the plague while a 3rd party effort involving social conservatives has been tried several times in the past and failed miserably (although the Temperance party managed to scare enough politicians to have them vote for prohibition).
Where the libertarians may finally bolt the GOP is over the fiscal mess made by big government social conservatives who seem to have taken over the party’s Congressional wing. With the President’s acquiescence, this group has done more to mortgage the future of America than any 2 Democratic Congresses. And, as a possible harbinger of the future, the Libertarian party in Montana and Missouri probably helped elect the Democratic Senator from those states:
GLUM Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn’t just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush’s much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America’s fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn’t been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the “Libertarian” lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.
Meanwhile, most of the social conservatives seem not to have learned anything from Tuesday. They are insisting that conservative social issues won the day and that this is the path back to the top the GOP should take. They point to all of the anti-gay marriage amendments that passed. They point to the victory against affirmative action in Michigan.
What they don’t seem to realize is that voters passed those ballot initiatives and then turned around and voted for Democrats. Moderate Democrats. Many of whom do not espouse those issues that they voted for on the ballot initiatives.
They also failed to see one of the biggest switches on election night; the Democrats got nearly 30% of people who identify themselves as “evangelical” Christians. If espousing conservative social issues is going to be the battle cry of Republicans in 2008, they will lose and lose big. Voters want fiscal responsibility and traditional marriage. But if they have to choose, they’ll take the party that can demonstrate responsibility with their tax money over a candidate who might support a gay person’s right to marry.
The social conservatives are not going to retreat back into the wings of the party any time soon. This is why I believe that unless a leader emerges who can unite these two factions, we are more than likely to see the libertarians bolt the party for greener pastures, especially if the Democrats demonstrate that they can be fiscally responsible. This could well happen before the 2008 election which would mean that contest could become a true re-alignment in American politics.
We saw something similar in the 1978-80 elections. Then the issue was the strength of the United States in the world in the face of Soviet expansionism. Conservative Democrats left their party in droves and ended up electing Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate in 1980.
Don’t be surprised if a similar re-alignment takes place in 2008 with libertarians and many secular conservatives finally getting tired of the social conservative’s agenda. One thing is certain; the status quo is unacceptable and something is going to have to give.
12:47 pm
There was a potential Presidential nominee who could have pulled that off. Unfortunately, his name is George Allen.
12:58 pm
It was a combination of failure to do something about a never-ending war and fiscal irresponsibility of both parties that led to the creation of the Libertarian Party to begin with. Nixon’s enactment of wage and price controls was the deciding factor for me and many others.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. I can’t imagine myself going along with either major party as they are presently constituted, and I don’t see the LP offering a real alternative. I tried that route for a couple of decades.
1:44 pm
Reagan was a “confirmed deist”? Maybe before he got shot … but afterward, by all accounts he was convinced that God had spared him for a larger purpose. (Deists don’t think God intervenes in nature or takes a hand in one’s life.)
2:50 pm
What you’re missing is that many of those Democrats who beat Republican incumbents aren’t moderates. They’re conservatives. Heath Shuler. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth. Baron Hill. The list goes on. Granted, they’re more like Pat Buchanan conservatives, in that they support protectionism and oppose free trade, but they’re anti-tax, tough on crime, pro-military, anti-flag burning, conservatives.
The argument has been made that Pelosi will whip them into line, but we’ll have to wait and see. When he was my representative in the 90s, Baron Hill—one of those conservative Democrats elected Tuesday—refused to support Clinton’s gun control agenda, and would not budge in response to Clinton’s arm twisting. He paid dearly for standing by his conservative principles, but stand by them he did.
And if I still lived in Indiana, I would have considered voting for Baron Hill. Sodrel was a disaster. I didn’t always agree with Hill’s views or votes, but I respected him. You can’t often say that about your elected Representative.
3:14 pm
Well, this is all quite fascinating. This website should rename itself “Libertarian Nuthouse”. Since no one here seems to have trouble with gay marriage or drugs, why not “Libertine Nuthouse”? Or, if the previous post is to be taken seriously, how about “Country Club Libertine Nuthouse”? Okay, I think we’re just about there.
3:29 pm
What will give is the perpetuation of the Democratic Party’s hold on Congress. They’re in a no-lose, can only win, position. A splintered party is a spent party, with a long lead time to pick up the kindling. It was a relief these last few years since I had not thought Republicans would ever win either House—and have the White House. The Democrats have gone through their intercine warfare and settledd on a clear winning playbook.
Even if one completely agrees you’re right, you’re still be in the shadows, pronouncing how right we really are but not developing a winning plan.
I’m sure you noticed Germany bringing war crimes charges against Bush Administration figures. This will make great blogging, great media coverage, posturing all around, but where is your winning plan to retake the House?
The Democrats and Bush will reach accomodations. Bush is more like John F. Kennedy than any other recent president and will end his Presidency as advancing more social programs than Kennedy ever accomplished. Great blogging, great media coverage, posturing all around, but where is your winning plan to retake the House?
I think your’re wrong about any one person joining the parts back together. It would have to be a person that’s not on the stage today. It took Ronnie over a decade to craft his coalition and only won due to Carter’s losing management. The next several election cycles are the Democrats to lose (unless you can share your winning plan).
If you want to affiliate with either party, please join the Democratic party. They’ll benefit from a dash of sanity and are closer to you ideology.
3:57 pm
As I strategy for reducing the size of the federal government I’ve often felt it important to drive decisions of social welfare programs and social conservatism closer to the people, i.e. the States. The coalition could be saved by simply focusing on strengthening States Rights in these matters.
I’d actually like to see Social Security and Medicare distributed to the States over a period of several years. If you move, a simple transfer of present value of contributions would be easily handled with today’s technology. This might even be attractive to Libocialists as it engenders a sense greater greater control over the process by the distribution of power.
Kinda like, “What happens in MA stays in MA” even when you move to Texas.
If this sounds radical just read the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and a little history. Hell, if MS. wants a State Religion let them have one.
6:32 pm
[...] Hawkish lib Peter Beinart is starting to realign himself, too, and not in a good way. As is Rick Moran, who, like Beinart, sees before him an unbridgeable divide — but of a more intramural nature. [...]
7:40 pm
it must have been quite a shock to find out that many of the democrats elected, like Webb, Casey were PRO-LIFE!! let the libertarians (lewrockwell.com) types go join the whacked out lib losers like Lamont! If the republicans are ashamed of us, and many of you ‘country clubbers’ are…then we’ll vote for pro-life democrats…we’re not wedded to a party. The republicans just found out what its like to ignore us. If it continues, then we’ll take over the democratic party, and turn it into a pro-life party.
7:45 pm
As far as Reagan and lincoln being ‘deists’ well, there you go again!!
“Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience…without God there is a coarsening of the society; without God democracy will not and cannot long endure…If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under.”
I’m convinced more than ever that man finds liberation only
when he binds himself to God and commits himself to his fellow man.—Ronald Reagan
“It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness…”
“I am busily engaged in the study of the Bible. I believe it is God’s word because it finds me where I am.â€
“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good of the Savior of the world is communicated to us through the Book.â€
“I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all of this Book upon reason that you can, and the balance by faith, and you will live and die a better man.” – Abraham Lincoln, 1863
8:13 pm
I wonder if there’s a word for people like me, who come by the libertarian (domestic policy) and conservative (foreign policy) leanings based on a belief in notions of rights and government as our Constitution’s Framers envisioned. On the issue of morality, they believed that a free society required a measure of civic virtue that was not necessarily tethered to Judeo-Christian notions of personal morality.
So what do I call myself?
Constitutional-originalist?
Libertarian-constitutionalist?
8:25 pm
The anti-gay ballot initiatives passed easily because most people aren’t affected. If instead the initiative raised taxes on somebody else, it would have passed almost as easily for the same reason. This is different from the anti-abortion law in South Dakota. While most voters believe abortion is awful, it doesn’t translate into their desire to make it illegal. Why?...because of the possibility of being directly affected by the law, unlike gay marriage.
10:00 pm
I’ve begun using the term Liberty voter instead of Libertarian. The latter co-mingles LPers and loserdopians, both of whom have no political future of any kind, with the large fraction of those who want to be left alone and need the state to shrink to accomplish that goal.
I experienced 1994 as a very pro-Liberty event, fuelled by HillaryCare, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and growing regulation of all kinds. I’ve been shocked (genuinely) by the antipathy the loser social conservatives have shown to the Liberty voters after Tuesday.
Democrats being what they are, it’s hard to see significant numbers of Liberty voters being content with what they are going to be dishing out.
Interesting times.
10:02 pm
I don’t agree with the above comment about the homosexual “marriage” issue. Most normals feel that court-imposed “marriages” between two individuals of the same sex is an impingement on Liberty (of the People to order their own affairs) rather than an expansion of Liberty.
11:05 am
Well, when (hats off and over heart) Tom Landry was the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, he didn’t give pep talks. He didn’t scream and yell at the players. After a game, win or lose, he would watch game film for two days and take notes. Then at the team meeting he would walk in with a long legal pad, go over the game film and very calmly, unemotionally explain every mistake made by every player on every play, offense, defense and special teams. This is what happened. This is what you should have done. This is what you did. These are the mistakes you need to correct.
The players hated it. Drew Pearson said he just wanted Landry to yell at him once. Randy White said it got to him personally every time. He would leave the meetings and go sit by himself for several hours, thinking about what Landry had said. And it would make him so mad, he couldn’t wait until Sunday so he could get on the field and hit somebody.
A lot of people criticized Landry as being ‘plastic’, unattached to his players. But his method motivated them to achieve their very best, 20 consecutive winning seasons, 13 division titles, 5 conference titles, 21 playoff victories, and 2 Super Bowl championships. To this day no one has been that successful in the NFL, and probably no one ever will.
I think this is exactly the kind of approach we need to take as we regroup for the next election cycle. Study the game film and calmly, unemotionally examine every mistake made by every player on every play, then correct those mistakes.
I wouldn’t blame President Bush too much. He is what he is, his father’s son, not a conservative. The American people knew that when they elected and re-elected him. And considering the alternatives, Gore and Kerry, can anyone really say they made a mistake? No, the fault here lies with the leadership, or lack thereof, in the House and Senate.
The President campaigned as a ‘compassionate conservative’ (whatever that is), and he has governed as such, seeking a new tone and bipartisanship. Obviously that was a mistake in philosophy we need to correct before selecting our next candidate. I blame John McCain, who is not a team player, more than anyone else, for undermining the conservative leadership in the Senate. And for that reason I refuse to support him for national office or any leadership position. I also blame the leadership in the House for abandoning the conservative principles, especially on spending, which got them elected in the first place. That is a mistake we cannot allow our representatives to make again.
Let us not forget that it was the conservatives in the House that killed the Bush-Senate immigration proposal, and rightfully so. I seriously doubt anything resembling amnesty has any chance of making it through the next Congress, because the conservative Republicans who kept their seats and the conservative Democrats who gained theirs are not about to risk being thrown out on their asses in the next election by passing a proposal so vehemently opposed by the vast majority of Americans.
I also seriously doubt the newly elected Democrats, the majority of whom ran as conservatives, are going to push for a ‘cut and run’ policy in Iraq or the War on Terror. The jihadists are complete fools if they think these guys are going to be more ‘reasonable’ (their term) in dealing with terrorism. When given a choice between wiping out terrorists or losing their newfound power, these Democrats are going to make the Republicans look like Frenchmen in the ferocity of their attack.
What is going to be really interesting over the next two years is watching the struggle within the Democratic party between the conservatives (read Americans) who just got elected and the liberals (read Euro-socialist weenies) who make up the leadership (Pelosi, Reid, Dean). The liberals as a group are mired in a misundertanding and misrepresentation of the past. They are completely out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, and if they try to shove their ill-founded policies down the people’s throat, they are going to regret it.
I disagree that we need to start a third party. That is the one sure way to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2008, which would be an unmitigated disaster. There are far too many yellow dog Democrats who are going to vote the straight party ticket, regardless of who is the candidate, for a third party to have any chance of electing a real conservative. It will only serve to drain votes from the Republican ticket, as Perot did in 1992.
What we need to do is build a coalition of blue dog Democrats and red dog Republicans around core conservative principles–limited government, low taxation, less regulation, national security–and take the fight to the liberals. That is the only way Team America is going to win.
11:52 am
Well, the “libertarian wing” of conservatism is not new, or relatively new. It’s the conservatism of the west, the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. It’s the conservatism that brought us the landslide victory of 1994.
It seems to me that Republicans have to learn that “my way or the highway” politics do not fly with the public. Politics is not an all or nothing proposition—and neither is principle.
Amendments against gay marriage? Fine. Amendments that violate private property rights by telling you you can’t “emulate” marriage? Not fine, and not conservative. Amendments that tell hospitals who they may or may not consider family? Not fine, and not conservative (ever hear of freedom of association?) Amendments that specify what benefits businesses may and may not give their employees? That’s not even nominally conservative—since when did conservatives support regulating business?
But the “all or nothing” crap has to go, if we are ever to be elected to office again.
12:33 pm
Rick…
A quick comment before I go out and march in the Veteran’s Day Parade…..
IMHO….Despite the results of this election, the Republicans still have one major thing going for them:
The Democrats – at this point anyway – DO NOT HAVE a viable presidential candidate for 2008.
Polls have consistently shown that 30% of the electorate will not vote for either a woman or African American for President. Nominating either Clinton or Obama would mean starting 30 points down and having to win at least 51% of the remaining votes (over 70%).
I also believe that Kerry is no longer a viable candidate.
Considering this, and looking at the straw polls, I believe that the best ticket the GOP could put up would be:
Giuliani for President
Gingrich for VP
I like Gingrich, but he has too much baggage for the Presidential nomination. But he would shore up the already solid South, and has some popularity in the Midwest and West as well….
McCain has lost respect, and as for Romney, I believe that fact that he is a Mormon will not sit well with a large voting block – both right and left.
I believe that Giuliani’s Pro-Choice views – which are not a deal breaker – will bring in both
moderate democrats and woman.
That’s my choice for a winning 2008 GOP ticket….
1:25 pm
[...] In “The Coming Schism,” Rick Moran discusses the tension between the “libertaran wing” and the “social conservative wing” of the party — and if I may humbly suggest, because I am a great fan of Rick’s, he misses the boat. On Maggie’s Farm, The Barrister similarly misses the boat. [...]
6:21 pm
Rick,
I agree with you that there currently is a schism; however, I don’t believe it is going to be as hard to fix as you claim. I was registered as a Libertarian for many years, although I’m now a Republican. I believe that if the R’s got back to the small government philosophy of the mid 90s as promoted by Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, many libertarians would come back to the party. I can’t imagine how a true libertarian could ever feel comfortable in the Democrat party. The Dems believe in socialized medicine, high taxes and more regulation, and are anti gun rights. Not much there for a libertarian to like.
By the way Rick, Reagan a Deist? What is your source for this claim? Reagan was a Christian, whether you like it or not.
10:08 pm
Great article. That is my main problem with the Republicans – the “churchies” – don’t get me wrong, I have spiritual beliefs, but I always get a bad taste in my mouth seeing Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc. with their pompous preachy utterances. The Democrats as a whole, are so wrong for this country/world, but they, along with the MSM, do such a great job of shaping opinions of those who won’t dig for the underlying truth beyond the soundbites and slogans (tax cuts for the rich, culture of corruption, bush lied – people died, etc.). I’m fairly new to the politics game, but does it appear that we are headed for “coalition governments” of the european/israeli variety? And do those structures work well to get things done, or is it constant gridlock? What is one to do when it seems all the parties will be in flux thanks to the Democrats recruiting Republicans to be Republicrats? I guess just make a checklist of what your beliefs/tenets are and then start checking them off…
11:57 pm
The Democratic Dilemma
From the doorway Bush and Rove stick their heads in the door and scream: NOVEMBER SURPRISE
!! Then laughing they head on down the hallway, laughing harder as Hillary SCREAMS….. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
