What is a Social Conservative and who’s to say? These questions are being raised in light of the unexceptional (except to Adam Kleinheider–at VolunteerVoters.com) and Roger Abramson–at flanktwoposition.com)) assertion that the “Pro-life with exceptions” position on abortion (or the Pro-Life with Asterisk position) is not the “social Conservative” position on abortion.
I’m still kind of astounded at the reaction (and it is clearly no rebuttal) to my point, though. Are Roger and ACK insulted that someone has the nerve to make “bold” pronouncements? Not likely, if you read their stuff on any regular basis.
Is it that–for the sake of “the cause,” they are concerned about stigmatizing the “Social Conservative” position? Not likely, as Abramson and ACK seem careful not to become to ideologically-paired with a party.
Is it because they personally hold an asterisked position on abortion and would like to consider themselves “socially Conservative”? I doubt it, but who knows.
I might be wrong about their answer to the above questions about motives, but I guess I’ll have to go with the paranoid Social Conservative conclusion . . . they don’t want to expand (though I think acknowledge would be more accurate) the influence of Religious Conservatives or the Religious Right within the GOP.
But, again, what does the term mean and who defines the term?
ACK wrote, “The Religious Right does not determine what social conservatism is, neither does Ned Williams,” but I–and most pols, would view the terms as synonymous. “Social Conservatives” is a term that has always been used to distinguish between the more Libertarian, “Economic or Fiscal Conservatives” within the GOP and Religious Conservatives.
Well, I think it is clear that organizations like Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, etc. have classically been the “Social Conservative” organizations.
As far as the meaning of the term, there is not necessarily unanimity on every policy issue. But regarding abortion, these organizations are not–in principle, “Pro-life with exceptions.” And I think it is fair to say that the above “socially Conservative” organizations–not Adam Kleinheider or Roger Abramson, are the ones who best define their positions.
Certainly, terms–and movements, can “soften” or (d)evolve over time. But until these organizations are lacking in number, or influence, or significance–until they are a mere “fringe” element of the “non-Libertarian Conservative” faction in the GOP, it seems that they would be the authority on what is a “Social Conservative” position.
**Roger is asserting that an exception for “life of the mother” is an exception like rape or incest; in that case, as long as one doesn’t define “life” as “quality of life,” there are two competing lives to consider. Imminent danger of death for a mother, for example where a fertilized egg hasn’t implanted in a mother’s womb, is one example where efforts to ensure survival of at least one of the lives isn’t contrary to the sanctity of life.
***Also, Bush’s murky position on exceptions can be interpreted as an effort at magnanimity toward those Americans who disagree with the non-asterisked Pro-life position, and the fact that he–in competition with John McCain, was supported by Social Conservatives doesn’t mean that his position on an issue defines the Social Conservative position, right?
-
Recent Comments
Angela McGrayel on Nihilist, but Moralist, Woody… Music City Bloggers … on Blind-sided by baby robert raikkken on If you don’t feel close … nedwilliams on Mitt on abortion egalia on Mitt on abortion
