Readers who follow me on X (Twitter) will know of the intense debate occurring there over the last week between social conservatives critical of Trump’s gutting of the GOP platform and those defending it. A pair of bracing, must-read articles at First Things and National Review recount how pro-lifers were brazenly shut out of the platform process. For social conservatives to acquiesce out of partisan loyalty would be to commit assisted political suicide. Today I posted the following, which elaborates on considerations I raised in an earlier article:
A brief memo
to social conservatives worried that criticism of the GOP will cost it votes,
and who claim that the critics are politically naïve:
First, yes,
criticism could cost the party votes. That’s precisely the point. The party could
lose votes IF, in the months remaining before the election, it does not try seriously
to meet the concerns of social conservatives. In particular, the GOP must be
made to see that it cannot take their votes for granted. And the party must do
something to make up for the appalling injustice that was done to social
conservatives during the platform process, as recounted in the First Things article linked to.
Second, it
is not the critics, but those who urge their fellow social conservatives to
keep their mouths shut, who are politically naïve. The only thing politicians
can be relied on to respond to is the prospect of losing votes or losing money.
If the GOP fears that it might lose the votes or financial contributions of a
critical mass of social conservatives, it will have to take their concerns
seriously. If, instead, social conservatives acquiesce to what has happened
rather than fighting back, the party will have no incentive to try to address
their concerns in the future – and every incentive not to do so, given the
unpopularity of social conservatism in the culture at large.
The stakes are high, and that is precisely why social conservatives must raise the alarm NOW, while they might still influence the direction of the party, not in some fantasy post-election future. The actual political reality is that if the GOP wins, having thrown social conservatives under the bus without any pushback from them, the party will draw the lesson that it no longer needs to worry about them or their concerns.
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe actual political reality is that if the GOP wins, having thrown social conservatives under the bus without any pushback from them, the party will draw the lesson that it no longer needs to worry about them or their concerns.
ReplyDeleteThe proper characterization of the whole argument here is as a prudential judgment of political prospects.
That doesn't make it a bad or a good argument, not by itself. That KIND of argument has its proper place, and OUGHT to be made at a time like this. Well made, and timely.
But what it is not, is a certain argument following conclusively from necessary causes. The subject matter does not admit of such. Along with some of the factors mentioned, there are in addition any number of other factors also involved in producing the outcomes that will come, and there is no certainty of the entire mix of that many causes, some of which are highly subject to personal choice (i.e. not deterministic).
I tend to think Feser is more right than wrong in his estimation, and for that reason I strongly support true Catholics (and fellow Christians) to work on the party before the election to force through some changes. I am less confident that the sum total of all of the outcomes, if social conservatives vote for Trump even if the party platform remains with the new language, will be absolutely on the negative side for conservatives. Or, to put it another way: it is possible that the election outcomes for social conservatives are going to be VERY BAD regardless of which election outcome occurs, and that this needs to happen because in reality the entire framework of socially traditional movements needs to be rejiggered from top to toe, and the only way to get that to occur is through one of those very bad outcomes. So, while that might mean (in the short term) that the GOP treats social conservatives like dirt, that might be the critical step that leads to the formation of a new party that (a) actually represents wholesome social principles, and (b) actually effectuates substantive political change. Which, considered all together, would be better than achieving a small platform repair in the short term but keeping social conservatives a very short stubby tail on the otherwise very troubled GOP.
There is no certainty regarding the full impact of the coming vote, and it is possible in reasonable prudence to estimate differently than Feser has estimated. I (strongly) advocated against Trump in 2016 before he was nominated, and expected little good from him in his term of office. And while some of my negative expectations were met (I thought he would evoke an impeachment attempt), I did NOT expect 3 Supreme Court appointments to be instrumental in overturning Roe. THAT one change might, over the next 20 or 50 years, roll out to any number of other new developments that could help generate some (now unpredictable) forward progress in restoring public morality. It won't have that effect all on its own, but then nothing in politics is ever all on its own.
Indeed, it is a prudential decision.
DeleteBut where so many of these prudential analyses falter is that they unwittingly reduce everything to material outcomes, i.e., what will result in the best political outcome, and the spiritual effects are completely neglected.
But what about the spiritual consequences of the the extremely strong temptation to downplay or ignore moral issues for the sake of winning an election, the powerful incentive to surrender to a misplaced loyalty that causes people to defend their candidate from things they would never excuse in others simply because he is their candidate, the incentive to place victory over truth, and so forth? What do these sorts of things do to a person's soul and to our society at large?
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? But for... an election?
Ian, I think you might be being a little melodramatic. People can have extremely intact moral compasses while at the same time think, as a pragmatic/prudential matter, that the best way to secure the desired outcome would be to try and ensure that the less evil party wins. It is looking to the spiritual effects... if the more evil party wins, it is worse for the spirit of the people than if the less evil party wins.
DeleteBenine,
DeleteSure, it's possible to keep an intact moral compass, but in practice, it seems a very difficult thing to do for a great many people. The moral and intellectual corruption engendered by letting oneself become too preoccupied by electoral politics has become so commonplace that people don't even recognize it anymore. Examples from social conservatives in my personal experience, but that we've probably all heard: "Morals don't matter in a presidential candidate" (from someone who did think they mattered when Clinton was president), "People should shut up about criticizing Trump on abortion and/or homosexuality until after the election", "Not voting or voting for a third-party candidate is the same as voting for Hillary", and so on and so forth. Voting for candidates who support evil is so often accepted with hardly any reflection because the "lesser of two evils" defense is thought to be an automatic justification.
The other effect of voting is that it denotes one's assent to liberalism, thereby helping to strengthen and maintain liberalism's legitimacy. This is something else that one ought to consider in the cost-benefit analysis of casting one's vote.
I think so long as we have a democratic republic, it is somewhat incumbent upon people of good will to partake in it.
DeleteThat is not to bring out all the tired tropes of morals don't matter, never criticize, etc. etc. I agree with you on those. It's more a matter of what a moral, well-intentioned citizen is supposed to do. The "lesser of two evils" analysis shouldn't be used to hand wave over problems, but instead operate as the calculus of a rational mind. What am I as a citizen eligible to vote supposed to do?
I don't think the answer in this case is to abstain from voting for the party that is more likely to protect life (at least for now). I think we should always be trying to secure the best outcome for our country, not accelerating its demise.
You know, it's not as if the GOP is going to start having gender transition parties. They're still much more socially conservative than any party in Europe. Or any country that has sanity as a core value. :)
ReplyDeleteRealistically though Prof,
ReplyDeleteI agree with commentators who say that this kind of urgency should have been there before the primary elections. I hope it succeeds now but I doubt it will.
Anyone with an inch of political brain could have seen this coming far before it actually happened. It should have been declared a mortal sin for catholics to support Trump in the primary. All MAGA commentators like Michael Knowles should have been taken to task. I wouldn't mind it now aa well if you engaged in a bit of name calling as well, Someone like Michael Knowles is susceptible to catholic pressure Trump was already critical of De Santis for enacting strong pro life policy. He should never have been the nominee.
I think the most we can achieve for now is a clarification from JD Vance on his positions.
But besides that if you enjoyed Trump for being brazen and thick skinned while taking on the Left, You are about to get a taste of what that's like on th right. The way he has got all the most influential commentators on his side. The way in which he is worth more then he ever was at the moment. The billionaire silicon valley donors. We should fight but I doubt it's going to be successful. We can hope and should hope but to paraphrase professor it's an unreasonable hope akin to hoping that everyone will be saved. "So you are telling me there's a chance" , The odds are just extremely unlikely that this brings about any change for the foreseeable future.
Endure should be the key word nowm
Push back at the local level, support your friendly neighborhood social conservative councilman, county commissioner, or state representative. Think it doesn't matter? Look at how influential Texas Congressman Chip Roy has been in moving the needle.
ReplyDeleteTo quote T. Jefferson, “Half a loaf is better than no bread.” While I don’t agree with extreme views against abortion (e.g., it’s certainly justified in the case of the mother’s natural right of self-defense), you’re better off with J.D. Vance as VP than the status quo. Not suggesting that you change your views; only to keep a low profile until Trump wins.
ReplyDeleteAfter Obergfell, the Democrat party didn't moderate their position, despite gay marriage still being a minority position. They instead moved further left.
ReplyDeleteWould be nice if Republican politicians can figure out why that worked for the other side.
despite gay marriage still being a minority position.
Delete[Citation needed]
It worked for the other side because the gay rights movement had been making cultural and rhetorical inroads for decades, and much of the lingering opposition to gay marriage was not deeply rooted. Tactical doubling-down works when the culture favors the underlying principles of a position. That is not the case with abortion, which makes sense when you reflect that historically, pagans are OK with killing their young under some circumstances, and opposition to abortion is largely a Christian phenomenon. Strong opposition to abortion is going to be more or less niche position as long as the spirit of the age is about hedonism, entitlement, and wilful self-creation and until people start converting deeply to the Faith.
DeleteWCB
DeleteOn gay marriage. Gallup polls shows by 2021 70% of Americans supported gay marriage. Only 29% didn't.
Recent remarks by J.D. Vance show Vance is a conservative radical. Vance converted to Catholicism in 2021 and has seemingly become a rather stout Integralist. The problem with all of this is going to be women voters who will probably not be happy with what Vance has been saying about women's issues as of late.
WCB
'Vance is a conservative radical'
DeleteWhile I've got my issues with integralism, this is really rich. I've noticed a recurring pattern where people on the right get painted with the 'radical' brush, while for some reason the side that says men can give birth and menstruate, women can have penises, encourages the type of 'sex education' that includes description of fisting (and possibly scat) and a plethora of pronouns and gender identities for some reason doesn't get tarred as 'radical' whatsoever...
Huh. TIL the Obergfell ruling happened in 2021. WCB, you should notify Wikipedia to fix that, they say it was 2015.
DeleteEd, Your party is probably going to take the White House and both houses of Congress. You should be happy with your win.
ReplyDeleteSince the 1960s there has been a big change in the constituencies of both parties: the Dems are now the party of the rich and famous, and the Reps have slowly become the party of the middle and working classes. Trump, thanks to his political instincts, has now consolidated this change by taking control of the party leadership and by choosing Vance as VP candidate. We Catholics are a minority in the U.S., but we surely know which party is closer to our beliefs, no?
ReplyDeleteAs usual, pro-lifers are trying to fight a cultural battle by political means.
ReplyDeleteIn order to turn the culture against abortion, you have to fight a cultural battle, not a political one
@Jack:
DeleteWhy not fight on *both* fronts? Crazy idea, I know.
No, staying home in November is committing political suicide. I live in Texas and the only issue the Democrats make any headway in is abortion. The Republicans under achieved in November 2022 because of abortion. You have to live in the world as it is. If people stay home this November, it is a guarantee that the party that we all know wants NO restrictions on abortion will win. And then you have to ask yourself, is this about you or the greater good?
ReplyDeleteI think it's rather unfortunate that Prof Feser has taken to coldly attacking and targeting Vivek today, repeatedly. All he did was point out the hypocrisy and lies of AOC that what she was insinuating isn't even in the party platform. It's been pointed by conservatives for years how the left keeps attacking straw men and things that don't even exist on the agenda. All that Vivek did was just that and then pointed out that they are scared precisely because they don't have that attack anymore. Vivek was one of the few conservatives who very loudly petitioned the court to ban the abortion pill without any charity in December when the case was being adjudicated. Ofcourse the platform change was wrong amd should be reversed but I don't think it's wrong to point out the delusion of your opponents. To simply just accuse Vivek outright of being a "liberal in a better suit" just seems so freakin uncharitable. All he did during his campaign was talk about about social issues of marriage and abortion and the family while everyone else was rambling about Ukraine and the economy, ya'll can go back and see. Maybe he might be a "liberal" and I might be wrong. But Prof was willing to allow JD a chance to clarify his statement on the pill despite Vance being so frightfully clear. But he didn't hesitate for a second to declare Vivek of being a liberal when all he did was respond "in a tweet" to someone else's clearly false tweet. From a single tweet he gauged Vivek's entire political orientation. Not only is Vivek a liberal according to Prof , But he is apparently a clear example of a liberal masquerading as a conservative, thereby accusing him of outright deceit. Someone who was one of the few people to call for an outright ban on the abortion pill. Someone one screams from the top of his lungs, Faith amd Family First every single time he takes the stage. He voted against abortion in the Ohio referendum. Please have some charity man.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the post. We more or less know what a social conservative is in Los Angeles at five minutes past nine on Tuesday, but that could be different to its meaning in Tulsa at four to five on Wednesday, or noon 3/4/1519 in Tenochtitlan. The only standard we can really use if we stand for the Christian West is that of Christianity. The old West was also the only civilisation that properly incorporated natural law.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, pro-lifers are trying to fight a cultural battle by political means"
ReplyDeleteBingo.
I guess that is what happens when you cannot even turn to your ostensible "spiritual fathers" for assistance.
That would be authorities who are full of wonderful sentiments such as,
Those [ believing] Africans, should not tell us too much what we have to do; and Catholics don't have to be like rabbits; and we should not be so focused on "pelvic issues"; and go ahead and make a mess ... I want the confusion.
Add in a Vatican garden ceremony featuring a nice seIection of pagan wooden idols, and a circle of prostrate syncretists, and why, golly gee and gosh darn. Makes it right hard for a man to know where to turn.
But whichever way you aim eventually to go, it might be best to make sure you legally can go, and won"t be locked under siege in your own house. The lawfare thing.
First things first then, if your freedom means anything to you.
Because without that, this so called deemockruhsee and the human associations and relationships that compose it, ain't worth a bucket of warm spit.
By the way: some really top notch comments were left here.
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
ReplyDeleteSocial conservatives should have taken this tack on the 'gay marriage' issue. They didn't, and now it's a settled issue.
Some conservative argue (or pretend) that J D Vance is a breath of fresh air. But is he really such!
ReplyDeleteThis essay provides a very interesting description of his psychological profile and how it is dramatized on the world stage: Its subtitle is A Senator From the Unconscious
www.nplusonemag.com./issue-45/politics/j-d-vance-changes-the-subject-2
As other's have noted, if you are sure that your coalition is powerful enough to make demands on the politicians, then that strategy can work. Unfortunately, the Catholic pro-life coalition is not that powerful. Abortion is a losing issue, even among republicans today. I think that's a hard reality.
ReplyDeleteSure, it's possible that the pro-life coalition is strong enough to tank Trump this election. But I don't think you know what time of day it is in America if you think "This will show 'em, and in 2028 we can get Our Guy in." We seem to be entering a new phase of American history, where the constitutional order itself is being stretched thin. Don't expect business as usual. Try to secure the best outcomes possible given the context we are in.
This seems to be the strategy of quietism though: the only way the pro-life movement can make headway on the issue is by making it an issue. Simply to say that the pro-life movement is not strong enough to have any impact and therefore to advise that it put aside its reservations and join the coalition is to guarantee that the pro-life movement will continue to weaken.
DeleteI'm not sure what we can do. We can stay loud, we can encourage politicians to change their views and revise their platforms, that's all fine. But it's hard to make a *demand* other than by not voting in this case, and I don't think that's a good strategy.
DeleteJust to get this right, Ed. In theory, would you rather hope that the GOP loses the election if they don't perfectly align with social conservative values?
ReplyDeleteHi Michele, no, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that social conservatives should not simply roll over and accept things like the platform change without a fight.
DeleteI agree. Thanks for the clarification 👍
Delete@benine thanks for injecting a dose of realism in this conversation. If we wait until all the perfect conditions are met, we are doomed from the get-go.
ReplyDelete