There is an interesting and worthwhile piece in the current National Review, written by libertarian Brink Lindsey. In A Farewell To Culture Wars, Lindsey argues that the current problems within the American conservative movement are due to the conservative focus on social conservatism. Lindsey offers advice to the modern American conservative, advice to the effect that conservatives should abandon the causes of social conservatism and focus on the free market and national security.

This isn't surprising, since that's basically the libertarian position on everything anyway. Lindsey's advice to conservatives is really just "Become libertarians."

Ramesh Ponnuru's brief response to Lindsey's argument is laudable, although he doesn't go far enough in defending social conservatism. I agree with both Lindsey and Ponnuru that the heart of the conservative movement is a defense of inherently liberal causes. I agree with Ponnuru about the flaw in Lindsey's advice: Lindsey says that, by focusing on social issues, conservatives are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Alright, but one man's bathwater is another man's baby. Ponnuru argues that there's validity to the social conservative perspective, but he stops short of addressing the very real shortcomings of American secular leftism.

So, yes, a conservative defense of basic liberal concepts is vital. American conservatism is often at it's best when it's defending democracy, free speech, the rights of the individual, and other inherently liberal concepts. What the social conservative opposes in the modern day, however, typically isn't classic liberalism. What the social conservative opposes is rampant secular leftism. There are critical differences.

Classic liberals and social conservatives agree, for instance, that tolerance is important. We must tolerate a certain amount of bad behavior from those around us. Social conservatives and classic liberals can agree about that. The problem is that American secular leftists want to redefine tolerance. Here's what I mean: It is tolerance, for example, when I insist that, although I find homosexuality to be abhorrent and unnatural, I don't believe that basic human rights should be denied to homosexuals. They should be as free as I am. Now, that's where tolerance stops, but it isn't enough for secular leftists. Those who insist that society must redefine marriage so that it's a contract between any two people aren't advancing the cause of tolerance. They're simply promoting a secular leftist agenda. There's a difference between a defense of the homosexual's basic human rights and the contradiction of logic, biology, and all of human history in order to make homosexuals feel better about themselves.

Beyond that, the social conservative isn't bound to tolerate behavior that's threatening to the welfare of others. That's why social conservatives oppose abortion on demand; it's the taking of human life in the name of convenience.

As with "gay marriage," those who advocate abortion on demand are basically arguing that one's chosen lifestyle trumps everything. Biology, accountability and logic, to the secular liberal, are what you make of them. That's nonsense. Social conservatives would do well to step up their dedication to these issues, not pull back from them.


Beyond the basic arguments against secular leftism, there's another reason why social conservativism is more important now than ever. In The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza argues convincingly (if controversially) that American secular leftism represents a grave international threat to America. That's because the most effective recruitment tool available to terrorist groups is the visage of American secular leftism and it's resultant culture. It is true, like it or not, that America is seen as decadent and even evil by traditional cultures the world over. This is especially true in Muslim countries where even the most complacent citizens are likely to respond with outrage to blasphemy, abortion, flaming homosexuality and immodesty. If terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden need to convince traditional Muslims that America is a force that threatens their culture, he only need point out America's cultural exports. This is especially easy with Muslims who already live (or have lived) in western society, where American cultural exports are prevalent. From Brokeback Mountain to Madonna to TV shows like The Real World, traditional Muslims find much to despise in America. Unfortunately, many of them have become willing to respond with violence against a culture that they believe is hell-bent on destroying traditional values.

That is not to say that Bin Laden doesn't take issue with America's presence in the Middle East or with American foreign policy in general. He does. But remember that he draws the support he needs from a pool of young Muslims; traditional and profoundly religious people who are often acquainted with America through her cultural exports.

On the surface, it seems ironic. If the radical Muslim threat is aimed primarily (or even partly) at secular leftist culture, why aren't secular leftists enthusiastic supporters of the war on terrorism? Well, remember that American secular leftists see Muslim terror groups as a distant, intermittent threat. Leftists believe that the real enemies, the people that they hate the most, are social conservatives. In the mind of an American secular leftist, social conservatism and it's figurehead George W. Bush must be brought down at any cost. That's why they root against America in the war on terror. To them, it's "Bush's war." Any defeat for Bush is a victory for secular leftists, and they're willing to sacrifice American troops and damage American interests abroad. To the secular leftist, that's a small price to pay for what they see as a greater victory.

Social conservatives face a demanding and complex struggle, caught between secular leftists and the radical Muslims who see secular leftism as reason enough to despise the west. The cause of social conservatism requires greater dedication and clearer thought now than it ever has. In short, Lindsey is wrong. Social conservatism isn't a hindrance to the American conservative movement. It is the main front of the battle. True enough, conservatives might gain votes by abandoning social conservatism, but at what cost? What does it profit a man if he gains the House and Senate but loses his soul and the whole world?

Labels: News, Politics