On Seeking the Standard Bearer for Social Conservatism
Ross Douthat has a smart post warning religious and social conservatives against anointing Newt Gingrich as the standard bearer for their worldview, which is what Gingrich would be upon winning the GOP nomination for the presidency:
Conservative Christianity in America, both evangelical and Catholic, faces a looming demographic challenge: A rising generation that is more unchurched than any before it, more liberal on issues like gay marriage, and allergic to the apocalyptic rhetoric of the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell era. To many younger Americans, religious conservatism as they know it often seems to stand for a kind of institutionalized hypocrisy — a right-wing Tartufferie that’s incensed by the idea of gay wedlock but tolerant of straight divorce, forgiving of Republican sins but judgmental about Democratic indiscretions, and eager to apply moral litmus tests only on issues that benefit the political right.
Rallying around Newt Gingrich, effectively making him the face of Christian conservatism in this Republican primary season, would ratify all of these impressions. It isn’t just that he’s a master of selective moral outrage whose newfound piety has been turned to consistently partisan ends. It’s that his personal history — not only the two divorces, but also the repeated affairs and the way he behaved during the dissolution of his marriages — makes him the most compromised champion imaginable for a movement that’s laboring to keep lifelong heterosexual monogamy on a legal and cultural pedestal.
But hasn’t Gingrich shown contrition for his past sins? That’s debatable, but it’s also irrelevant. Gingrich would play the king of the culture warriors, whether he intended to play this role or not, and both he and those championing him would be seen as hypocrites, their cause unserious or sinister. As Douthat says, “his candidacy isn’t a test of religious conservatives’ willingness to be good, forgiving Christians. It’s a test of their ability to see their cause through outsiders’ eyes, and to recognize what anointing a thrice-married adulterer as the champion of ‘family values’ would say to the skeptical, the unconverted and above all to the young.” There’s no getting around the fact that selecting a presidential candidate is, for religious conservatives, an evangelical act. It sends a message about their religious beliefs and values.
Granted, there will always be the Amanda Marcottes among the socially progressive who will depict even the most morally upright conservative individual as a cleverly disguised, insidiously-patriarchal monster, but they’re not “the skeptical, the unconverted, and the young” that religious conservatives have more than a snowball’s chance in hell of persuading. Morally upright individuals tend not to run for President of the United States, but there are better options for religious conservatives than Newt Gingrich. Any of the other candidates may be preferable. Well, maybe not Perry. Huntsman, although more of a moderate on gay rights, might be the best choice for social conservatives to reach, or at least not alienate, the persuadable of the republic. Michael Brendan Dougherty thinks so.
Comments are closed.
No human on earth is without sin. Newt’s private life and whether he asked for forgiveness is between him and God. Huntsman is a democrat running under the republican umbrella.
Newt’s private life and whether he asked for forgiveness is between him and God.
Not entirely. Newt’s private life has public consequence, and he’s even made it public, weaving his story of conversion and contrition into a narrative about how much he loves his country.
What does love of country have to do with you judging whether or not he’s asked for forgiveness for his sins? Do you not leave judging up to God?
He’s a public figure, no doubt. But what does his love for country have to do with his personal life? Shouldn’t we leave the judging of ones sins up to God? I mean, no human on earth is without sin.
But what does his love for country have to do with his personal life?
According to Gingrich, his love of country led him to sin.
Shouldn’t we leave the judging of ones sins up to God?
No.
Does this verse support your judging of another persons sins?
Matthew 7:1-5 ESV
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Yes, it does. Were I running for POTUS, I would fully expect the citizenry to judge me on my merits and my character. I try not to be a hypocrite.
Huntsman is clearly too moderate, too thoughtful, too, well, reasonable for the 2012 GOP.
I think that the problem Ross Douthat identifies extends beyond the Republican party: religion itself, or at least those strands of the American religious tradition that have conservative social values, are under extreme suspicion. We in general need standard bearers who will be listened to and not seen as hypocritical agents of a partisan agenda.
True. The messengers matter, in and out of politics.
…conservative social values, are under extreme suspicion. We in general need standard bearers who will be listened to and not seen as hypocritical agents of a partisan agenda.
Or maybe we need to abandon an uncritical acceptance of the conservative social values agenda even when it is divorced from a partisan agenda.
Or maybe both!
Well, that depends. I am in favor of retaining conservative social values, but I also think we need to re-evaluate how that shapes our agenda. Certainly, the modern social conservative agenda is tainted by both hypocrisy and selective myopia: it general only sees and condemns what the other is doing.
“Certainly, the modern social conservative agenda is tainted by both hypocrisy and selective myopia: it general only sees and condemns what the other is doing.”
You have identified the problem with Democrats or progressives – hypocrisy and myopia. Way to go David!
Newt and other Republicans aren’t hypocrites. If you truly believe in conversion, or that Newt experienced a conversion then he can’t presently be a hypocrite. Just because the GOP stands up for ethical values and the Democratic Party is unethical doesn’t give the Democrats carte blanche to act like heathens. Just because people Fall doesn’t make them hypocrites. Being perfect is impossible. When people criticize the GOP for standing up for family values and some members had personal failings -sinned – that is exactly what they are expecting. We are supposed to be moral beings and guide others to be moral beings so when another acts immorally it is only right to speak out. But, if that person who spoke out also sins that doesn’t make that person a hypocrite.
You can say Newt’s not a hypocrite, but that’s beside the point, even if true. The potential voters in question perceive him to be one, and in politics, perception is reality. Newt would (perhaps unintentionally) undermine the cause of social conservatives.
If the truth about Gingrich does not matter but a false perception about him does because “in politics, perception is reality”, how could Huntsman better serve as the standard bearer for social conservatism if he is not even –perceived– as a social conservative? He not only isn’t conservative, no one ever mistook him for one. So even if the truth doesn’t matter, if perception does, Huntsman is still ruled out. Gingrich, at least, can make a case for himself as a social conservative and thus adjust people’s perception of him to better fit the truth. Huntsman has no hope of fooling people into believing that he is a social conservative (and to his credit, he does not seem to be trying to do that).
Huntsman doesn’t advertise himself as a social conservative, and he’s not what I’d call their ideal candidate, but his record, minus an exception or two, hasn’t been foreign to the objectives of social conservatives. He’s repeatedly supported pro-life legislation, for example. A Huntsman presidency would, I imagine, be friendly overall to the issues social conservatives hold dear. And he’d appeal to the skeptical better than, say, Santorum or Perry.
Many GOP voters are focused on the economy and constitutional issues and not so much on the issues which fall under social conservatism. Voters seem to be practicing forgiveness with regards to Newt’s past personal indiscretions, looking past them since he has a record of producing results. They just want a person who can fix the economy.
I know that some conservatives aren’t enthused by Gingrich’s surge in the polls since his favorite president is Theodore Roosevelt which gives evidence to his being more of a big government politician than some of the other candidates.
If I was a progressive I would look to the NY Times for advice since they promote progressive principles. The NY Times is the antithesis of an example of a publication that conservatives should look to for guidance on conservative principles.
Well, Kyle, that’s worth something, I suppose, though I am not at all sure that I know who you are talking about when you mention “the skeptical” or what they are having trouble believing. FWIW, I have a hunch that, whoever they are, the ability to appeal to them would be a liability to a social conservative, not an asset. OTOH, everyone is skeptical about some things. I, for one, am skeptical about the value of advice to Republicans from writers of the New York Times regarding their preferred candidate’s social conservative credentials.