What they are trying to hide: Social issues are a problem for liberals, not conservatives
The January 12 Gallup poll (click to enlarge) tells us three things:
- Despite the din, conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1.
- Conservatives are winning over coveted moderates, not liberals.
- #1 and #2 have occurred since Obama took office.
An eye-opening point from the Wall Street Journal, January 18:
Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, The Case for Polarized Politics, has a winning track record for the GOP.
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” he observes. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period…. When social issues came into the mix – I would date it from the 1968 election… the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
I had an epiphany when reading this from that same piece:
In Mr. Bell’s telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it…
American social conservatism, Mr. Bell says, began in response to the sexual revolution, which since the 1960s has been “the biggest agenda item and the biggest success story of the left.” That was true in Western Europe and Japan too, but only in America did a socially conservative opposition arise.
I realized that while the Left perpetually blames conservatives for pushing social issues, it is in actuality always them pushing a social agenda.
I realized that when I drew attention this weekend to the Left’s preposterous attempt to blame conservatives for the current uproar over contraceptives, this was a microcosmic example of the way they always try to blame us for what they do. It is the Left that thrusts aberrant social changes on America, and social conservatives are merely fighting for a return to morality. More from the WSJ piece:
The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. “Nature’s God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence…. The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it’s more religious…. My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn’t particular to any one religion…. If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you’re a social conservative.”
Whereas since Republicans won back the House in 2010 the liberal mantra has been, “Instead of focusing on jobs and the economy, Republicans are focusing on social issues,” it is actually Obama and the Left who have been the aggressors on social issues, starting with Obamacare, then authorizing gays in the military, and now attempting to force religious groups to pay for contraceptives, abortion drugs, and sterilization.
Conservative politicians need to stand strong. They should laminate and carry that Gallup poll in their pockets. The liberal strong suit, particularly in light of the Internet and social media, is noise. Their bark is way louder than their ability to bite. Liberals are by nature uncivil. Conservatives are by nature civil. Uncivil is always loud, intimidating, boorish. Civil is the opposite. That is why liberals appear bigger than they are.
Why do liberals try to intimidate conservatives away from discussing or taking a stand on social issues? Why did they invent the contraception controversy and then blame Republicans for it? From Rush Limbaugh this week:
I bring it up just to reaffirm the point that Jeffrey Bell makes in his recent book that social conservatism has led to victory in presidential elections. It’s the dirty little secret the Democrats know and the media know, and it’s why the social conservatives (one of the reasons why) are so despised. They’re also despised on principle. But they’re also despised because there are so many of them….
Why do you think Obama and the Democrats all of a sudden try to concoct this contraception issue? ‘Cause they’re losing the independents! They believe, from the age-old pages of their playbook, that if they can revive this notion that the Republican Party is nothing but a bunch of theologians that want to dictate from the pulpit in the White House, that they can scare the independents back to Obama’s camp. They know they can’t attract ’em with economic issues. They know they can’t attract the independents back by being positive about Obama’s record, ’cause there isn’t anything there to be positive about. They know that social issues are a winner for the Republican Party.
Which brings me to Rick Santorum. As someone wrote this week in a post I can’t now find [which Kel did, thanks!], even if Republican presidential candidates were to try to avoid social media issues, the liberal media won’t let them.
So who best can articulate our views, with an eye toward winning over moderates? One of the reasons I wrote I was endorsing Santorum was because he has the ability to do just that. Furthermore, Santorum has the credentials to point out Obama’s extremism on abortion.
Here’s an example, from an interview Santorum did with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation this past Sunday. As Rush said, “Schieffer actually seemed like he was talking to somebody from Mars. He looked at Santorum and he literally could not fathom that a living, breathing human being believes – much less would say – these things.” Watch the entire ridiculous interview here. Following is the relevant clip on the pro-life issue. Note how Santorum speaks with authority on pro-life nuances, like amniocentesis and preborn eugenics. Also note how Santorum brings it back to Obama, which is what we have to do – and what Obama and the Left dread – to persuade moderates…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Before you consider voting for Santorum, and if you think he has some kind of “morality” on his side, read this.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/santorums-belief-in-human-dignity.html
Excellent piece, Jill. I felt chastened (in a good way) for feeling defensive about social issues when you pointed out that not only are they popular but they are feared by the Dems.
After all, its kinda messy to go around explaining why aborting babies with Down syndrome is the compassionate thing to do. Not everyone is that good at lying.
It takes a lot of practice and distancing yourself from your conscience.
One thing you can say to a Dem attacking you on abortion is “be careful, we breeders love having children, and we’re going to win demographically”.
Jill you have reminded me that we already have won.
Let’s go Santorum. This guy speaks Truth.
I do think the American Public are wise to the tactics of the left, their urge to silent the right, to pretend to have the high moral ground, to yell the loudest and most often in the public square. But the Right can do the same, knowing that their efforts are meant to give life to life itself, to speak the merciful and suffering truth to power politics, to let the public know we are the most free when we help our neighbour and encourage new life, and accept that new life in all of its diversity and difficulty. Conversely, the freedom that tries to whitewash humanity of all of its blemishes, that tries to make the promotion of individual rights with no corresponding responsibilities the goal of freedom is an egotistical freedom, a freedom not envisioned by the founding fathers of America. The Right know that the politics about the economy are the politics about what kind of society one wants, about where the money will be spent. The Right, like the Left knows that these social issues and economic issues are never separate issues.
Hal, Santorum’s view on interrogation techniques is a lot more developed and precise than that piece written by the Dish. That article was confusing to follow and I could not follow who said what. I don’t think the article presented Santorum’s views accurately.
Notice that the mediaite website this originates from pulls the same hat-trick as Bob Schiffer with regards to Santorum’s comments, changing the word “prenatal testing” to “prenatal care”, in order to make Santorum sound like a woman hating extremist who believes pregnant women shouldn’t get their care covered because they “might” have abortions. Nice little media-manipulation there. He was referring to amniocentesis and other genetic tests which are done for the sole purpose of identifying defective children and aborting them before birth.
The Gallup poll does not make the claim that conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1. It makes the claim that self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals 2:1, which is utterly meaningless for predicting voting behavior. Would Republicans ever lose a single national election if 40% of the electorate was solidly conservative?
I have no problem at all with being a social conservative – there’s a socialist in the White House.
Joan, did you not read Jill’s 3 points from above? If you did, you should especially re-read the third point:
3. #1 and #2 have occurred since Obama took office.
If you take 2008 as the base year you can see that more moderates have swung conservative. Obviously, a large precentage of moderates vote liberal during an election, but the trend of the graph since 2008 shows that the percentage of moderates who vote conservativ is probably going to change for the better in the next election. Obama’s attack on religious liberty won’t help him.
Jill was kind enough to explain how she read the graph and you still didn’t follow, shesh, what do you want her to do next, use a teleprompter!
A quote that needs repeating:
“So who best can articulate our views, with an eye toward winning over moderates? One of the reasons I wrote I was endorsing Santorum was because he has the ability to do just that. Furthermore, Santorum has the credentials to point out Obama’s extremism on abortion.”
– Jill Stanek, from above
When will the left stop politicizing sex?
“3. #1 and #2 have occurred since Obama took office.”
No it hasn’t. Apparently neither of you actually read the graph you’re using to push a conclusion that isn’t even remotely supported by it.
Joan, since 2008 the number of self-describerd Moderates went down from 36 to 35, Conservatives went up from 37 to 40, and Liberals went from 22 to 21. The Conservative increase came from Moderates AND Liberals!!
Except those things have not exclusively occurred since Obama won office; they have been occurring since Gallup began polling this question in 1992. Taken as a whole, the only constant has been a gradual downtick in the number of self-identified moderates, across both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
Here is my related post:
Social Issues Are Constitutional Issues&Should Not Be Ignored: http://bit.ly/xNs9CU
I have a feeling that in Greece, for example, there are currently quite a few new converts to the “Liberal” ranks, given the austerity measures.
It’ll be interesting to see how things swing around in the US, and some big swings are coming, IMO.
Joan: Taken as a whole, the only constant has been a gradual downtick in the number of self-identified moderates, across both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
Right – it reflects things becoming a little more polarized, over all – a phenomenon which many have noted. As far as “predicting voting behavior” – Santorum is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, and even many self-described “Conservatives” are much closer to Romney and Obama than him.
“I have a feeling that in Greece, for example, there are currently quite a few new converts to the “Liberal” ranks, given the austerity measures.”
I believe you have that backwards, Doug.
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
Actually, Paladin I find feeding trolls can be quite entertaining.
My my, what a large pair of rose-colored galsses you are wearing today!
I see that the question is “how would you describe your political views”, not social views. So while our social views are a part of our political views it cannot be claimed that supporting a conservative political position always equates to a conservative social position. Or vice versa.
What the graph actually shows is a slow and consistent rise in both liberals and conservatives from 1992 to 2010.
Both are two points higher than they were 10 years ago. Both are four points higher than they were in 1992.
Wow, a WSJ piece, what a surprise. Part of the stable of uncle rupert, who has a history of publishing pieces designed to ‘lead’ rather than report.
Oh and Jeffrey Bell, how surprising that he would write such things given his background.
Exactly what ‘nature’s god’ is is open to interpretation on an individual and subjective basis.
‘Endowed by their creator’ – again, an individual and subjective phrase. My ‘creator’ certainly isn’t any ‘god’.
So in summation.
Despite the din, conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1. – so what’s changed there? Nothing.
Conservatives are winning over coveted moderates, not liberals. – no, both have increased by the same amount since 1992 or from 10 years ago
#1 and #2 have occurred since Obama took office. – or, since bush left office.
So to claim “social issues are a problem for liberals, not conservatives” is self-evidently false.
In 1992 the conservative number was more than double the liberal number. Now it is less than double. What does that say?
And if conservatives were picking up more of the moderates than liberals were – as claimed – then the conservative number would need to be even more more than double. Which it isn’t.
As a percentage of their original base figures, the liberals have both increaed more than conservatives and picked up more of the moderates.
Joan: “Would Republicans ever lose a single national election if 40% of the electorate was solidly conservative?”
Depends on how conservative the Republicans are. Right?
I mean, if Obama’s left base can piss and moan about him now, is there any reasons conservatives shouldn’t as well, about RINOs?
According to my calculator the conservative number has increased by about 11% while the liberal number has increased by over 23%.
How does that tally with “Conservatives are winning over coveted moderates, not liberals”?
Okay, the Right being against testing for search and destroy reasons means we’re against prenatal care. But the left supporting the “choice” of aborting something like a third of all these “pre-neo-nates” is good prenatal care. Just so I got that straight.
“I have a feeling that in Greece, for example, there are currently quite a few new converts to the “Liberal” ranks, given the austerity measures.”
SomeGuy: I believe you have that backwards, Doug.
I don’t see how you can possibly be correct there. I’m saying that quite a few people are feeling like, “I don’t care what else is going on, this is now just too hard….”
That’s not ruling out some new “financial Conservatives” either, i.e., saying “never again will we allow the nation’s finances to get so out-of-balance.”
On things being “hard” – there are some hard realities at work right now here in the US, and we’re headed for similar reactions within the general populace, i.e. people being unwilling to accept necessary measures. For that matter, who among us, especially politicians, is willing to accept them now?
Reality: As a percentage of their original base figures, the liberals have both increased more than conservatives and picked up more of the moderates.
Consistent with things being more “polarized” now. Agreed 100% that we can’t necessarily project from “political views” to “social issues” with any accuracy, there. Looking at the chart, in 2008 there was a significant split, and up went Conservatives and down went Moderates. Well, the popping of the real estate bubble was going on then; totally makes sense to me that there would be a backlash against the perceived causes of it. I imagine there were similar things in 1929 and 1930, after the stock market crash.
As the Depression wore on through the 1930s, I bet the percentage of “Liberals” went up a good bit.