Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

raveneye · 03-27-2005, 10:39 AM

Might be worthwhile to label the two groups: "social conservatives" versus "process conservatives".

Most process conservatives, who are economically conservative but socially various, probably had to hold their nose to vote for Bush.

The social conservatives, on the other hand, believe that Bush owes them the election, since the anti-gay marriage initiatives brought them out to vote, especially in Ohio where the initiative there won by a large margin.

The social conservatives seem to want six things, and expect Bush to fight for them: (1) overturning of Roe v. Wade; (2) banning same-sex marriage; (3) stacking the Supreme Court with socially conservative judges, starting with replacing Rehnquist with Scalia as Chief Justice; (4) prohibiting all scientific experimentation on human embryos (cloning and stem cell research); (5) attacking evolution and bringing creationism back into public science classrooms; and (6) allowing religious symbolism in government (Christmas, nativity, ten commandments, etc.).

And I would argue that the social conservatives are indeed extremists, because (1) they use cataclysmic rhetoric to describe the threat to the U.S. that they believe is posed by the moral decay of "liberalism" (e.g. allusions to biblical Armageddon, statements that God has given us a 4-year reprieve in the re-election of Bush); and (2) they are fundamentally anti-American in allowing or indeed promoting religion as something that does and should trump the Constitution.

But as far as the conservative movement as a whole is concerned, the crucial question is: to what extent do these goals of the social conservatives conflict with the goals of the process conservatives?

The process conservatives will start objecting only when/if these goals start to interfere with conservative economic policy, federalism, and maintaining a small and efficient federal government. As long as these basic process goals are not threatened, then the process conservatives, as a group, are not likely to expend much effort in countering them.

The major gripe the process conservatives have with Bush and Cheney is their runaway spending, and the fact that this election has shown pretty clearly that government can borrow and spend hundreds of million dollars and even conservative voters won't hold it accountable in the next election.

I think the continuing deficit and the debt are more likely to scare off the process conservatives than the religious extremists.

Bottom line is that the above goals of the social conservatives are probably seen by most conservatives as fairly innocuous.

03-27-2005, 10:39 AM	#21 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Might be worthwhile to label the two groups: "social conservatives" versus "process conservatives". Most process conservatives, who are economically conservative but socially various, probably had to hold their nose to vote for Bush. The social conservatives, on the other hand, believe that Bush owes them the election, since the anti-gay marriage initiatives brought them out to vote, especially in Ohio where the initiative there won by a large margin. The social conservatives seem to want six things, and expect Bush to fight for them: (1) overturning of Roe v. Wade; (2) banning same-sex marriage; (3) stacking the Supreme Court with socially conservative judges, starting with replacing Rehnquist with Scalia as Chief Justice; (4) prohibiting all scientific experimentation on human embryos (cloning and stem cell research); (5) attacking evolution and bringing creationism back into public science classrooms; and (6) allowing religious symbolism in government (Christmas, nativity, ten commandments, etc.). And I would argue that the social conservatives are indeed extremists, because (1) they use cataclysmic rhetoric to describe the threat to the U.S. that they believe is posed by the moral decay of "liberalism" (e.g. allusions to biblical Armageddon, statements that God has given us a 4-year reprieve in the re-election of Bush); and (2) they are fundamentally anti-American in allowing or indeed promoting religion as something that does and should trump the Constitution. But as far as the conservative movement as a whole is concerned, the crucial question is: to what extent do these goals of the social conservatives conflict with the goals of the process conservatives? The process conservatives will start objecting only when/if these goals start to interfere with conservative economic policy, federalism, and maintaining a small and efficient federal government. As long as these basic process goals are not threatened, then the process conservatives, as a group, are not likely to expend much effort in countering them. The major gripe the process conservatives have with Bush and Cheney is their runaway spending, and the fact that this election has shown pretty clearly that government can borrow and spend hundreds of million dollars and even conservative voters won't hold it accountable in the next election. I think the continuing deficit and the debt are more likely to scare off the process conservatives than the religious extremists. Bottom line is that the above goals of the social conservatives are probably seen by most conservatives as fairly innocuous.