Should conservatives interject their views on social issues
into politics?
Earlier this week, respected radio talk show host Neal
Boortz, sitting in for Sean Hannity, declared if conservatives in the
Republican Party insist on banging the drum on social issues like homosexual
marriage and abortion, they are sure to lose the 2014 election. His commentary gave me pause because I cannot
fathom limiting my politics to fiscal conservatism (e.g. shrinking the role of
government, reforming the welfare state and the like) and leave the attack on
the family structure (by homosexual marriage and abortion) to the nonpolitical arena
alone. Perhaps Mr. Boortz misses the
point that government plays a big part in moving the pendulum of the
progressive agenda.
In 2013, liberal activist judges furthered the progressive
agenda. They, in large part, were
responsible for legalizing homosexual marriage in 6 more states this year. Now there are eighteen states where homosexual
marriage is legal and the LGBT agenda to normalize these marriages marches on. Yes, the judiciary has become political all
across the country. (Recall Chief
Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts declaring the Obamacare penalty on
individuals failing to sign up for mandated coverage a “tax” and therefore
constitutional.) If social conservatives
were to keep silent, these activist judges would go unnoticed, the presidential
appointments of these judges would be unchecked and these decisions will
continue to tip the scales of justice for a generation or more.
It is also worth noting that both the conservative and
progressive agendas are furthered by the elite political class. Whether they should be or not is no longer
the question. It’s a fact. To suggest that one political party put down
their values in order to win an election is curious. Mr. Boortz, who is no Democrat or Liberal,
didn’t suggest that Liberals stop trumpeting homosexual marriage because the
gay population only represents about 2% of the nation’s population and can’t
win on that platform alone in 2014 or that their accusation that the Right has
waged a “war on women” is a farce and therefore should be shelved as a strategy. Neither did he suggest that the failed scheme
of universal healthcare promoted by Democrats should be trashed. No.
He’d rather guide the Republican Party to change their course on the
social issues instead.
It seems Mr. Boortz is fine with promoting social issues as
long as they are not promoted by conservatives. Sound advice to the GOP on how to win more of
the electorate is another matter entirely but giving up on fundamental values
is to be lukewarm. “So, because you are
lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev
3:16)
This was also the month of the new hero of social
conservatism-Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty.
Phil, the patriarch of the Robertson clan, is a reality show star with A
&E’s Duck Dynasty which follows the Louisianan evangelical family famous
for inventing a particular duck call. The
show is the number one cable show in the nation. Phil recently gave an interview in GQ
magazine where he quoted scripture about homosexuality, and made controversial
comments about blacks during Jim Crow, among other things. His delivery was less than politically
correct and offended many. He believes the Bible teaches that homosexuality is
a sin, as an example. A fire storm from
the gay community ensued and Phil was placed on hiatus from the show while show
sponsors began to pull away until the evangelical community took to social
media in droves. Within two weeks, Phil
was reinstated and the sponsors affirmed their support. This was a blow to the activist organizations
like GLAAD that are used to silencing those with whom they disagree but a
victory for those not afraid to share their biblical worldview no matter how
unpopular.
These examples, while not exhaustive of the war being waged
on the social issues of our time, demonstrate where the battlefields may be
found. The battlefields are in the
courthouses; the battlefields are in the federal government as the current
administration openly promotes an LGBT agenda domestically and abroad; the
battlefield is in the White House where the current president supports
infanticide; the battlefields are also in the corporate arena. All of these areas impact the quality of American
life. These are arenas where
conservative ideas must be shared.
The question of whether or not there is a place for social
conservatism in politics is rhetorical.
If not there, then where? While
the US Constitution and our system of Federalism must prevail, the survival of
the traditional family must be preserved at all costs-which is what social
conservatism is all about. I’d rather
promote my socially conservative ideals in the political arena and lose an
election than win back our country from the radical Left bereft of traditional
family values.
