Liberals often call conservatives hypocrites for their views on social issues. They do so for two primary reasons. First, they argue that conservatives, as self-identifying limited government enthusiasts (at least from an economic standpoint), should automatically reject government interventions on social issues such as restrictions on abortion and marriage. This argument is easily dismissible, as it ignores the distinction between conservatism and libertarianism. Note that when I say “conservatives,” I speak of supporters of social conservatism, a group distinct from “fiscal conservatives” or “members of Republican Party,” although there is significant overlap between these camps. Conservatives tend to believe in the role of government to regulate virtue and vice, whereas libertarians (and keep in mind, these are sweeping generalizations) would rather leave most social issues untouched: let individuals decide for themselves whether to use drugs or have abortions. Thus viewed, conservative social positions are not at odds with their limited government tendencies.
A more intriguing accusation of hypocrisy is the charge that conservatives “pick and choose” on social issues. Why do they support laws restricting abortion and marriage but oppose policies such as restrictions on the tobacco industry and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda limitations? The embodiment of these apparent contradictions may be Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner. Boehner, a self-professed smoker and drinker, received $102,500 in political donations from the tobacco industry in 2014, over $25,000 more than the highest Democratic Party recipient. Yet he remains a staunch defender of restrictions on abortion and government regulation of marriage. What justifies Boehner’s support of such a smattering of social positions, simultaneously praising and condemning government regulations? Is he not inconsistent?
In fact, charges of inconsistency miss the mark because conservative social positions are actually quite rational. Conservatives are concerned about the human soul. They advocate on behalf of governmental regulation of abortion, marriage, prostitution and gambling. They believe Aristotle when he says that the city-state exists for the sake of the good life. They take this to mean that the government can and should play a role in promoting the moral character of the state and its citizens.
Liberals would probably disagree. As Charles Krauthammer has written, “liberals cannot bring themselves to support state regulation of the soul…so they have come up with their own alternative: not care for the soul, but care for the body.” It is for this reason that liberals point their swords of outrage firmly at tobacco companies, for supporting and enabling a vice enjoyed (perhaps “suffered” would be a better word) by millions of Americans, yet refuse to take up arms against abortion clinics, which destroy something far deeper and more profound than a pair of lungs.
This liberal position of largely ignoring personal morality is a relatively new phenomenon. Ted Kennedy, an icon of modern liberalism, was staunchly pro-life until 1972, by which time he had been a United States Senator for 10 years. And although supporting gay marriage has become a common political position among liberals (and indeed, some conservatives, as well), it’s easy to forget that less than 20 years ago, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, permitting states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under laws of other states. Just five years ago, President Barack Obama, perhaps the most liberal President in recent memory, had not yet declared his support for same-sex marriage.
These points are not to say that conservative social policy is perfect. Is the liberal focus on health and hygiene justified? Of course. Should restaurants have the right to ban smoking indoors? Absolutely. Conservatives are also in favor of a healthier America (who isn’t?), even if they do not make it clear all the time, and they would do well to pay more lip service to obesity, infectious disease and other health maladies afflicting our nation.
But conservatives are ultimately right to recognize that personal health and hygiene are secondary to personal morality and ethics. Charges of hypocrisy might continue, but conservatives should not waver. In these trying and tumultuous modern times, it is important that someone is paying attention to the health of our souls.
John Connolly is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.connolly@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 10 hours agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
PARTING SHOT: Does this even matter?
By Jacob Tisdale | YesterdayIndividuals and communities can use sports to inspire, to hold space, to heal, to break molds, to change narratives, to honor faith or to come home.
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 2 days agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
