By Justin Robinette

We have heard a lot recently about a return to core conservatism being, necessarily, a return to social conservatism.  Many within the party have reacted to the failed 2008 Republican Party and have adopted the view that the failure of the McCain-Palin ticket was a combination both of the continuation of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” and the moderation taken to social issues by Senator McCain, and by extension his family and his campaign staff, publicly.

The general view of the Republican Party as the party of white, religious and wealthy men has been joined recently by what appears to be conclusive evidence of the importance of social conservatism to minorities (including blacks and Hispanics in California who voted on California Proposition 8).  Thus, Republicans are told that it is in their best interest, moving forward, to buy into social conservatism in order to retain votes, and secure new ones.

But, as proper conservatives, we should not buy this.  Issues that, in the end, come down to the cultural are difficult to solve or moderate, and even to articulate.  For example, a conservative conscience should tell us that in the abortion debate, when questions of life are at issue, life supersedes liberty.  For many of us this is the case, and yet other Republicans are proponents of the basic protections of Roe, admirers of Reagan’s nominee Justice O’Connor and supporters of Emily’s List congresswomen.

Consistent with conservative logic, we should approach the death penalty with the same manner of caution:   that caution over life should supersede any political action to be taken.  Isn’t this the most morally upright, conservative and conscientious objection to capital punishment?

Cautiousness should be taken where even one innocent may risk execution, in recognition of the irrevocability of death which conservatives often use as a feature of the abortion debate.  But the death penalty for many is an irreplaceable feature of an American system of justice, and leaders from Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney have supported the continuation of its measures.

Moreover, this year GOProud, a newly formed gay Republican group replacing the Log Cabin Republicans, has chosen to co-sponsor CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, to some notable controversy.   And The Advocate is on record as referring to the McCain family as “notoriously pro-gay.”   We should learn from this that it is impractical to seek to exact a position statement on any one of these cultural issues, and declare it a part of the Republican Party platform.

This will prove to be to the continued failure of the Republican Party, and in my mind, is what has been behind much of the failure of the Democratic Party historically:  that when you strip away the social liberalism, there is nothing left to Democrats.  When you strip away the social conservatives from the Republicans, you have yet an understanding of the individual and his right, and control, of what he creates, a logic to governance, an understanding of debt, spending, and public service and merit-based pay and opportunity.  It is Republicans that fundamentally value independence from government, responsibility for success and failure, limited taxation, and by extension the fundamental nature of liberty itself.

Finally, Rachel Maddow, of all people to cite as an authority, speaks to the issue of Democrat party hesitancy, promise-breaking and yet still self-acclaimed libertarian righteousness—“when it can be said that the Republican Party is being equally as vigilant as the Democratic Party on equal rights, namely here gay rights, and not be laughed out of the room, there is indeed a Democrat problem.”

What you have in the Democrat Party’s policies of social conservatism is bigotry, and also guilt and irresolution.  The “soft bigotry of low expectations” that President George W. Bush spoke of before the NAACP in reference to affirmative action is one example of the first.

The Democratic Party’s guilt, and not just white guilt, completes the party’s platform on racial progressivism, since never before historically has it positioned itself on the correct side of the race issue when it could have made a difference (neither was it the party of Lincoln’s emancipation, nor the party of Eisenhower’s integration).  Ann Coulter, of all people to cite as an authority, brought this to issue in How to Talk to a Liberal.

Many will argue that “party realignment,” as if that term itself is a squelcher of any logic behind the party’s positions on race, can be said to account for this.  But, doesn’t this make the point itself?  By and large: people are not buying social conservatism, nor should they.  It divides, it makes familiar and activates as something useful a government’s willingness and ability to determine a nation’s culture or cultural values.

Social conservatism is not the same as religion or moral governance.  Social conservatism crosses the line, treats as policy what should govern and be governed in conscience.  Meghan McCain is often lauded for being Ann Coulter’s younger, more moderate opposite in what I refer to as the “political entertainment” industry.  Yet I cannot imagine either of these women running the country.

Social conservatives should stand down—you have been standing up for too long.  Do not hitch your stars to Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee; if you must hitch your star to a homegrown, small-town “country” politician, choose Alabama’s fifth district Republican Representative Parker Griffith.