Last night’s election is going to be dissected for a long time to come. Gay marriage passed at the ballot box for the first time, marijuana was legalized in two states, and Republicans generally got it handed to them. Mitt Romney gave some brief, but very classy remarks in defeat, while President Obama managed to remind us of one major reason why he’s a political force to begin with. His speech was one of the best I’ve heard from him, and maybe one of the most eloquent in recent memory, period.
I’ll have a few thoughts later on disagreement in politics over at Q, which I encourage you to read. But I wanted to add a few hasty reflections that didn’t quite fit there about the meaning of last night’s elections.
How bad was this for social conservatives?
Conservatives have been arguing for quite some time that they had more marriage support than polls and media coverage indicated, and they pointed to the polls to do it. That narrative is now dead. Whatever else we make of gay marriage, it seems clear that (along with marijuana use) it is slowly becoming the law of the land.
That means that there’s going to be on socially conservative voters to switch our public positions because they don’t get enough votes. And I understand why. But the paradox is that we just nominated a man who many people distrusted for being politically unprincipled (his principles elsewhere having been clearly demonstrated to be admirable) and socially moderate, and look how that went. A Republican party that shifts on an issue like marriage to pick up votes will win no more trust from the electorate than it had before. Trust is formed when politicians are able to make their case effectively and cheerfully, and from a strong sense of conviction. The failure of the political leadership to do that on social conservative issues is more a problem than the issues themselves.
One more point on this: we’ve heard plenty about the demise of the Religious Right and the subsequent end of the culture wars. I’m not sure about the former yet—I’d have to look at exit poll breakdowns to see how young evangelicals voted—but the latter turns out to be utterly false. Ross Douthat pointed out the President’s social issues strategy very early on, only unlike before it went the President’s way. Social issues became more important, not less, and conservatives now face the very real possibility that their core concerns no longer resonate with the majority of people in this country. Nor will they, I suspect, going forward either. See Matthew Schmitz for more, whose points I agree with wholeheartedly.
The Demographic Base
There is going to be a lot of talk about how Republicans need to reach the Hispanic community. That’s true, but again, how they do so is massively important. And here, they should learn from how they “reached” the socially conservative community. It is possible to shift the rhetoric and make the appeals in such a way that a community’s core concerns and issues are listened to, but not understood or properly integrated into a platform. Social conservatives went along with that, and have remained on the edges of the Republican party leadership for it. For all the successes, social conservative candidates have been pretty atrocious—and almost universally rejected by the party leadership. And now that social conservative issues (marriage) is on the outs, they’re about to be told to take a back seat again.
That sort of outreach is little more than pandering—and I don’t think it will work with Hispanics, who already have a comfortable home (evangelicals, remember, were somewhat adrift before Reagan). And ironically, if social issues took on a greater importance, it might help Republicans with Hispanics. They are much more inclined, for instance, to make abortion illegal than the black community is. In other words, the outreach to Hispanics cannot be outreach at all. It must be an authentic, serious attempt to listen and think through conservative issues with Hispanic voters.
One other point: it’s interesting how single people overwhelmingly voted for Obama. I don’t quite know what to make of that. One possibility is that the reason has more to do with youth than with singleness. However, it is also possible that a weakening marriage culture gives the case for Republican issues less resonance. It’s hard to be the party that thinks family is the foundation of liberty when people aren’t having them. That has given my conservative friends hope—it’s common for me to hear that when they marry and settle down, they’ll eventually learn. However, they’ll have much longer to get comfortable with their outlook and political affiliations, which makes me doubt that fact a lot.
Questioning the Conservative Silo
The real soul-searching that should happen is in the conservative punditry world. I saw countless tweets and updates that proved, in retrospect, astonishingly optimistic. The war against the polls turned out to be utterly, ridiculously wrong. Erick Erickson at Redstate defended the polls and was pilloried for it. But now that it’s all shaken out, it turns out that the objecting and questioning was nothing more than false consolations. The fact is, conservatives have spent a lot of their media time talking to their own. I’m generally a fan of some parts of talk radio—I like Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager, for instance, though I don’t listen much anymore. But the silo is really a problem, as if anything conservatives need to learn better how to make their case when people don’t agree.
A Final Thought
Four years ago, I proposed a cheerful conservatism. I haven’t always been the best representative of that, but it’s an ideal to which I’d like to aspire. It’s not going to be an easy season for social conservatives, especially for those who are younger. The pressures from the most natural party for us, from our peers, and from the media to switch and soften positions are going to be very strong. And as people no longer share or understand our first principles, our ability to make our case in public is going to be much harder.
But none of this is reason for discouragement. Or if it is, it is also a reason for hope, that virtue which Chesterton aptly said arises when the situation is hopeless. Or take this bit from Tolkien, which was going around the social networks last night:
”I am a Christian…so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
It’s hard to find a posture that is more fitting. We need not worry about being the party out of power. If anything, we should get used to it. The challenge is becoming the sort of people whose witness endures beyond our own generation, and making the sort of case in public that can have an impact long after we are dead. We need, Alan Jacobs said recently, a modern day Augustine. I have often thought the same thing. But it was not at the height of Roman glory that Augustine wrote, but its decline. Just as it was at the beginning of the decline that Plato and Aristotle wrote. The victories in this life will be few. But that means that our efforts must not be aimed toward them, but toward that—and Him—which will outlast our political orders and outlast us all.
Well said, Matt.
Well said. I think of the title “Resident Aliens” and the decision to serve faithfully regardless of its popularity. I think of the urgent need for an apologetic that understand the language of the “nones.” I think of the Christians who are engaging politically and how they wrestle through “first order” and “second order issues;” and how their fellow Christians can support them in this creative and prayerful discernment. I think of the need for a church that is known by the secular culture, primarily, for her sacrifical service to the poor, and miraculous answers to prayer.
Greg, lots here to agree with, including reshaping our apologetic and how to understand first and second order issues. Thanks.
Very insightful. I love the Tolkien quote. I think true Christianity will do what it always does during times of persecution- grow stronger.
It is hard to compete with Tolkien. : )
Politics is about different things to different people; I think it’s less about economics to upper-class urban democrats than it is to lower-class urban democrats, immigrants, and rural Republicans. There is a huge ideological/political difference between rural areas and urban ones, the urban ones overwhelmingly leading the way with “progressive” ideology. (Which adds to the awkwardness of being a conservative voice in a non-conservative setting–the perceived social power differential.) Not sure what can be done about it except what you say in your last paragraph, but I also wonder whether there’s a way to leverage urban political support for rural concerns the way that upper-class urban democrats have with the urban lower-class. I think there is an overlooked “little guy”–and it’s the rural Republicans!
Bonnie, maybe I am missing the real nature of rural concerns, but I think what we’re seeing is an attempt by the hipster Wendell-Berry/Front Porch Republic to at least *claim* to be thinking about “rural” matters in a distinctively urban environment.
matt
[…] Matthew Lee Anderson writes about the meaning of last night’s election. […]
[…] Matt Anderson: Conservatives have been arguing for quite some time that they had more marriage support than polls and media coverage indicated, and they pointed to the polls to do it. That narrative is now dead. Whatever else we make of gay marriage, it seems clear that (along with marijuana use) it is slowly becoming the law of the land. […]
What more enduring witness is there than public policy? I think that is what has hung up evangelicals as they’ve fought the ‘culture wars.’ But then I mention culture and I think how do Christians think they are persecuted in America, whose culture is still predominantly Christian.
Bill, I do think there is a more enduring witness than public policy. Look at the treasures of the middle ages. It’s not their governmental structure that we all value and cherish, whatever its merits.
My comment was flippant. I meant to point out that is why evangelicals have been so focused on political power as a means of influencing public policy to ‘redeem’ our degenerate culture in America. Also, it’s not the structure of government that is germane to my point but the way that public policy shapes the behavior of citizens, which can persist over generations. With that in mind, I don’t think evangelicals are wrong to focus on politics (it just gets a bit crass and compromising) so I understand why you’re going for a more transcendent sort of witness.
I think we already had our Augustine– C.S. Lewis.
I kinda think Lewis is a worthy candidate for the role, but my own take it that he plays a somewhat different role.
Good job Matthew Lee Anderson. You really make me want to take that class so I can visit you. Thanks for the food for thought.
Thanks, man. And do take the class anyway. This is a wonderful city to visit! : )
Pray for revival and for Christian students to carry the banner for Jesus to their generation. This election may have been about Israel. God may do something big for His glory!
[…] Lee Anderson over at Mere Orthodoxy posted some reflections on the 2012 election that are well worth the time to read. He concludes the article with the thoughts below, including […]
[…] Lee Anderson - The Meaning of the 2012 Election: We need not worry about being the party out of power. If anything, we should get used to […]
“We need not worry about being the party out of power”… Oh, wait a minute… that’s right… We are not called to be a “party”, to pledge allegiance to a “party”, to seek to reform a “party”, to trust our future to a “party”, but rather to recognize that we are instead already party to an all-powerful kingdom. It’s only when we think we must yolk ourselves to something lesser, that we need worry.
Unless, of course, our vocation as citizens causes us to create temporary alliances with a party to pursue our obligations that are on us. Then, yeah, there’s that.
Matthew, good post. Just a few thoughts.
As millennial evangelicals, we are sometimes torn between maintaining our own moral convictions and our reluctance to “enforce” those values on a secular society. Speaking for myself, I completely oppose legalized abortion. For me, it is a human rights issue (i.e. unborn children do not currently have the right to life). So, for example, reversing Roe v. Wade is an act of social justice.
However, SSM is a little different. I personally believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, but I genuinely want to understand the reasons behind denying SSM to two consenting adults. As Christians, we favor giving Muslims the right to worship freely in mosques throughout this country, yet we still uphold the truth that Jesus is the only way to God.
Paul Griffiths writes:
“To say what [Douglas Farrow says about opposing same-sex marriage in America now] to the pagans of our time is to act like the monoglot Englishman traveling abroad who, when faced with incomprehension by the locals, speaks English louder. It doesn’t help. This won’t help, either. It makes the Church look ridiculous.
So I suggest the following thesis: It is time for the Church to treat North American positive law about the contractual form called marriage—a contract dissolvable at the will of either partner—as it already treats North American positive law about the availability of contraception: that is, as something to be tolerated, identified with clarity for what it is, and a golden opportunity for clarifying the truth to the faithful.”
Read his entire statement here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/09/thirteen-theses-on-marriage
All I’m saying is that, going forward, we need much, much more dialogue and conversation in the church on the issue of SSM in particular and reaching out to the LGBT community in general. Simply spouting more of the same arguments doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere, especially with the hypocritical divorce culture in the church. Another pet peeve is that millions of dollars have been spent by “pro-family” groups to fight SSM in the public square, yet only a tiny fraction of that amount has been given to Christian support groups and organizations that help promote research and counseling for those struggling with same sex desires.
I’m still wrestling with these ideas, but in the meantime, I remain somewhat ambivalent on the legalization of SSM. But I would love to see more stimulating conversation.
[…] of the significance of the 2012 election, Matt Anderson offers some insightful thoughts on the implications for socially convervative Christians. After suggesting that social conservatives may be pressured to “take a back seat” […]