By David Beilstein
OVER at American Thinker, Selwyn Duke posted this. I have large sympathy with the author. Duke’s main point is that Hispanic voters are actually traditional when it comes to social issues and socialistic when it comes to fiscal policy. The author brings a barrage of data to back the claim up,
“Don’t trouble over abortion or faux marriage and instead just focus on fiscal matters.”
Yet this appeal is the result of critics expressing what makes them uncomfortable, as opposed to actually observing the facts on the ground. How do I know? It’s simple: the minority voters everyone is so desperate to woo are more socially conservative than are whites. Where are they more liberal?
Hispanics are well known to be pro-life; in fact, one poll showed that only 25 percent of them support legal abortion. And remember the 2008 Proposition 8 vote in California banning faux marriage? While a slim majority of whites voted against it, 53 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of blacks voted yes and won its passage (prompting all those nice leftists to have hissy fits and hurl racial epithets).
Therefore says Duke, efforts by moderate Republicans to jettison social issues, to court Hispanic voters, are essentially useless. Makes sense. In fact, Duke makes the point Mexican politicians have been courting Hispanic voters successfully for generations, unlike Republicans,
…If you want to know how to capture Hispanic voters, just learn from people who’ve done it for 100 years: Mexican politicians. It’s rumoured that Mexico has more Mexicans than even Mexifornia, yet while it has long embraced socialist parties, abortion is illegal nationwide.
Yesterday, I posted on this series of Republican autopsies. And while I have large sympathy for Duke’s column – I also think the Republican Party has a serious problem distinguishing between politics and religious norms of morality in relation to governmental polity.
Dr R. Scott Clark, professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary California, makes several points I’m unsure many religious citizens inside the Republican Party base would be comfortable with anymore,
Another unique feature of the American experiment is that despite the overtly religious influences on the colonies and whatever the theological influences on the founding fathers, the republic was established as a secular (as distinct from a secularist state). There would be no state-imposed religion.
Most religious conservatives, or far too many it seems, view this conception of a secular state as unfortunate. It would be hard for many to even describe the republic as purposely secular. In contradistinction from modern religious conservatives, the Framer’s saw ‘walls of separation’ between Church and state as a benison to religion – helping to ensure its freedom and purity.
The Founders knew historically, mixing religion and politics polluted both. Since natural law and the Holy Gospel are distinguished Biblically; since both natural law and the Holy Gospel are revelations of God, meditated by Christ in Two Kingdoms with vastly different roles, the conflation of these Two Kingdoms was seen to be a ‘folly’ to the Protestant reformers and after them, the Framers of the American Republic – especially Jefferson and Madison.
Since the Framers established a secular state, politically, there is no constitutional justification for sweeping laws based on biblical norms of morality. And if there was, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc., and other religious norms of public morality and cultic behaviour would be just as plausible in the face of the republic’s founding structures. This was never a threat when Christianity – either of true conversion or nominalism – was the default religion of American citizens.
But that is no longer the case. And because of that truth, the separation of Church and state assumes greater importance in protecting the freedom and fidelity of Christians to their own religious confessions and obedience.
Social/cultural conservatism has been blinded to this for generations – taking many steps backwards. And hence, now faces actual assaults on religious liberty from an invigorated leftist statism. The goal, then, seems to be Christian conservatives using the secular aspects of the republic like Federalism, to erect separations of power, protecting the minority status of Christian saints pilgrimaging as dual citizens in the overlap of ages.
I understand social issues are not defeating the Republican Party at the ballot box. That does not mean, however, that conservatives are prudent running rough shot over the constitution because we feel like it. Part of the GOP disconnect is American voters seeing a huge contradiction in a political party that pontificates on small government merrily, but defaults back to government-in-control when it comes to consensual social issues the constitution is indifferent, but make social conservatives uncomfortable.
How many Republicans and conservatives celebrated the victory of the 10th Amendment vocally on Tuesday, Nov. 6, in Colorado? I did not hear much of anything. I get it. Social conservatives don’t like marijuana smoking. Neither do I. But that is not the point, and, the 10th Amendment will come in handy the larger the pangs of statist encroachment continue unabated.
The Hispanic disconnect regarding fiscal classical liberalism is an obstacle. It will have to be overcome. And it will take time. Conservatives must go back to teaching classical liberalism and its riches, rather than running on watered down classically liberal policies every four years. It doesn’t work that way.
Classical liberalism is counter-intuitive, thus it must be retaught every generation.