I think one of the problems in this discussion is that people view conservative Evangelicals as a monolith. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wrote a piece on this last week that you might like...

http://lawnrangers.blogspot.com/2005/02/inside-religious-right.html

Preston hits the nail on the head: it's the libertarians who are arrogant and intolerant, not social conservatives. That condescending tone Sager takes won't win many converts.

But religion isn't the only thing that was driven underground after the Vietnam war. Pride in America, love of this country despite its shortcomings, admiration for those who serve in our armed forces -- these were also driven undergound in the 70s - 90s. And the reaction to that hostility - post 9/11 - was the support for the Swift Boat Vets that I wrote about here and here and, I suspect, the re-election of George Bush.

This is a Right Wing fantasy, Robin, as is the idea that "faith" has not always played a prominent role in public discourse.

I'm not sure you'd be able to justify these conclusions with any good solid evidence beyond anecdotes.

The only difference is that now people (or should I say Republican politicians) seem much more confident in thinking these twin beliefs can and should be used to justify unilateral action and supression of dissent.

But religion isn't the only thing that was driven underground after the Vietnam war.

I'm sorry. What was Martin Luther King's primary occupation? Didn't he have some kind of religious job? Didn't evangelicals help elect a Sunday-school teacher in 1976?

The thing that happened after Vietnam was the rise of the religious Right, merged in the Old Confederacy with lingering anger about civil rights. You may want to Google "Southern Strategy" and see what comes up.

Over the last 20 years, a corrosive ideology has basically driven faith underground.

That's simply a ludicrious statement to make. Faith underground in America?

The place is full of religion and piety, and few people are shy about it.

I guess im supposed to pretend we havent seen 20 years of tearing down Christian displays all over the country, and the attempt to take Christ out of christmas

I even remeber a clintonista attempting to fire an honor gaurd at a military cemetary because he dared make references to god after consulting the family

The acts are part of the historical record and they are legion.

Your protest that its been otherwise is absurd, Christians have been under attack for years, even reaching the Boy Scouts

Several points here.

First, re: religion in America. I'm familiar not only with the differences among evangelical Christians but also with the history of religion in the public life of the country for the last ~400 years. It was the latter to which I was referring and I should have been more clear about that.

The last few decades were unusual in our history in that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of some to drive a wedge between anything resembling public space, on the one hand, and expressions of religion on the other hand. Nativity scenes or carols in December are an example, but there are others that lend themselves less well to TV soundbites while having a significant impact on the content of much public discourse.

I'm not saying whether I think this was a good or a bad thing. I'm simply asserting that it occurred and that it produced a backlash, even among some who do not consider themselves evangelical.

As to displays of patriotism and a belief that, on the whole, the U.S. is a country to be proud of, it certainly is true that those sentiments are not confined to registered Republicans. It is also true that, to a significant degree, they were pressured (intellectually, socially and otherwise) out of the public discourse. And then came 9/11, which caused many people in the middle to value public displays of those beliefs.

I believe that that's one reason Bush won the last election. Many who belong to the Other party, or no party at all, felt a) that these were key values to them and b) that Bush represented those values much better than Kerry.

Yes, I'm aware of the Southern strategy. I'm also aware of Reagan Democrats because I grew up in a community in the northeast which was largely made up of them.

One last comment on this. What I'm saying is that the left has, by and large, rejected overt displays of patriotism and intellectual arguments that the U.S. is a principled and, on the whole, Good Thing in the world.

This is unfortunate at several levels, among them the fact that some in the religious right can understandably - but incorrectly IMO - come to the conclusion that the two things (evangelical Christianity and patriotism) are inherently and almost exclusively linked to one another.

I think it's important to decouple them in discussing the last election, while also recognizing that both were important factors for many voters.

Anyone that denies that there are efforts underway to push Christians out of the public sphere must be blind.

Here is a except from an article Joe linked the post above.

The third event that put me deep into the "Religious Right" was a strange little episode my senior year in high school. To make a long story short, I was involved in a group called Fellowship of Christian Athletes. My brother and one of my best friends were suspended from school and I was threatened with expulsion for "possession of Christian material" at school. I know this sounds ridiculous, but those are the exact words that the assistant principal at my school wrote on the discipline note.

I'm pretty much a heathen, but this is so obviously wrong.

Lets seperate a few things here: first of all big L libertarians and small l. Big L liberatarians are often hostile to Christians, that is true, but they are not in the republican tent to begin with, so that is a moot point. We are talking about small l libertarians that are the swing segment of the GOP. I consider myself one, and we are absolutely not hostile to Christianity, and generally agree that attacks on evangelicals are overhyped and unfair.

That being said, we have substantial policy differences that have nothing to do with Christmas carols:
-Gay marriage: I happen to believe marriage should be viewed by the government exactly like any other legal contract, let religious groups and communities apply any other value to it as they see fit. Trust me, this issue helped the GOP last year, but it cuts both ways. An amendment proposal would be a disaster for the party.
-War on Drugs: Waste of Time and (worse) Resources.
-Creationism: philosophy, not science
-Abortion: surprisingly this is the least of the issues that worry me. I think conservatives should learn a lesson in how pro-lifers have evolved their fight. They have gone out and won hearts and minds while pro-choicers man the barricades and fire bomb all compromise. This is how 'social' issues should be approached.

Mark Buehner wrote:

Lets separate a few things here: first of all big L libertarians and small l. Big L libertarians are often hostile to Christians, that is true, but they are not in the republican tent to begin with, so that is a moot point. We are talking about small l libertarians that are the swing segment of the GOP. I consider myself one, and we are absolutely not hostile to Christianity, and generally agree that attacks on evangelicals are overhyped and unfair.

I agree with this largely but I would like to add that there is nothing mutually exclusive about being a social conservative and a libertarian nor for that matter (as WFB Jr made this point so eloquently in the “The Jeweler’s Mote”) is there any requirement that one must believe in God to be a conservative. However one cannot be a conservative and “hate God” which is something entirely different than being an atheist.

I don’t agree with the common perception that the beef small “l” libertarians within the GOP have is so much with social conservatives as it is with the explosion in spending and growth of government. Typically I’ve found that social conservatives are more likely than social liberals to be have common cause with small “l” libertarians against growing government in areas where it does not have a constitutional role. There are certainly exceptions are people are imperfect and politics does involve horse trading but my experience has been that there are far more “fiscally conservative-socially conservative” than “fiscally conservative-socially liberal” types out there.

Moreover there are a lot of libertarians who have common cause with social conservatives and not just on fiscal issues. The RTKBA, support for school choice, and opposition to racial preferences and setasides are three very important issues within the GOP where social conservatives and libertarians are very much in agreement. There are libertarians such as myself who oppose the War on Some Drugs but support executing murders. Many libertarians are pro-life on abortion, favor legal immigration but recognize that “open borders” is simply an utterly stupid idea, and regardless of our thoughts on gays, are unabashedly opposed to unelected judges making radical shifts in public policy. Even on areas where libertarians and conservatives (not just social conservatives) might disagree, we generally both support federalism (although it isn’t practiced as well as we might like) and returning a lot of issues that have been usurped by the federal government to the States probably resolves about 90 percent of our disagreements.

Just my $0.03.

[Edit] that should be "support executing murderers."

Here's an example of the kind of thing that makes my libertarian skin crawl:

"Kansas attorney general seeking records of women who had late-term abortions

WICHITA, Kan. The attorney general of Kansas wants to know the detailed history of the sex lives of nearly 90 women who received late-term abortions.

Court documents show that Phill Kline wants to search the documents for evidence of crimes under laws that limit late-term abortions and require mandatory reporting of suspected child sexual abuse."

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2992479

Mark,

I'm a social conservative who's not an evangelical Christian. I come at it more from a Catholic communitarian viewpoint. As such, I have profound misgivings about libertarianism regardless of capitalization. But FWIW my reaction to your list of issues may say something about the relationship of social conservatives to libertarians:

--Gay Marriage. Disagree vehemently. Marriage is not (actually nowadays it is, but it shouldn't be) just another legal contract. It is (or should be) a sacred commitment and the center of family life. The view of marriage as just another contract, as easily exited as entered, has in my view caused more pain, dislocation, and social disorder than any other single factor. And for better or worse, legalizing what most Americans (full disclosure: including me) consider a J. Fred Muggs parody of marriage can only make the problem worse. Gay marriage is also an issue that simply cannot be left up to the states. What, for example, if Todd and Bruce get married in MA, Todd catches Bruce screwing around on him. So in anger, Todd moves to Alabama where gay marriage isn't recognized so he doesn't have to split his assets with Bruce. Or T. and B. have adopted a child. B. catches T. screwing around on him. B. moves to Mississippi where he doesn't have to allow T. visitation rights because MS doesn't recognize gay marriage. You see the problem?

--War on Drugs. Also disagree. "War on Drugs" is amittedly an idiotic expression; I prefer to call it drug prohibition. I'm firmly convinced that the cost of the spike in drug use, addiction, and the consequences thereof attendant on legalization of drugs would be far more costly in terms of money and wasted lives than the current policy.

--Creationism. Absolutely agree. Bad science and worse theology. Nothing in Darwin's theory precludes belief in God. Richard Dawkins may be right that Darwin makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but Darwin doesn't make it necessary.

--Abortion. I confess to the sin of despair regarding abortion. It's just to damned convenient for too many people. The best we can do here is not engage in it ourselves, try to teach our children how evil it is, and hope they don't engage in it.

Don't know if that clarifies anything, but I hope so.

"As such, I have profound misgivings about libertarianism regardless of capitalization"

Which I respect, yet i disagree with. Its just important to note that there are profound and honest disagreements that could cause deep trouble for the party if either side pushes to hard.

"--Gay Marriage. Disagree vehemently. Marriage is not (actually nowadays it is, but it shouldn't be) just another legal contract. It is (or should be) a sacred commitment and the center of family life."

Government should not be involved in discriminating what is sacred imo. Going down that road is highly problematic to a libertarian. Sunday is sacred, should church attendence be manditory? How does that differ from forcing a certain holiness to this particular contract?

"The view of marriage as just another contract, as easily exited as entered, has in my view caused more pain, dislocation, and social disorder than any other single factor."

Then do you advocate making divorce illegal or almost impossible? Why or why not? Is that any more or less pressing of an issue than gay marriage which will affect 5% of the population, as opposed to the 50% of hetero marriages that end in divorce? I respect your opinion, but its a tough sell to the American people, which is why i think such opinions are out of step with the mainstream. If marriage was so sacred 50% of them wouldnt get trashed.

"I'm firmly convinced that the cost of the spike in drug use, addiction, and the consequences thereof attendant on legalization of drugs would be far more costly in terms of money and wasted lives than the current policy."

Its a good debate. The counterargument relies mainly on realizing the sheer scope of resources devoted to the drug war. The billions are many orders of magnitude higher than we now spend on treatment and prevention, which empirically are more effective than interdiction, which has simply failed. I am where i sit 15 minutes from having any drug i choose at a price no different than it was 25 years ago. That is abject failure.

"--Abortion... The best we can do here is not engage in it ourselves, try to teach our children how evil it is, and hope they don't engage in it."

Im more hopeful. I think the winds are blowing against abortion, people are indeed choosing life more and more. 95% of Americans can agree that making abortion rare is our best option for the moment.

Saw this, too:

"Under the order signed by a judge, the attorney general would get records that would include each patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.

The Wichita Eagle says two medical clinics have asked the Kansas Supreme Court to intercede."

I imagine the argument will turn on whether the procedures in question were illegal. If they weren't illegal at the time, I hope the Supreme Court tells the state to f-- off. The state should not be ceawling around in one's medical records just becuase it feels like it, and the potential for abuse is obvious.

Even if the procedures were illegal at the time, I fail to see the relevance of most of the evidence requested here. It might be useful for social studies purposes, but using the power of the state to gather it is out line.

Even social conservatives might well wonder what purpose is being served here. How, exactly, does this defend life as they understand it? If this information isn't necessary to enforce the laws they support, is this kind of harassment an abrogation of the qualities of justice and the Golden Rule? Would they be comfortable with a liberal state that could troll through their medical records on flimsy pretexts, perhaps as part of investigations into home schooling?

Put that way, I suspect there might be more debate around this issue than most people would think. Of course, part of the process of igniting that debate is having the ability to speak to social conservatives with arguments that come from thewir own values. And that, of course, requires a certain degree of understanding and empathy for the various strands of religious movements and their political roles.

The Democrats remain largely tone-deaf on those matters, much as the Republican Party remains largely tone-deaf when it comes to the black community. Robin's meta-point is that it would be a great loss if libertarian conservatives mimiced that tone deafness, and it's a good one.

Religious conservatives have good and justifiable reason to fear the state, and worry about arbitrary uses of its power. Libertarian-leaning conservatives who can step into the social conservatives' world won't always find agreement - but their efforts will be rewarded with an ability to find overlooked allies. Allies who may not have realized their own commonality of interest if not for a sympathetic interlocutor.

It's a process that's likely to change both wings of the right over time. Over the past 20 years, I'veseen the libertarian right become more receptive to arguments about the importance of the values that underpin the endurance of their freedoms. I've also seen quite a few social conservative (here's one) become more conscous of the importance of the freedoms that underpin the endurance of their values.

Thus endureth the Big Tent, and the Governing Majority.

Mark,

If all disgreements between us conservatives are as respectful and gracious as your last comment, we're in pretty good shape. I agree that the government should not be in the business of declaring things sacred, but marriage is so central to society and its breakdown so inextricably entwined with so many social problems that it's a special case. The state has a clear interest in protecting it. So while I wouldn't outlaw divorce, I do believe no-fault divorce is a bad idea, at least if children are involved. In such cases, I believe divorce should only be granted when infidelity or criminal abuse can be proved. That, however, is another issue on which I must confess to the sin of despair.

As for spending more on drug treatment and prevention than on interdiction, I would simply pose this question: What would be more likely to deter you from using cocaine? Coke costs $100 a gram, is physically dangerous to buy and especially to sell, can cost you your freedom to buy and especially to sell, and it carries the stigma of illegality or Coke costs about $50 an ounce; there are absolutely no legal consequences for buying, selling or possessing it, and it's sold at the Wal-Mart pharmacy, but you've been educated about how dangerous cocaine use is? One problem I have with libertarianism is that it tends to give people way too much credit. Also, treatment is great, but as I constantly tell my son, the best way to quit is not to start. The above mentioned consequences of cocaine use prevent many from ever needing treatment.

I sincerely hope you're right about abortion.

Even with these disagreements, though, I think you and I have a lot of common ground, and we would certainly agree with each other more than we would with "progressives."

My position is what you might call libertarian right. I am not a believer but I tend to look favorably on religion. I had better, my wife of 20 years is Evangelical Christian. :-) I understand that the freedoms that were incorporated in our constitution have a significant foundation in Christianity. I wonder if those freedoms can be maintained as well in a completely secular society.

There is a lot of cooperation between libertarians, even Libertarians, and Christians. Many of those involved in starting the Free State Project, which is often seen as a libertarian "movement" were Christian. I have been at numerous gatherings that consisted of Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc all working towards the goal of greater individual liberty. We occasionally discuss religion but more often discuss how to achieve our common goals.

Some libertarians are jerks but, in my experience, not most of them.

"Some libertarians are jerks but, in my experience, not most of them"

Unfortunately the ones that are run the L party. What a waste. But good for the GOP ultimately.