More on social conservatism...

James Poulos is on the right track with this:

I’m running through this logic — though it isn’t very earthshattering or groundbreaking — because of one thing that does seem to get lost in the shuffle: moving in the direction I’ve insinuated doesn’t necessarily mean that "conservatives" should throw religion under the bus. The move I’m envisioning, in fact, is a twofer: more overtly religious talk outside of politics and more talk about other things inside it.

To me this cuts to the essential problem with social conservatism in general. With the rise of the Christian Coalition, Christianity and morality and all these other personal questions became very politicized. But they became politicized essentially to self-perpetuate. The social conservative movement has fought all sorts of obscure battles over things like the Ten Commandments being set outside courthouses; a long and bitter battle over abortion that has done little to find any semblance of compromise but rather has incensed partisanship; and now the futile gay marriage debate.

Social conservatives do need to take religion out of politics--for religion's sake if nothing else. Start showing, not just telling. Start pushing for smart social programs that encourage strong families. Push for stronger educational programs. Work to clean up cities and bolster infrastructure. Join the new urbanist movement and start working for cleaner, greener, and more walkable, neighborly towns. People can't have other people's values force fed to them, but they can wander into the idyllic situation to adopt those values. Safer, warmer towns will encourage community building. Stronger safety nets , incentives for stay-at-home parents, reasonable health care proposals--essentially actual compassionate conservatism--these will all do more to actually help your fellow man than simply trying to legislate your brand of morality.

This nation is founded on separation of Church and State to protect both institutions from one another. We do, however, have the Western tradition wound up pretty tight in our form of Government, and that includes many Christian ideals. It's high time social conservatives accepted this separation, and looked for creative ways to live their message, inspire others, and get rid of this partisan message that has begun to divide the GOP. No, they're not the only ones to blame for the split, but they're part of it.

What a mess

The Republican Party is in tatters. The coalition scrapped together by Reagan is dissolving, and many fingers are pointing. Some secularists blame the social conservatives for the ills of conservative movement, while social conservatives are themselves splintered. The Palin wing of the Party has attracted some social cons, but certainly not all of them. A new, more moderate social conservative movement is growing in America--perhaps we could call it the Party of Sam's Club, as Tim Pawlenty did years ago, and Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam echoed in the Weakly Standard.

In any case, fingers are pointing. They will continue to do so. Both Douthat and Dreher think that placing the blame on the social conservatives is foolish.

Douthat does have some criticism though:

No, social conservatives aren't the problem for the GOP. But they haven't been the solution, either: Too often, on matters ranging from the Iraq War to domestic policy, they've served as enablers of Republican folly, rather than as constructive critics. And calling Catholics who voted for Obama "mindless" and "stupid" is a poor substitute for building the sort of Republican Party that can attract the votes of those millions of Americans, Catholic and otherwise, who voted for the Democrats because they thought, not without reason, that George W. Bush was a disastrous president whose party should not be rewarded with a third term in the White House.

Good point. I'd say, exactly the point.

I would also like to add that there needs to be some self-examination infused into the populist wing of the GOP. I think the notion of Sam's Club Republicans does a good job to address this. I've read recently some pieces on Huckabee vs Palin, and how they're really not so different. People seem to think that basically because their politics are similar that the candidates themselves are somehow similar--or equal.

I would have to vehemently disagree. First of all, Huckabee was more experienced, certainly smarter or at least better spoken, but most importantly he was very, very likeable. He was the sort of person who, I believe, could have lead this nation as a whole despite political differences. He has some of Obama's charisma that can transcend political boundaries.

Palin does not, nor will she ever. Her tone from the beginning was acerbic and divisive--exactly what this country does not need. She did not come across as very wise, but rather very ambitious. Bobby Jindal, who vocally said he would not consider a VP slot and wanted to finish the job he started in Louisiana, exhibited wisdom. Palin...well, not so much.

So who will Social Conservatives support next time? As a group, will they exhibit wisdom? We shall see...