Murray and Marriage

At his CPAC presentation last week, hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Charles Murray definitely turned heads. I’m not sure that the famed political scientist’s speech, which I attended, amounted to an “impromptu admonition” of conservatives, as Jane Mayer at the New Yorker suggests, but it is true that Murray ditched his remarks on Coming Apart in favor of his thoughts on conservatism and the “social issues,” namely same-sex marriage and abortion. In sum, Murray advised that conservatives put same-sex marriage and abortion on the back-burner—that we seek “moral suasion” rather than criminalization. His argument was similar, though I would argue more nuanced, to Gov. Mitch Daniels’ infamous call for a conservative “truce” on social issues.

I am someone who closely aligns with Murray on the political spectrum. That is, I’m a moderate libertarian when it comes to public policy but fairly Burkean in my personal life and vision for the world. That said, I found Murray’s presentation to be cogent and frankly, as nicely phrased as a speech could be when it comes to complex and controversial political and moral issues that hit-home to a mostly socially-conservative audience (Murray ran a bit of a straw poll before he began his remarks).

I take traditional marriage and the immorality of abortion quite seriously. I take it that Murray does as well. Indeed, so does much of America. But the Republican Party’s absolutism on these issues can be alienating to people who are otherwise receptive to the message of liberty, free enterprise, and a good moral fabric. Conservatives should be seeking a rich and vibrant cultural reform. That means more civil-society, less Todd Akin. That means rethinking the kinds of candidates and campaigns conservatives choose to run, especially during primaries.

Murray used the example of his four children. With Murray as their dad, they are by no means socialists, he assured us. They are thoughtful, well-educated people. But they have never, ever voted for Republicans, on the grounds that the GOP is the house of religious fanatics. Now, certainly some (perhaps most) of the negative characterization of the Religious Right is due to our self-satisfied media, which goes hunting for radicalism and smears a lot of good traditional Christians in the process.

Nevertheless, I agree that Republicans need to reassess and reconsider their relationship with social-issues voters. By no means does that entail abandoning the traditionalists.  But in order to properly account for these voters—who, to be fair, have constituted a vital arm of the New Right—conservatives ought to advocate a robust return to federalism and a Buckley-styled “fusionism.” That means reestablishing “big tent” conservatives and welcoming libertarians, evangelicals, businesspeople, and American moderates back into the fold.

The Left long ago learned a neat little trick. Start debating abortion with a conservative, and soon you’re discussing the offensive technicalities of incest and rape. Regardless of his or her merits, the conservative begins to sound zealous and loony, while the progressive appears wise and nuanced–while smartly keeping silent on abortion-rates in the inner-city, Margaret Sanger, tax-payer subsidies to Planned Parenthood, etc. Such is the cable news sound-bite.

When asked, conservatives should, per Murray’s advice, respond that abortion is “manslaughter”—morally wrong, but with more exceptions and vagaries than coldblooded “murder.” Americans don’t want to be pro-manslaughter any more than  they wish to advocate murder. Indeed, statistics have long shown Americans moving to the right on abortion since the 1970’s. Smart conversation and civic engagement can continue this cultural shift—preferably at a local level, where these kinds of moral discussions actually take place.

After the 2012 defeat, there’s been a lot of talk of the GOP “rebranding.” In my view, there’s shallow rebranding (eg. expensive focus groups, slick marketing to minorities, etc.) and utilitarian rebranding (eg. abandoning social issues simply to get ahead in the electorate). And then there’s smart rebranding.

By smart rebranding, I mean still promoting marriage as what Murray calls “the most important cultural institution in society.” At the same time, we should seek  a committed return to federalism, where issues of marriage are better debated and defined. When it comes to child-rearing, I second Murray that we need to tread very carefully. As a society, we have to admit that we do not yet know the affects of same-sex parenting. The Burkean approach is to be cautious and respect marriage as an ancient and invaluable institution.

I’m not sure quite where the debate on these social issues will take us. As a conservative, I plan to hold fast to the “permanent things.” But as Burke said, “change is the means of our preservation.” Conservatives must exercise their influence to ensure that society’s change, if it must come, is prudent and wise.