Donald Trump

Two Kinds of Social Conservatism

Whether Donald Trump is "socially conservative" depends on what sort of social conservatism you mean.

|

What a Moloch moment.
Twitter

This morning Donald Trump met in Manhattan with hundreds of conservative Christians. The Washington Post reports that the group was not entirely united. His speech received a standing ovation, and some prominent attendees have embraced the TV star's presidential campaign; but others present have denounced him with words like "a candidate whose worldview is greed and whose god is his appetites." One participant, radio host Eric Metaxas, told the Post he just wants Trump to understand that "he has to take seriously that constituency, people who are social conservatives."

Which raises a question: Just what exactly is a social conservative anyway? It is widely understood (though perhaps not widely enough) that "socially liberal" can mean anything from live-and-let-live tolerance to an intrusive effort to regulate people's unhealthy habits. Maybe "socially conservative" can be unpacked a bit too. Maybe a phenomenon like Trump, a man sometimes described as a right-wing extremist and sometimes as a social moderate, requires us to unpack it.

As it happens, NBC just published a long and thorough look at Trump's supporters and their worldviews. Two passages seem particularly relevant to this question. Here's one:

Trump's support also challenged assumptions about Republican views on social issues. Research by the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics suggests Trump's voters tended to be more supportive of abortion rights than other Republicans at a time when many Republican politicians have moved further to the right on that issue. An NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll of 1,007 registered voters who support Trump in late February found that 45 percent of respondents identified as "pro-choice."

The article goes on to note that while Trump has done well with self-described evangelical Christians, this advantage disappears when you look specifically at evangelicals who attend church every week. All this supports the idea of Trump as a social moderate.

But then there's the other passage:

The RAND PEPS surveys in December/January and in March that found Trump supporters to be more economically liberal than other Republicans also found that they were more likely to show signs of resentment toward minorities and immigrants based on questions designed to measure these qualities. Trump also did better with voters who showed stronger signs of white ethnocentrism, a trait based on how favorably respondents rated whites relative to other racial and ethnic groups….

Pew Research conducted an online survey in April and May that produced similar results. Republican respondents who believed immigrants threaten American values rather than strengthen society, that Islam was more likely to encourage violence than other religions, and that America's trend toward majority-minority status was bad for the country, were much more likely to have warm feelings for Trump in comparison to other Republican voters.

If you want to stave off a "majority-minority" America, and especially if you want to do this because you think it threatens your culture's values, then you are trying to conserve central elements of your society. You are, in the most literal sense of the phrase, being socially conservative. But this is a conceptually different sort of social conservatism than the pro-lifers were espousing. Evangelicals, by definition, want to convert people; this second sort of so-con is afraid his community will be converted into something else. Those impulses certainly can go hand in hand, but they don't have to.

Some of the Christians who listened to Trump today won't have much trouble supporting his campaign. Others either will refuse to back him or will fall in line only because they think Hillary Clinton is worse. Which path they take will have a lot to do with whether they mix that second type of social conservatism with the first.

NEXT: 2016 Bastiat Prize for Journalism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Way to light the Eddie signal. Sheesh.

    1. That’s the one that’s grail-shaped, right?

  2. Nothing says family values like Donald Trump.

    1. Or ripping apart “illegal” parents from their children (or forcing the deported parents to take their American child back with them to whatever hellhole they’re deported to). Or generally deporting someone back to a shitty place like Venezuela. Or not allowing someone here in America to provide sanctuary for a family member/relative feeling a war-torn area “because Muslims” (and/or “Arabs”) and so on.

      What you realize about the SoCons once you’ve followed them long enough is that they don’t give a shit about “family values.” Just look at Rush Limbaugh: married four times, has bragged about not having any children, caught with illegal prescription drugs while celebrating the War on Drugs, cigar aficionado, generally represents the proggie stereotypes of “greedy, gluttonous rich Republican,” etc.

      1. *fleeing a war-torn area

      2. cigar aficionado

        OMG. *faints*

        1. And sometimes, a cigar is not just a cigar.

        2. Comrade Eastwoodchipper is appalled that people can make potentially unhealthy choices

    2. He likes families so much that he has had several of them

      1. For campaign trail appetizers, apparently.

  3. Just what exactly is a social conservative anyway?

    A person who wants a Judeo-Christian society. It is that simple.

    1. And what exactly is a Judeo-Christian society?

      1. A person who believes the founders of this country highly valued the Judeo-Christian way of thought.

        1. Somehow I suspect there’s some sort of expectation of policy enaction, too.

          1. I am sure. I have no idea what it means, Tonio, and I am certain the people who constantly talk about Judeo-Christian values have no idea what it means, either.

            1. Jesus saves.

              Moses invests.

              1. Jesus saves.

                Moses invests.

                Mohammed steals.

      2. You have to look at the history of the term. In it’s current usage, that dates back to the the late 1930s, when the Jewish roots of Christianity were deliberately stressed as a way to fight against growing antisemitism in America.

        With that in mind, it becomes clear that any “Judeo-Christian” values or society will be largely divorced from actual theology, and instead be based on the politics of the speaker/writer. And as it is largely based on politics, it is just as malleable as you would expect any political concept to be, and can be tortured into any shape.

    2. I was going to go with a murderous bigoted white person with chromosomal deficiencies arising from decades of inbreeding.

      /no cosmo

      1. WHER MUH CROHRMOSMSMS GON

    3. I think a difference should be struck between those who want (or think that it is desirable to have) a society founded on Judeo-Christian values and morals and those willing to force that vision on everyone else. The former can be fine fellow Americans; the latter are utter scum.

      1. As a Christian… I must agree with this sooooo much.

  4. Jesse,

    It is just revealed preference versus stated preference. Since social conservatives have generally voted Republican people have gotten this idea that they buy everything the GOP is selling. That is not true at all. Your opinion about abortion or gay marriage or porn says nothing about your opinion about social security or trade or anything else. Social conservatives have always had a wide range of views on those kinds of topics.

    So when someone came along who didn’t sing the GOP tune on these issues, it makes perfect sense they would attract a few or even many SOCON votes.

  5. Socially conservative used to mean being against abortion, being against gay marriage, and used to encompass other things like not having sex before marriage, church attendance, abstaining from alcohol, not getting divorced, women devoting themselves to their families, opposing salacious material in the media, etc.

    Now socially conservative just means whatever the fuck John wants it to mean.

    1. abstaining from alcohol

      That’s only a Baptist thing. Jews have no trouble with booze. Nor do Catholics. Nor do Lutherans.

      1. #NotAllBaptists

        …not even most of the ones i’ve known.

        1. Sorry, should have written Southern Baptist Convention (white) / National Baptist Convention (black) which are the predominant types where I live.

      2. Protestants don’t think of Jews or Catholics as being socially conservative for that reason among others.

        And I don’t think most Catholics would self-identify as socially conservative, even if they share some of the same religious points (on abortion) and motivations.

    2. No Ken, it means anyone who deviates from whatever the latest Prog social cause is. in the future everyone will be a social conservative for 15 minutes.

      Beyond that, it never meant anything regarding economics or taxes. And one claiming to be a SOCON said nothing about their views on those subjects.

      1. Here’s the thing.

        When notable SoCons like Ted Cruz spend months passionately arguing in favor of religious liberty for Christians one moment, but then stay mostly silent when Trump calls for his (temporary!) Muslim ban, it begins to look like a concern for Judeo-Christian values first and foremost, and every other set of religious freedom coming after that.

        1. Well, one can argue that Judeo-Christian values ought to be promoted above others, since Judeo-Christian values produced places like the US and Europe, while, say, Muslim values produced ISIS. I don’t agree with this argument but I can see why someone might make it.

          It certainly isn’t the libertarian position on religious liberty, of course.

        2. I think that just goes to show that social conservatism might be different for other people than it seems to you.

          Nobody said social conservatives were libertarians who were all about making sure the First Amendment applies equally to everyone.

          Maybe they’re more about defending traditional values–some of which they care about more than others.

          1. True.

            I’m just saying that, from a political perspective anyway, it didn’t help Cruz to stand by mostly silent because it let the usual proggies call him a Christian theocrat.

            1. It won’t help you in the general election.

              If you’re gunning for the Republican nomination in closed primaries, it might.

        3. Here is the thing,

          When Muslims engage in an act of mass murder every year or so for the last 15 years running, people tend to not particularly give a shit about foreign Muslims’ right to immigrate to this country.

          Banning Muslims from immigrating only relates to “religious freedom” if you think every person in the world has some automatic right to come here. And if you think Muslim values and Sharia law is superior to the Judeo Christian kind, I wish you luck with that.

          1. Muslims also represent a fundamental threat to our traditional ways of doing things and thinking about things–with their own laws and customs that don’t encompass Christianity.

            Social conservatives are about baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

            They’re not about hummus and Ramadan.

            There’s a lot more to social conservatism than just points of doctrine. They’re not reading from the King James Version like my granddaddy did.

            Social conservatives might not be entirely inviting to Mormons for the same reason. Maybe not Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Seventh-Day Adventists either. Why would they be especially receptive to Muslims?

            That isn’t traditional values. At least the Jehovah’s Witnesses eat apple pie.

            1. I don’t know Ken, how do Christians fair in majority Muslim countries? Do you really think this whole thing is about baseball in hummus? Are you that fucking dense?

              You can on occasion say smart things. But then sometimes you say the most appalling shit. You honestly think that people objecting to Muslims is all about food preference and not about Muslims having a bad habit of wiping out any other culture they come into contact with?

              1. Suggesting that social conservatism is about more than just points of doctrine sets you into orbit, why?

                1. No suggesting that Muslims immigration could only be a problem because of baseball and food sets me in orbit because it is completely retarded Ken. How can you be that stupid?

                  1. “No suggesting that Muslims immigration could only be a problem because of baseball and food sets”

                    It was just one example of a cultural difference. I assumed you were smart enough not to think baseball was the only reason some social conservative might oppose Muslim immigration.

                    The point is that social conservatism is about more than just where someone stands on abortion and gay marriage.

                    Yeah, social conservatives are trying to preserve their traditional way of life–and there’s more to it than just abortion and gay marriage. Meanwhile, Muslims do not represent what social conservative see as that traditional way of life–for all sorts of reasons. Hummus and Ramadan rather than pumpkin pie and Christmas being examples of cultural differences.

                    That cultural differences might be interpreted by social conservatives as a threat to their traditional way of life really shouldn’t be controversial.

                    Just because you don’t understand what other people are saying doesn’t mean other people are stupid.

            2. I like hummus, but it gives me gas.

              1. I’m allergic to the stuff.

                The molecules are practically indistinguishable from soy, peanuts, and peas.

                Legumes are an accursed weed.

            3. Social conservatives are about baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

              They’re not about hummus and Ramadan.

              wow

              1. Well, social conservatives don’t object to Muslims because they’re on the wrong side of abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc.

                They’re going to take over and make our women wear burkas!

                Yeah, you’ll hear that, but for social conservatives, burkas are mostly horrifying because of the idea that someone foreign is going to dictate their traditional way of life away. It’s a symbol of that. The idea of forcing women to dress conservatively in public isn’t entirely offensive to social conservatives all by itself.

                I went to a boarding school where the girls had to wear dresses that came down below the knee, went up near the neck, etc. I had to wear a jacket and tie. Come to think of it, they made guys and girls sit on opposite sides of the chapel during services. We had to get down on our knees and pray every day, too. Dancing was against the rules. It was kind of like being a Muslim in some ways–only stricter.

                1. OTOH, Catholic school uniforms have girls wearing skirts ending well above the knees even during seriously cold weather.

                2. Well, social conservatives don’t object to Muslims because they’re on the wrong side of abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc.

                  Social conservatives object to Muslims because when Muslims say you’re on the wrong side of an issue they have this tendency to correct you by lopping off your head–or by being quietly supportive of those who would.

                  Don’t you get that?

                  I note that you went to ‘boarding school’–not Catholic school. Not any type of religious school. People who went to religious schools let you know.

                  So why do you use it as an example? Because you needed something–anything to indict non-muslims and you decided that your posh boarding school was just the thing? Who fucking cares what your boarding school did? In Catholic School, the boys and girls intermingle–and the girls wear short skirts.

                  So it’s not like being a Muslim at all.

            4. Hummus is that yellow pasty shit that hipsters keep trying to get me to eat, isn’t it? Fuck that noise.

              -jcr

          2. Banning Muslims from immigrating only relates to “religious freedom” if you think every person in the world has some automatic right to come here.

            I do.

            To me, America is a universal land of freedom, the ultimate sanctuary for liberty. Statue of Liberty kind of makes that point, no?

            1. Most people don’t. And you don’t believe in America as anything other than a spot on the map. If it can’t control its borders, it is not a country. You are a trans-nationalist and you reject any form of collective sovereignty.

            2. But Islam is more than a religion, it’s also a political system. They don’t believe in the separation of church and state. Right now the US Muslim population is too small to do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean that won’t change over a long enough period of time.

              1. “They don’t believe in the separation of church and state. “

                If you don’t think they should be free to believe what they want to believe or if you think our government should do something about what they believe, then you don’t believe in the separation of church and state either.

                1. “They don’t believe in the separation of church and state. “

                  If you don’t think they should be free to believe what they want to believe or if you think our government should do something about what they believe, then you don’t believe in the separation of church and state either.

                  Why? Why does noting that Muslims believe in absolute religious control of the state
                  and seeing that as a bad thing mean that one does not believe in the separation of church and state? How the fuck does that work, Ken?

                  He wasn’t invoking a god–he was noting that basic Muslim precepts are diametrically opposed to the basic founding precepts of the U S. No gods need apply.

                  How does thinking that our government and citizenry should take action to prevent the overthrow of it’s founding precepts violate those precepts, Ken?

                  You go to great lengths to rationalize for the sake of Islam.

              2. What Muslims make some social conservatives do is hilarious.

                I’ve never seen so many social conservatives worried about the way gay people are treated since the Orlando Massacre. And it’s not just here in the U.S., you know, they’re worried about the way gay people are being treated elsewhere in the world!

                Now the people who don’t want abortion for religious reasons, want prayer in public schools, want intelligent design taught in public schools, etc., they’re all worried about the Muslims because the Muslims don’t believe in the separation of church and state?

                LOL

                The primary concern of social conservatives is not the First Amendment and its equal application. Instead of saying silly things, why can’t we just agree on that?

                1. I’ve always seen very conservative Christians (including Southern Baptists) care for not harming the sinner, but educating them away from sin, and towards religion. My uncle is a very conservative Christian, who was for involvement in Iraq specifically because the small Christian minorities were under threat by terrorists and supposedly, Saddam. He is also concerned that killing gays for their sins doesn’t allow them the opportunity for redemption, and to be saved. He is also vehemently against gay marriage, and the way Democrats encourage minority immigrant groups to stay segregated and not assimilate into U.S. culture.

            3. To me, America is a universal land of freedom, the ultimate sanctuary for liberty. Statue of Liberty kind of makes that point, no?

              We have to fight tooth and nail to get the plain text reading of the BOR to stick to pretty much anything but a statue made by a Frenchman some 100 yrs. after the revolution (that we had to stick somewhere) is a living, breathing testament to our national ethos.

              If the commerce clause weren’t the commerce clause that it is, this wouldn’t be an issue. No gun statues virtually anywhere in the country and various religious rigmarole is routinely removed from ‘no religion zones’ surrounding even the most miniscule public gathering place.

              Can you imagine if someone filed a motion to have the Statue of Liberty taken down?

              1. Pagan goddess.

                Thou shalt not make any graven images.

            4. So the ultimate sanctuary for liberty includes the NSA and the war on drugs?

            5. http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib77.html includes that man has the right “to move as he will on the face of the earth.”

              1. Also “to dwell where he will”.

          3. The first amendment isn’t just religious freedom. It also says that the government can’t make laws that treat one religion differently from another (or at least I find that to be a reasonable reading of the establishment clause).

        4. A Christian social conservative would try to conserve a Christian based society? *Shocker* But that doesn’t mean they support using the full force of the government to force their views.

          To John’s point, (I think) SoCon is really kind of a bad label; what we’re really talking about are statists who want to use the power of the State to force others to kowtow to their social mores.

          And those assholes exist across the entire political spectrum. The gay marriage ‘movement’ was chock full of this kind of sentiment. But ‘Socon’ has become a dog-whistle to rally certain people to the ramparts, just like gun control and abortion.

      2. Yes, but social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives. At least to greater extent than social liberals tend to be. Especially when you separate what they say they believe versus what they will actually strive to accomplish.

        1. I’m on board with that.

          There are certain traditional values I find highly attractive that social conservatives cultivate and protect, and one of them is the Protestant work ethic.

        2. P.S. Separation of Church and State is a Protestant thing, but don’t tell the atheists.

          It makes them mad.

          1. And it came about largely because the Stuart kings of England were such dicks about religion, and the German Protestant population of Pennsylvania agreed with the radicals in Rhode Island that the state should have no say in a state religion.

            1. The First Amendment largely follows the outlines of the Peace of Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Years War.

              The man who wrote the First Amendment credited Luther with “showing us the way”.

              It flows from two kingdoms doctrine.

              It’s a point of Protestant doctrine.

              Anybody who likes the First Amendment should thank a Protestant.

  6. One participant, radio host Eric Metaxas, told the Post he just wants Trump to understand that “he has to take seriously that constituency, people who are social conservatives.”

    It sounds like Eric’s ship has sailed, but he’s just in denial about that. If they were still that much of a force they’d have managed to get someone they like nominated*, as they have since Reagan. But the fact that they didn’t tells me they’re done. Buh, bye, Felicia.

    (*)Duly noted that Trump has not yet been formally nominated, but his nomination seems inevitable.

    1. I’m not sure they’ve gotten anyone they’ve liked nominated since Bush II, Round 1. McCain and Romney seemed like candidates where they just had to grin and bear it.

      1. McCain wasn’t religious enough for them. Romney was, but he is Mormon which many of them are still uncomfortable with – as well as much of secular Armerica.

        1. That’s what I was getting at. My phrasing had the awkward.

    2. Did you mean “haven’t” since Reagan?

      If so, I think they did support Bush in 2000, though that’s a bit of an exception because he was the standard establishment choice in 2000. Every time the evangelicals and SoCons preferred a candidate that wasn’t who the establishment wanted, they lost (though I guess this year their guy did beat all the establishment candidates, while losing to an outsider).

      1. “Who is your favorite philosopher?”

        “Jesus Christ.”

        Bush pandered like whoa.

        1. Sermon on the Mount was one heck of a philosophical masterpiece.

          But, yeah, Bush was pandering.

          1. And the King James version is a literary masterpiece.

      2. Did you mean “haven’t” since Reagan?

        Yes. Thanks for catching that.

    3. Speaking of Erics, what’s DONDERRROOOOOOOOOOO’s take?

      1. Considering Dondero’s stance seems to be to back the least libertarian candidate possible, I assume he’s a BernieBro.

        1. Unpossible, he’s the Onliest True Libertarian! He says so hisself!

          1. 1-555-EAT-SHIT. That’s my real phone number. Call me up and say that to my phone face, tough guy!

            1. Is Warty still trolling him on Twitter? I can’t be bothered to look him up to find out.

              1. Oh hey, but GILMORE? can!

                |
                |
                |
                v

            2. I thought that was….

              ….who was the fecally-obsessed troll we had, who would say one thing, and if anyone dared respond, they’d go off on an endless “up your pooper” rant? I thought they’d trademarked the “1800-EAT-SHIT” retort

              1. Oh, man. I remember that handle. I keep thing “Plopper” but he was the pedophile.

                1. But, yeah. I just didn’t want to put up a dialable phone number. I’m mean, but not that mean.

                2. I keep thin[king] “Plopper” but he was the pedophile.

                  That was also the first thought i had. It was something that sounded like that? whatever. it was a horrible thing.

                  I think 2016 so far seems comparatively horrible-troll-free. (*assuming people screen out the usual suspects)

                  1. I think I’ve got your guy:

                    On The Road To Mandalay|1.11.14 @ 1:04PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                    Sevo,

                    My daddy is deceased. Quick question. Are you an abortion or afterbirth who lived? Just curious. With that said I guess you will just have to eat some of my stupid shit. Call 1 800 EAT SHIT, and one of my trained operators will instruct you in how to do that. In the meantime you can get ready to hide some of your money by inserting it in your rectum. Can you do all this? Have a nice day Anal Breath.

                    1. “At some points in my childhood I was so tormented by the guilt that I tortured animals a few times and had exhibited some other very screwed up behavior. (This is one of the reasons why I am against animal cruelty laws….)”

                      Get the fuck out of here! The guy who tortures animals is against animal cruelty laws????

                    2. “Don’t forget, I am very obsessive. I will hunt you down in other threads and bug you over and over unless you can point out specific examples and actually attempt to engage me in honest debate.”

                      I’m still here, but I haven’t heard from you in a long while, dear.

                    3. I remember him… That was a name change, though. Now imma struggle to remember his earlier handle.

      2. I presume he was all about Rubio.

        Let’s look at his twitters!

        He’s asking tough questions =

        Eric Dondero R. ?@DonderolibtR Jun 19

        Who’s the REAL Libertarian, Gary Johnson or Trump? Johnson – Pot, tolerate Islam; Trump get rid of regs on business, Abolish Dodd-Frank

        oh, and i was correct about my first guess


        Eric Dondero R.
        ?@DonderolibtR

        BREAKING… It’s official. Marco Rubio is running for reelection for his Senate seat. #Trump supporters for Marco!!

        1. I like how he sends out six variations of the same tweet. It makes him look totally emotionally stable.

    4. “If they were still that much of a force they’d have managed to get someone they like nominated*, as they [haven’t] since Reagan”

      They lined up behind Reagan–maybe for the reason that Reagan was one of the trinity hated by hippies going back to when he was the governor of California and made Berkeley students start paying tuition.

      If the hippies hated him, they figured, then he must be one of us. But he wasn’t. Reagan never even threw them a bone.

      The closest the social conservatives ever got to the White House was when Bush Jr. was elected. His push to replace the welfare state with charities had a lot of support from social conservatives. That whole presidency just got completely derailed by terrorism.

      1. But there was the Meese Commission. Maybe not a big bone, but sumpin’.

  7. Yeah, that is basically it.

    Trump supporters think that importing Mexicans will turn this country into Venezuela.

    1. And given the experience in California, they are clearly just crazy bigots imagining things.

      1. It doesn’t take Mexicans to turn California into a prog hellhole. It takes people voting for progs.

        Tell me this, John, what determines whether someone will vote prog or not? Skin color?

        1. Since progs get 90% of the black vote and 75% or so of the Latin Vote, there is a pretty strong correlation. Moreover, with the exception of Chile, which was saved from socialism by a military coup and maybe one or two other places, nearly all of Latin America is leftist and certainly more leftist than we would ever want the US to be.

          Is that by accident or do the preferences of the people who live there have something to do with it?

          1. Dubya actually did well with Hispanics in ’04 and the GOP makes virtually no outreach to the black community, so it isn’t shocking that the GOP nominee consistently fails to receive black voter support.

            Maybe if Rand Paul were the GOP nominee that would have changed.

          2. Are you going to argue that skin color causes a belief in progressivism?

            If not, and I hope you are not, then perhaps there is a reason other than skin color that minorities tend to vote for progs over conservatives. Could it be because progs don’t threaten every 10 minutes to deport them and their grandmas? Could it be because progs pander to their racial identity? I don’t suggest that conservative or libertarian candidates start engaging in the racial identity politics, but I do think it behooves all candidates to start treating everyone like human beings, and not like vile trespassing invader scum who ought to be tossed out on a rail.

            I think Latin American countries tend to be more leftist because most are dirt poor and so are easy prey for the alluring Marxist message of “the rich people are screwing us over”. Prosperity tends to make people more conservative, or at least less statist (up to a point – the super-rich turn into prog assholes who are embarrassed by their wealth, of course).

            1. No. I am going to argue that culture has something to do with belief in progressive.

              Prosperity tends to make people more conservative, or at least less statist (up to a point – the super-rich turn into prog assholes who are embarrassed by their wealth, of course).

              Bullshit. Venezuela wasn’t a poor country before Chavez got his fangs into it. Chile wasn’t when the communists nearly took it over. Cuba wasn’t when Castro took over. The poorest countries in Latin America are Hondurans and El Salvador and both of those countries fought the communists and gave more blood stopping them than the US ever did.

              Socialism is a disease of the stupid upper classes mostly. But once it gets lose, the mentality that created it and it creates in the people it victimizes doesn’t magically disappear when someone crosses a border.

              Make the country more Hispanic, it will be less free and less like it is and was. It is just the way it is. That doesn’t mean we should not allow mass immigration. It just means we know what will happen when we do.

              1. Look at this chart, John:

                http://www.marketplace.org/201…..and-income

                Basically, it shows that the super-poor are about 1/3 liberal, and once income rises, the proportion that are liberal drops to the mid- to upper-20’s range, and then once income rises very high, it increases again to 30+% range. So, no, John, you are incorrect. The more prosperous you are, the less likely you are to be statist (here measured as “liberal”).

                So why shouldn’t this same chart be relevant for those dirty Mexicans crossing the border? Instead of a day laborer job, how about a middle-management job somewhere and they actually make more money. Tables like this demonstrate that they will be less liberal and less receptive to the proggie agenda.

                And the proggies *know this*, which is why they deliberately institute policies to keep people poor, and thus dependent on them. They insist on high minimum wages, which means more people thrown out of work and reliant on the state. They insist on overregulation of businesses, which means fewer entrepreneurs and fewer jobs available.

                If you want Mexicans to not be voting for proggies, then take away the reason to vote for them, which is to give them a healthy economy with many jobs available.

                1. So why shouldn’t this same chart be relevant for those dirty Mexicans crossing the border?

                  Because it isn’t. I don’t know why. Go ask them. But it isn’t and showing a chart that doesn’t speak to the issue doesn’t make it so.

                  What makes you think Mexicans are superior? If Mexicans are all freedom loving, how did Mexico become a socialist shit hole? You clearly think Mexicans are superior to Americans yet can’t explain why it is Mexico sucks so bad and always has been a socialist shit hole.

              2. Bullshit. Venezuela wasn’t a poor country before Chavez got his fangs into it.

                Yes, it kind of was. More importantly, Venezuela had a huge majority of really dirt poor people with a tiny corrupt elite.

                Chavez didn’t get elected on some wishy-washy prog social justice platform. He was a military strongman who staged a coup, and then ran on a populist socialist platform. He actually had a lot more in common with Trump than he does with Bernie Sanders.

          3. And all you have, John, is a hypothesis – which smells awfully racist, even if it isn’t in fact racist – that “we need to keep the foreigners out in order to preserve the wholesome goodness of America”.

            1. And all you have, John, is a hypothesis – which smells awfully racist, even if it isn’t in fact racist – that “we need to keep the foreigners out in order to preserve the wholesome goodness of America”.

              It’s a mid to late 20th century tradition, which is why most of my family ended up as lampshades. But American wholesomeness was preserved.

          4. And by the way, John, I don’t see the pro-Trump immigration restrictionists, supposedly because to “preserve our culture”, doing anything about border security with Canada or other supposedly “civilized” places. I would much rather have 100 Mexican day laborers over 100 white proggie college students from Toronto.

            1. Because there are not large numbers of Canadians going across the border.

              1. What does the number of Canadians crossing the border have to do with anything? It is the principle of the matter. If you want to keep out the proggies, then I’d say you should focus much more on the white proggies rather than the brown pseudo-proggies.

            2. And I guess you are totally down with the people waving Mexican flags and burning shit at Trump rallies. I mean at least they are not Canadian right?

              1. I don’t care what flags they wave or which of their own personal property that they choose to burn.

                1. It is other people’s property they are burning. And they don’t give a shit about the country. But hey, the are Mexicans and are the superior race.

                  La raza baby. It is okay to be robbed as long as a Mexican is doing it.

          5. John, progressivism is driven by academia which is overwhelmingly white upper-middle-class.

            All the leaders of every leftist movement have always been white. See Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Their leaders are fucking white. The college kids that are backing them are fucking white.

            The blacks and hispanics are behind the centrist establishment candidate, Clinton.

            1. But they would have been just fine with the Bern.

      2. You really think it’s the Mexicans who are responsible for turning California into SWPL land?

  8. The RAND PEPS surveys in December/January and in March that found Trump supporters to be more economically liberal than other Republicans also found that they were more likely to show signs of resentment toward minorities and immigrants based on questions designed to measure these qualities.

    Oh goody, so we ARE turning into Europe.

    1. Yes, Trump represents turning the Republican Party into the European version of a “conservative” party, i.e., a supposed better manager of the welfare state, but kicking out the foreigners. So much for the debate on whether or not we even ought to have a welfare state at all…

      1. ALL THEM DUSKY FURRINERS TAKIN’ BENNIES FROM TH’ POCKETS AND PIZZA FROM TH’ MOUFS OF GOOD MERKAN CHIRREN, THEY ARE.

        1. Them dusky furriners make the best food. That settles things in my mind.

          /off to make some migas…

      2. So much for the debate on whether or not we even ought to have a welfare state at all…

        Hands off my Medicare, chemjeff!

        1. Yup. This election cycle has revealed that the “conservative base” really was more interested in making sure the government bennies went to them, rather than reducing the welfare state at all.

          1. It was like that for years. During debate over Paul Ryan’s budget proposals around 2011-2012, a number of polls showed that GOP voters opposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military/defense, and were actually okay with tax hikes on “the wealthy.”

            In other words, Rockefeller Republicans with a nationalist bent.

            That a northeastern nationalistic Rockefeller Republican like Donald Trump became the (presumptive) nominee shouldn’t be too surprising.

          2. Jeezus, retards, Medicare is not sold as a ‘government bennie’–it’s sold as something you involuntarily pay for–OR ELSE. People wanting that fucking money back is not at all the same thing as people who don’t work at all thinking they get to put their hands in your pockets.

            We all–everyone knows it’s a lie. The people getting pissed are saying something very simple

            Stop paying for every other program that takes money from working people and gives it to non working people BEFORE you fuck the working people over AGAIN. note–this includes paying the thousands upon thousands that ‘work’ for the government.

            Let the moochers hurt for once.

            They’re not saying they’re entitled–they’re saying that they’ve had it with getting screwed.

  9. El hombre no es conservador (social).

    1. Estas seguro que lo que querias decir era “conservativo”?

      1. All I need to know about Spanish I learned from Jeb!

  10. You are, in the most literal sense of the phrase, being socially conservative. But this is a conceptually different sort of social conservatism than the pro-lifers were espousing.

    Although it is easy to get annoyed with Dalmia’s usual articles about anti-immigration bigots/racists, she’s made good points in the past about how a number of conservative pro-lifers also tend to be strongly in favor of population controls so far as immigration is concerned.

    I assume that these same pro-lifers wouldn’t support restrictions on child-births if women in America were simply having more children (and, indeed, they seem to support promoting more child rearing), yet many of their arguments in favor of drawing down immigration stems from the “zero-sum game” primal fear that overpopulation will wreck the country.

    Ann Coulter’s now-infamous tweet about being okay with Trump performing abortions in the White House as long as he deports those icky illegals suddenly comes to mind.

    1. That is absurd. Not wanting more people to come from other countries is in no way the same thing as not wanting people already conceived not to be born.

      And Coulter’s statement is just a vulgar example of revealed preference. Since you can only for one candidate and no candidate is going to share all of your views, you have to decide which views are important enough for you to vote based upon them.

      1. You have to admit, John, it was certain elements on the right, not too long ago, who were advocating for mandatory sterilization for welfare moms.

        1. The Left, too. Progressives were all about the eugenics.

        2. You have to admit, chemjeff, it was certain elements on the [insert bogey man group], not too long ago, who were advocating for [any weird shit you can pin on at least one alleged group member].

      2. Thagree absurd. Not wanting more people to come from other countries is in no way the same thing as not wanting people already conceived not to be born.

        Not to sound overly cynical (so forgive me), but we have enough dumb fucks in this country as it is, both native and foreign-born. The difference is that at least there’s some sort of citizen’s test for newly naturalized people. If you’re born and raised in America, you can be as ignorant and culturally-backward as possible and most people railing against immigrants won’t say that you should be thrown out of the country because you don’t “share our values.”

        I do agree that automatic birthright citizenship should be removed (it reeks of royalty/nobility or “pure blood” status) but otherwise immigration — even “illegal” immigration — doesn’t seem like a major problem to me.

        1. Oops, messed up part of John’s quote. Stupid phone! Sorry, John.

        2. The difference is that at least there’s some sort of citizen’s test for newly naturalized people. If you’re born and raised in America, you can be as ignorant and culturally-backward as possible and most people railing against immigrants won’t say that you should be thrown out of the country because you don’t “share our values.”

          Yeah because people magically lose their old cultural views and become wonderful and superior when they come here. Americans are just inferior to the rest of the world. This country is a better place to live than 90% of the rest of the world, even in its current state, is just bad luck I guess. Americans are all dumb fucks who shouldn’t have been allowed to be born and have nothing to do with the success of their own country I guess.

          1. Yeah because people magically lose their old cultural views and become wonderful and superior when they come here. Americans are just inferior to the rest of the world. This country is a better place to live than 90% of the rest of the world, even in its current state, is just bad luck I guess. Americans are all dumb fucks who shouldn’t have been allowed to be born and have nothing to do with the success of their own country I guess.

            Sarcasm aside, if you look at Trump’s base you’ll notice a lot of younger white men (very young) who are receptive to his nationalist message.

            America is indeed the greatest country in human history (IMO) but too many people wish to treat her no differently than some other country by using meaningless bullshit phrases like “nation-state” (another way of saying you’re a slave to your nationalist government).

            1. If you let enough people in who don’t give a shit about the country and see themselves as foreigners whose allegiance goes back to where they came from, there won’t be an America anymore.

              I don’t think the people waving Mexican flags and assaulting people at Trump rallies give a shit about the country. I don’t think the asshole in Orlando angry about “America bombing his home country of Afghanistan” gives a shit about the country.

              You don’t seem to have a problem with anyone being nationalist but Americans. And you seem to have no criticism of anyone but Americans.

              1. “If you let enough people in who don’t give a shit about the country and see themselves as foreigners whose allegiance goes back to where they came from, there won’t be an America anymore.”

                Read this, John:

                http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09……html?_r=0

              2. John, consider the possibility that many immigrants are coming to the US because they CHOOSE American values. They are CHOOSING the principles that this country stands for voluntarily, not because they were born here, and acquired them by accident, but because they learned about them and consciously made a decision to embrace them. Meanwhile, many people born in the US reject American values and speak constantly of how they hate this country and want it to be more like Europe. Being born American is no guarentee that a person loves America or embraces anything that it stands for.

                1. Which explains why they consistently vote for the party that wants to turn the US into France. Makes perfect sense.

                  Let me guess, if we just talk to them nicely they’ll discover their love of free markets and hatred of the welfare state. They just need a hug.

          2. “Yeah because people magically lose their old cultural views and become wonderful and superior when they come here.”

            No they don’t, John. But their skin color doesn’t DEFINE who they are going to vote for.

            If you argue “we should only import people who share ‘American values'”, then I am going to insist that 1. you come up with a concrete list of these values, and 2. apply this litmus test to ALL potential immigrants, not just ones from Latin America. Otherwise the whole “values” argument is all just a facade to justify keeping out the dirty brown people.

            1. people magically lose their old cultural views and become wonderful and superior when they come here.

              By and large, their kids and grandkids do. And we co-opt the best parts of their old cultural views. Hybrid vigor and all that.

            2. No they don’t, John. But their skin color doesn’t DEFINE who they are going to vote for.

              Not 100% but the results say generally yes. The facts are what they are. You hoping they are different doesn’t change them.

              1. It will surprise you to learn, John, that in the early 20th century, blacks were a reliable voting bloc… for Republicans. Wonder what has changed?

                1. See Lyndon Johnson’s 200 year prediction about the electoral implications of the Great Society legislation.

                2. “It will surprise you to learn, John, that in the early 20th century, blacks were a reliable voting bloc… for Republicans. Wonder what has changed?”

                  Umm, the Democrats promised them a huge amount of social transfers for their votes. I’m kind of baffled what your point was.

            3. No they don’t, John. But their skin color doesn’t DEFINE who they are going to vote for.

              Not 100% but the results say generally yes. The facts are what they are. You hoping they are different doesn’t change them.

              1. John, why do you care so much about the geographic location that other people were born in? Shouldn’t you be embracing people based on what they believe in rather than where they were born? There are all sorts of people born in America, many of whom you hate. You don’t share the values of Berkley progressives. You probably have more in common with an Indian immigrant who read comes from a socially conservative Hindu family, read Ayn Rand, and decided he supported the free market. Maybe that guy read the Declaration of Independence, fell in love with America, and decided he wanted to come here. Meanwhile that Berkley progressive that you share a nationality with is blathering on about the evils of western culture and raising money for Palestinian “relief” organizations.

            4. Where the hell did John mention skin color?

              Yeah because people magically lose their old cultural views and become wonderful and superior when they come here. Americans are just inferior to the rest of the world. This country is a better place to live than 90% of the rest of the world, even in its current state, is just bad luck I guess. Americans are all dumb fucks who shouldn’t have been allowed to be born and have nothing to do with the success of their own country I guess.

              I keep looking for it because you seen so attached to it, but it’s never there–are you responding to the dog whistles you’re blowing?

        3. Yeah, with at minimum 11,000,000 illegal migrants said to be here, and no doubt way more than that, we screen incoming people really, really well.

          Such bullshit.

  11. Just what exactly is a social conservative anyway?

    Anyone who’s not in one of the official SJW victim classes and doesn’t espouse a standard Progressive worldview, duh.

  12. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    =======> http://www.CashPay60.Com

    1. I make that kind of $ working over the Internet too. But ads like this imply that anyone who does anything can just get lucrative work over the nets, when that’s not the case. It’s not the medium that makes people rich, it’s what they do; the nets are just how they communicate, and some people’s work product can consist of their technical communications. Most people aren’t going to turn their skills into such a thing.

  13. I think the distinction Mr. Walker is looking for is between religious/traditionalist conservatives and social conservatives. The former being a subset of the latter. Then, of course, there’s the distinction between those (of either group) who would use the state to enforce their vision and those who wouldn’t.

  14. radio host Eric Metaxas, told the Post he just wants Trump to understand that “he has to take seriously that constituency, people who are social conservatives.”

    I think this is something that other pundits/political commentators, not to mention *politicians*, don’t understand.

    I don’t think the contemporary SoCon vote necessarily cares whether their preferred candidate shares their views. They care whether or not that candidate will respect their existence, and at the very least, mostly leave them alone.

    Which is why simply saying, “I’m against abortion” isn’t either a guaranteed win, or even necessarily a plus.

    Other more ostensibly socon candidates think they’ve ticked off all correct policy-boxes, and don’t understand why anyone would prefer Trump.

    I think his blustering offensiveness shouldn’t be *only* read as appealing to some kind of “latent racism”; but also is an aspect that shows people “he expresses opinions which the Media finds repellent – *Just like us*… and he refuses to apologize – *Just like us*”

    IOW – its more of a stylistic, symbolic appeal than anything to do with actual policy for some.

    1. They care whether or not that candidate will respect their existence, and at the very least, mostly leave them alone.

      The smarter ones at least. This position evolved from one where they were actively trying to impose their will in the Culture Wars. But, they’ve lost those wars. At least insofar as to imposing their preferences. The smarter socons have seen the handwriting on the wall and are pushing for just the position you suggest.

      That position, though, fits quite nicely with libertarian principle.

      1. That position, though, fits quite nicely with libertarian principle

        I think Eddie has been going to pains to point this out.

        I think he has a point. Its very likely that libertarianism could see just as large an infusion of SoCons in the near future as it will any theoretical ‘disaffected millenials’.

        I think Reason-brand outreach-efforts aren’t quite interested in that reality so much.

    2. I think this is a big part of it

  15. In all seriousness, I think the thing that appeals to “social conservatives” in the Trump coalition is the same thing that appeals to other people about Trump.

    When they see Trump say things that other people won’t say, they interpret that as integrity. It’s just doltish, but they see it as integrity.

    They’re sick of everyone from the media to the President lying through their teeth to appease the sensitivities of gays, illegal aliens, Muslims, other minorities, feminists, environmentalists, and college students. They’re just glad to see someone break past that.

    It should also be noted that Christian fundamentalists have been treated as default homophobes, misogynists, racists, etc. by the media and the President for a long time, too, and that was bound to have consequences. Everyone in the media excoriates Trump for being a misogynist and a racist, likewise, and I suppose it’s only natural for people who’ve been treated that way for being socially conservative to gravitate towards someone who’s being demonized in the same terms they are.

    They figure if the media hates him for being racist, misogynist, etc., just like the media and the President hate Christians, fundamentalists, and the socially conservative, then he must be their champion. I suppose they figure it’s better to have Trump as a champion than have no dog in the fight at all. So they rally around Trump’s flag.

    They’re doomed to disappointment if he wins.

    1. No. It is that they have long since given up on any candidate being their champion. What they are looking for is a candidate who doesn’t hate them. Once you have the universe of candidates who don’t hate them, the SOCON vote then breaks down among those candidates based on other issues. There never has been a single GOP candidate who dominated the SOCON vote despite many candidates who based their campaign upon appealing to them.

      Do a lot of SOCONs support Trump? Sure, but that is not because they are SOCONs. What is going on here is that a lot of people who are SOCONs are also people who hate PC or really have an issue with immigration. Those issues are why they are supporting Trump. There are plenty of other SOCONs who don’t support Trump because they either don’t like him or don’t vote based on those issues.

      1. “No. It is that they have long since given up on any candidate being their champion. What they are looking for is a candidate who doesn’t hate them.”

        So your complaint is with the word “champion”, but you agree with everything else.

        I’m saying he’s not them. He’s just the guy they’re gonna rally around because he’s being called the same bad names they are.

        It’s human nature.

        Snicker at me for speaking with a drawl, and I’ll start exaggerating my drawl to sound like Billy Gibbons singing La Grange

        For any millennials who might be following:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vppbdf-qtGU

        I’ve long argued that the opposite ends of the political spectrum seek to become the caricatures that their opponents make them out to be. Just as there are people who’ve never been south of the Mason Dixon who talk like Billy Gibbons in La Grange, I know there are people who drive a Prius who wouldn’t unless they were fleeing one aesthetic and striving for another.

        Yeah, convince some people that the progressives hate Trump, and they’ll all flock to his corner–just like so many people flocked to support Obama because they knew that the social conservatives hate him.

        1. That is an absurd simplification. Being a SOCON doesn’t define someone’s existence anymore than being anything else does.

          You can’t seem to accept that fact or the fact that people of all strips are complex and often have a fairly broad set of opinions on things that don’t fit into neat boxes. Ultimately Ken, you just can’t seem to accept that SOCONs are not stupid inferior creatures who behave in child like ways.

          That is really all that is going on here. You can’t get past your smugness and desire to feel superior and see SOCONS as actual human beings equal to you,.

          1. Collectivizing is a bad thing unless you apply it to uncool people. Then jt’s OK.

            1. I didn’t say it was true of everyone.

              I said it was it true of some of them.

              But I do think it’s an underappreciated factor. It happens a lot.

        2. Just as there are people who’ve never been south of the Mason Dixon who talk like Billy Gibbons in La Grange,

          HRC: “I don’t feel noways tired.” With a phony southern black accent. Campaign Trump should play that a thousand time over just as surely as campaign Clinton plays Trump’s brain fart on Mexicans.

    2. “They’re doomed to disappointment if he wins.”

      Not as much as if he loses.

      1. Then they’ll still be free to define themselves against Hillary.

        What are they going to do if Trump wins and they’re disappointed?

        Vote for a Democrat?

        Vote Libertarian?

        1. Try with the next GOP candidate just like they have been doing for decades.

          Doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results means you are crazy only if you have realistic options to do something different.

          The LP has never offered them a rea listing option. Libertarians have either derided them as cavemen (just read some of the comments on this site from a SoCon perspective some day) and/or has never seemed like a legit contender. It’s why it took me several years to convince my wife to finally leave the GOP.

          Don’t get me wrong… I’m voting for Johnson. But even he won’t give me someone to vote FOR. He’s just a chance to vote AGAINST two candidates. In the past most SoCon I know (which is a fair amount… I am one in my private life as opposed to my political life) voted this way, too. Vote against the really big threat (the Dem) by voting for the, at least on paper, less destructive (but still destructive) threat.

    3. Very so. The most revealing moment was when Trump was asked if, when abortions were illegal, there should be legal penalties for having one, & he said yes, of course. Later when he was told that wasn’t the “pro-life” position, he dropped it, but by then he’d revealed that he’d seen thru the bull shit & was just doing the minimum necessary to acknowledge the formula. I mean, who can really believe “the woman is a victim, too”? (I had a friend tell me that, and I could hardly believe he’d try so transparently to BS me. Sure, pregnant people carefully arrange & pay to have an abortion, take the time & discomfort, but it’s because they’ve been hoodwinked? In some cases more than once? Their doctors are deliberately cheating them with useless but billable services? Insurers go along w the scam? The pregnant pt. has no idea what interruption of pregnancy is about?)

      So in the end Trump lied, but it was OK because everyone understood it was a token lie. Trump showed that he was a consistent thinker, not a parrot of ideologies, except to the minimal extent necessary.

  16. Eh, the socons are good at making noise and occasionally pulling random primary shockers in House races. Not so much at being a voting bloc that must be catered to.

    Say Trump comes out tomorrow as favoring maximum gay marriage and abortion rights. What the hell are the socons going to do about it? Vote for Clinton, Johnson, or Stein, who all also favor a high degree of gay marriage and abortion rights?

    (Yes, the Constitution party is a thing. But I doubt there’s a hundred Ted Cruz/Mike Huckabee/Ben Carson voters with the balls to actually go there.)

    1. Maximum Gay Marriage would be an okay name for a band.

    2. Therein lies the genius of Trump. The man managed to remove the SoCons from the role of kingmaker by pulling open the flaps of the Big Tent to let in the Hard-Hats; former Democrats who were happy to stick around when the Demos at least paid lip service to the economic populism they crave. Having seen they outlived their usefulness for the Donkeys, Trump, consciously or unconsciously, led them to new pastures.

      Whether or not they stay in the GOP’s Big Tent after Trump remains to be seen.

      1. Well, I don’t think they can go back to the party of victimology.

        There may be some re-alignment. The Democrats are flying to the left so fast they’ll soon be irrelevant. The Republicans probably split between a hard-hat moderate party politically about where the Dems were in 1980 and a conservative / libertarian right-wing party.

        1. There may be some re-alignment. The Democrats are flying to the left so fast they’ll soon be irrelevant. The Republicans probably split between a hard-hat moderate party politically about where the Dems were in 1980 and a conservative / libertarian right-wing party.

          If this be the first crack in the Two-Party System, then let us make the most of it!

          That having been said, I’m generally pessimistic about the chances of the 2 party system crumbling any time soon. The cultural inertia is just too great, I fear.

      2. True. And he sleeps with a lingerie model.

      3. The man managed to remove the SoCons from the role of kingmaker by pulling open the flaps of the Big Tent to let in the Hard-Hats

        This is exactly correct.
        Problem is that the Hard-Hats are diametrically opposed to libertarians.
        They are social conservatives and economic statists.

    3. “Say Trump comes out tomorrow as favoring maximum gay marriage and abortion rights. What the hell are the socons going to do about it?”
      Wait a week for him to change his mind again?

  17. The term the Washington Post and Jesse are fumbling for is Nationalist. Trump is a Nationalist.

    The general election will feature his brand of nationalism against Clinton’s Internationalism. It won’t be the traditional values crap vs. gays and abortions.

    1. Bingo. And the people at the post and many of the people on here are internationalists who as a general rule loath this country and the people who live in it. The default answer is always that Americans are inferior and the country sucks.

      1. I don’t loath America, I love America, for what it stands for, which is the principles of liberty.
        In fact, I fucking hate people in my family, and even among libertarians who talk shit about America.

        I just don’t blindly support some sort of notion of traditional white-American cultural superiority. America’s greatness is about it’s philosophical principles NOT it’s culture. If there is anything great about American culture, it is in America’s universal willingness to adopt (or appropriate) other people’s cultures and blend them into something new.

        “Traditional” American culture, with it’s flag waving bullshit, hamburgers, french fries, football, and God-bothering is not the best part of this country. Those things have nothing to do with the universally valueable principles embodied by the Constitution.

    2. The term the Washington Post and Jesse are fumbling for is Nationalist. Trump is a Nationalist.

      I’m not fumbling for the word “nationalist.” I’ve been describing Trump as a nationalist for ages. (E.g. here and here.) What I’m describing here is related to nationalism, even a constituent part of nationalism, but it’s distinct from it. (You could have the same feelings, for example, about changes on a local level.)

    3. “The term the Washington Post and Jesse are fumbling for is Nationalist. Trump is a Nationalist.”

      Its a conspiracy!

  18. Social conservatives are like liberals in their belief and desire to use government to punish others they find offensive even when their acts don’t harm others (e.g. burning the flag, making prostitution illegal, or using trans-fats). Libertarians believe government shouldn’t be punishing people because they do offensive things that don’t harm others. There’s no limit to what someone might find offensive, and using government to harm such people just creates harm where otherwise none would happen.

    I can’t say that Trump appears to want to use government force against others when what they do doesn’t harm anyone else. But then, he seems willing to use government to harm certain people for his benefit, such as when he got a NJ government board to attempt to take Vera Coking’s home via eminent domain at a far below market price so Trump could build a parking lot for limos.

    Trump isn’t a social conservative, he’s just greedy. If he wins, I hope his desire for a positive legacy leads him to reduce the power and size of government, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Especially in commerce where politicians love to sell government favors to make winners. On social policy Trump might be freedom friendly since there’s little or no money in it.

    1. I can’t say that Trump appears to want to use government force against others when what they do doesn’t harm anyone else.

      Are you fucking kidding me? He wants to use government force to keep out immigrants and Muslims. Who are for the most part doing things that don’t harm anyone else. That’s his central fucking platform.

  19. A cold-eyed look at abortion policy in the US would make one conclude that it is genocide upon the offspring of unwed teenaged black women. Ehh, I was going to say more, but I’ll just leave that there for now.

  20. If the press and all the cool kids (even the cool kids at reason) call every. single. Republican. Nominee a racist, sexist homophobe then what does it mean when they call the next Republican Nominee a racist, sexist, homophobe?

    By this very article we see that Evangelicals are LESS inclined to support Trump. But that doesn’t stop everyone from blaming Trump on all those social conservatives.

  21. …some prominent attendees have embraced the TV star’s presidential campaign

    Trump will be the worst president since the last one, of course, but I’ve decided that anyone who identifies Trump most* as a “TV star” is revealing more about himself than about Trump.

    *Not directed at Jesse, since there is no denying that Trump is a TV star. More toward those on the tweetersphere who seem to think Trump materialized from the ether on NBC a decade ago.

    1. Trump is one those rich kids I grew up around in suburban Philadelphia during the 1960’s and early 70’s. Mostly, the rich kids hung around with other rich kids going to Friends Central and country clubs. Trump will play with middle-class kids. He has some noblesse oblige. That’s why he’s popular on the TV.

  22. The RAND PEPS survey…also found that they were more likely to show signs of resentment toward minorities and immigrants based on questions designed to measure these qualities.

    I’d be curious to know what questions they use to determine that, exactly. There doesn’t appear to be a copy of the survey questions but the RAND site mentions questions to identify “underlying/b> attitudes towards societal groups.”

    Since the Republican policy = racist, therefore person supporting republican strongly correlates with X defenition of racist, m y guess is they probably rate a lot of generically Republican answers regarding immigration and hand out programs as “showing signs of resentment towards minorities,” but I have no way of knowing this, of course, but it pinged my radar.

    1. disregard the fucked up bold tagging.

  23. I hate the word “unpack” when not applied to literally unpacking stuff.

    1. Me too. It is one of the assaults on the English language journalists like to use. The other word I hate is grok. Just say “understand”, you poser half wit.

    2. or “gift” as a verb /shudder

      1. Well, yeah, that one’s silly, giften that we already had the word “give”. Like “dominate” (short “a”) as an adj. when we already had “dominant”.

    3. I like the metaphoric/extended meanings of “unpack”.

  24. 1) What’s this “promoted comment” BS at the top?
    2) Re. the caption pic – “Bless my child, Most Holy!*”.

    Honestly, Cerebus would probably be the best plausible candidate this year.

    (* “The valuable lesson is that you can get what you want and still not be very happy.”

    Or, One less mouth to feed, is one less mouth to feed.)

  25. I think this is correct. There is a religious social conservatism, but there is also a nationalist social conservatism, and always has been. The religious conservatives and nationalist conservatives often overlap or ally, but sometimes not, and this is a case where suddenly they are at odds and the difference is revealed.

    To be more precise, a nationalist social conservative supports the traditional values of the nation he belongs to, while a religious social conservative supports the traditional values of the religion he adheres to.
    Ergo, a nationalist so-con will enjoy waving the flag and talking about “American” values, what it means to be an “American”, how America is the greatest country on Earth, why we should make America great again, supporting American forces in wars, etc.
    By contrast a religious so-con will talk about “Christian” values, the teachings of Christ, Christian morality, and so forth.
    Very often, and to the extent that American values are equated to Christian values, those things can merge. But they don’t necessarily always merge. With Trump it is very clear he is a nationalist so-con, but very much NOT a religious one.

  26. The problem with defining Social Conservatism in regards to Evangelicals Christianity is how Evangelical Christianity drifted for orthodoxy. We went for Evangelical grounded in the Reformation to a spectrum that spans for liberal theology a la Episcopal church to mega church therapeutic , moralistic, deitism of Joel Osteen. It not supposing why some would support Trump. The church is about therapy to solve our booboos in life and charismatic leaders than grounded in Christ.
    This put Christians like me ( I am Reformed and Anglican) on the outside of evangelical culture. I can Read Romans 13, the passage about government, and note how libertarian it is; government’s duty is to protect us for criminals and not to try to bring heaven on earth, i.e. force cultural change and I find the idea of a Judeo-Christian Culture not biblical but takes scripture out of context, and detracts from, our mission to proclaim Christian has died for our sins and resurrected for our justification.

  27. A supporter of traditional political and social institutions against the forces of reform; a political conservative router login

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.