Social Conservatism, Kekes, and 2008

I’m something of a Real Clear Politics junkie. You’ve probably heard of it. If not, I recommend you check it out (www.realclearpolitics.com). The site tilts conservative, but it brings together some of the most interesting political commentary out there.

Anyway, yesterday I was poking around RCP and found a story that was particularly interesting in light of our Kekes discussion, in which I had commented that social conservatism seemed to conflict with Kekes’s rejection of absolutism. Overall, “The Basic Beliefs” just seemed to suggest a more libertarian philosophy to me. "A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism" presents an interesting alternative view. I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Hoven says, but I think the argument has some merit.

The link between Kekesian pluralism and social conservatism seems to be federalism. Abortion is the obvious case to consider here. If conservatives attained their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, we would not revert to an absolutist prevention of abortion, but a pluralist system that allowed states to decide. The federalist notion of leaving all but the most fundamental decisions to the states seems perfectly in line with Kekes’s assertion that “There may be some variations in the required conventions of a good society, but the variations cannot be [so great that they violate the minimum conditions of good lives.”

Obviously this is not a defense of far-right positions that would support national bans on gay marriage, abortion, pornography, or any other such perceived evils. Indeed, the absolutism of these provisions, coupled with their extreme interference in the autonomy of the citizenry make them even less conservative than the analogous liberal positions.

Perhaps the stronger argument that social conservatism conforms to Kekesian principles is the traditionalism argument. This quote from the article sums up the sentiment quite nicely:

Shouldn't we have some humility about changing the most fundamental institutions that got us to that point? Things like traditional marriage, the nuclear family, schools, private property, the free market and the Bill of Rights? That is not to say we don't change them at all. But let's be careful, incremental and be prepared to change the change.

This sort of argument goes a long way towards explaining why McCain couldn’t compete this year. In an election that was framed in terms of “change,” the conservative temperament was a serious liability. It also helps explain why I define myself as a liberal; I believe that there are problems with the status quo, and we can find solutions through knowledge, reason, and debate. In other words, we should trust ourselves, and need not fear change. I guess that’s the sort of optimism Kekes isn’t comfortable with, but I sort of like it.