Last month, I began a series of posts on how I believe Republicans, especially Republican officeholders, ought to talk to voters about where Republicans stand on issues. The theme has been that we stand on liberty, restoring the rights of the individual, whether those rights relate to political rights, that is, free speech and free press, economic rights, that is, the right to feed one’s family without interference from government, that is, without excessive taxation or interference with the free market (freedom of contract and private property rights) by regulatory excesses, or other personal freedoms, such as the right to own a gun. If Republicans start thinking and talking about liberty, in my opinion, it will bring a consistency to our approach to politics, a framework for intellectual honesty in our pursuit of public policy, and a means of connecting with voters in a way that helps them understand that a Republican controlled government will actually be better for them than the tax, spend and regulate Democrats.
My project got delayed a bit, because I had to do things that actually pay my bills, something my creditors truly appreciate, but it is time to finish the project. I chose to put this public policy subject last (I will do one more post on what Republicans need to do from this point forward), because too many “libertarians” think that being pro-life and pro-family is anti-liberty. It is not, in fact, being pro-life and pro-family is the essence of being pro-liberty. Unfortunately, too many social conservatives spend their time talking about what is wrong with the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activists, and not enough time talking about how they actually wish to protect the liberty of those who would be protected by the pro-life and pro-family policies the social conservatives think ought to be the keystone of a strong society.
The pro-life position is the more difficult position to defend of the two, because the pro-abortion lobby has seized on the liberty agenda to promote abortion. By ignoring the life of the child, the pro-abortion advocates claim that outlawing abortion interferes with the right of a woman to control her own body. Of course, it does not. The essence of the pro-life position focuses on the liberty interests of the child, which are created the moment a child is conceived. Government is created to protect the weaker members of society from the involuntary intrusions on their personal security or property interests by the more powerful. There is nothing weaker than a small child, and to allow those who are more powerful to take their lives, because the child cannot protect itself, is the denial, not the promotion, of liberty. Being pro-life is being pro-liberty, it is just that simple.
The same with being pro-family. Families were developed to create as safe an environment as possible to raise children. Marriage was created as an institution to grow and nurture children, and protect women, who are the usual caregivers to children, from economic harm as they are raising children. That is the essence of marriage and marital laws. We value the family because of its important role in the upbringing of children, and we give it a special place in the law in order to encourage stability in the family. It is not a perfect institution, but it is the best home for children, and creating a strong, stable environment for the raising of children creates a strong, stable society over the long run. And because of the special protections family gives to women, being pro-family is being pro-woman. Being a single mother of a small child is the fastest way to poverty, except to the extent that the laws protecting women require men to own up to their economic responsibilities to their children.
Those who wish to redefine the family wish to weaken that structure, but worse than that, they want to create a legal structure to force other people to recognize their lifestyle choices. The homosexual activists have actively used the law to force people to accept their lifestyle, regardless of the personal religious convictions about homosexuality. The homosexual activist literally wishes to destroy religious liberty under the guise of civil rights. As with economic liberty, where the socialists claim to desire “economic justice,” and thus use the power of government to steal the money and property of those whom the socialists disapprove, so those who claim to desire “social justice” wish to take the individual liberty of those who disapprove of their lifestyle.
Don’t get me wrong, if someone wants to engage in homosexual behavior, that is their choice. However, the fact that they engage in homosexual behavior does not give them any legal rights against those who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, any more than the fact that the disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle gives anyone the right to use the power of government to stop those who wish to engage in that type of sexual behavior from doing as they wish. No matter who controls the reins of government, if liberty is the goal, both personal choices and religious belief are outside the purview of government control.
In my experience in politics, often the so-called social conservatives do not believe in economic freedom or small government, any more than the free market or small government advocates believe in religious liberty. I have seen my social conservative friends vote to raise taxes, or regulate the economy, and my free market friends vote to allow the taking of the religious freedom (or even the life) of the less powerful. Both are wrong, and if Republicans are to ever control the reins of government, all of the various factions who make up the party are going to need to recognize that they all wish to promote the freedom of every single citizen, no matter how rich, or how small, or even how religious, they are. When Republicans start talking about liberty, they will start winning.