Dividing lines

Yuval Levin's Weekly Standard piece "Putting Parents First" makes an argument that conservative governments should position themselves as negotiators between the interests of the market and the family--an argument that I suspect we'll hear more and more in coming years. The piece reminds us that, despite the cover of the new American Prospect, populist class-warfare policies are going to have a limited appeal, and that the right needs to focus its governing on the interests of the aspirational "parenting class." Like Ryan Sager's recent book, the article leans heavily on the fiscal/social divide in the Republican coalition. But unlike Sager, who recommends that Republicans take a more libertarian slant, the article wants conservatives to focus on developing the links between middle class social conservatives and pragmatic capitalists.

In some sense, I'm sympathetic to both arguments; Sager's small-government bent is obviously appealing to me, while Levin's pro-family tack is, I think, at least a strong part of the necessary strategy for winning elections. However, it seems to me that the flaw in both arguments is that they make too much out of the divisions in the right. In the end, both end up leaving one end of the spectrum out in the cold. Sager would practically abandon Souther social conservatives in favor of independent-minded Western libertarians, and Levin, though careful not to come out and say it, would let libertarians flounder ("In this effort, there is a role for government" just isn't going to appeal to many serious small-government types).

But instead of playing up gaps between the two groups, the focus should be on reminding them of their shared interests. Southern social conservatives need to be assured that godless libertarian types aren't really a threat, and libertarians need to be reminded that religious conservatives have as much interest in liberty as they do. Easing tensions, not building them up, should be the goal.