Books
Review

Polarizing Politics by Defending the Declaration

Social conservatism draws its viability from America’s founding principles. A review of ‘The Case for Polarized Politics.’

Polarizing Politics by Defending the Declaration

Polarizing Politics by Defending the Declaration

Americans have soured on social conservatism, if we’re to believe many media pundits. Some see a hopelessly retrograde movement stubbornly clinging to outmoded attitudes that younger generations will inevitably reject. Others wonder why anyone would fixate on the “culture wars” when so many people are out of work, drowning in debt, and losing their homes to foreclosure.

The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism

The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism

Encounter Books

328 pages

$9.99

And secular elites aren’t the only ones writing social conservatism’s obituary, or lamenting its influence. Liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis insist that younger evangelicals have moved beyond abortion and gay marriage to matters of immigration and economic justice. Many main-stream Republicans complain that social conservatives hold the party hostage to a divisive agenda. Happy to court social conservative votes, they sweep social conservative causes under the political rug once victory has been attained.

In The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism (Encounter) , Jeffrey Bell, a former policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, stands this conventional wisdom on its head. Social conservatism, argues Bell, is too firmly rooted in America’s founding ideals to become obsolete.

‘We Hold These Truths …’

Social conservatism is a relatively recent development in American history. It emerged, Bell says, as a response to the sexual revolution and cultural tumult of the 1960s, a decade marked by withering assaults on the institutions of church and family.

Bell ably demonstrates that social conservatism has continued to play an influential role in American politics, from the Reagan Revolution up to the present day, despite recurring protestations that the movement is on life support. He cites the political architecture Karl Rove built around social conservatism as an arguable reason that George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” commanded such large evangelical support and won two presidential elections.

But what explains this continued vitality, given all the confident predictions of demise? No other affluent Western country has witnessed the development of a similar political movement. This, argues Bell, is no accident, but rather can be traced to the divergent paths taken by the 18th-century European Enlightenment.

The French Enlightenment, shaped by thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, represented a radical break with traditional norms and values rooted in a Christian worldview. Its proponents sought liberation from biblical religion, which they regarded as a tyrannical force to be over-thrown. True freedom, in this vein, is freedom from constraints on appetite and action.

By contrast, the British Enlightenment had a more conservative orientation and generally remained within the confines of Europe’s “age-old monotheistic framework.” It did not categorically reject the very notion of divine authority, or treat moral norms as irreconcilable with human freedom.

Steeped in the more conservative tradition of the British Enlightenment, America’s founders grounded important liberties in a truth proposition unmistakably religious in character. Our Declaration of Independence famously holds that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founding documents of other countries, Bell notes, lack this theological emphasis.

The Declaration’s insistence upon self-evident truths and rights derived from God, not government, has given social conservatism its philosophical grounding and a prolonged staying power in American political life. “What divides social conservatives from social liberals,” writes Bell, “is this: Most—not all—social conservatives believe the words in [the Declaration] are literally true. Most—not all—opponents of social conservatism do not believe those words are literally true.”

According to Bell, this basic difference underlies the “polarization” to which the title of his book alludes. The advancement of social liberalism, Bell notes, comes without exception from legal maneuvering. Social liberals, largely disagreeing with the proposition that rights come from God, pressure the judiciary to invent new “rights”—for instance, a right to “privacy,” encompassing the decision to kill one’s unborn child, or a right to “marry” a partner of the same sex. Social conservatives, as the natural heirs to America’s conservative founding, look to defend a treasured inheritance from such incursions.

For this, they are often attacked as paternalistic chauvinists or divisive bigots. But if they, and not their opponents, lay the strongest claim to the American founding, then we need to rethink the commonplace observation that social conservatives are aggressors in the culture wars. Social liberals are the real revolutionaries, harnessing government power to radically redefine society’s values. But social conservatives—far from being intolerant “theocrats”—seek merely to preserve the religious heritage articulated, however imperfectly, by the Declaration of Independence.

‘… To Be Self-Evident’

According to Bell, then, “social conservatism is more accurately seen as the application of natural law to politics—the self-evident truths of the Declaration—rather than as a political manifestation of religious revelation.”

“Natural law” claims that certain truths are, in the Declaration’s wording, “self-evident”—that is, accessible through human reason, without the aid of external revelation. Bell references Russell Kirk, the father of traditionalist conservatism, who understood there to be a moral order woven into the very fabric of existence, against which all manmade laws must be judged. According to Kirk and natural law theory, societies flourish most when universal principles are acknowledged and obeyed.

Undoubtedly, evangelicals hold to certain religious truths that ought to undergird the American political order. Whether they hold these truths to be ‘self-evident’ is another matter.

Natural law can provide a moral grammar for bringing Christian truth claims to a pluralistic populace. If, however, natural law reasoning is essential to the social conservative project, then what about the many evangelical Christians who identify as social conservatives while remaining skeptical of natural law? Certainly, evangelicals affirm an active Creator God who endows his people with a dignity that human laws are obliged to respect. They affirm, as well, a basic moral order to the universe, grounded in God’s character and binding upon both individual consciences and public authorities.

Evangelicals, however, tend to combine these affirmations with an appreciation for the depth of human sinfulness. They distrust the capacity of fallen human reason to apprehend moral truths apart from the testimony of Scripture. Undoubtedly, evangelicals hold to certain religious truths that ought to undergird the American political order. Whether they hold these truths to be “self-evident” is another matter. Perhaps Bell has underestimated the extent to which evangelical social conservatives take their bearings, in politics as elsewhere, from explicitly biblical teachings.

It seems, then, like quite a leap to base the movement almost entirely on the Declaration of Independence. Yet, the Declaration does speak clearly on the Judeo-Christian moorings of our founding. Social conservatism, in defending this founding, represents a profound connection to our past and recalls an identity the American people need to reaffirm more often.

The future of social conservatism is far from settled. Will it remain a source of “palpable discomfort and disdain”? Almost certainly. But as long as a significant number of Americans continue to see God, rather than government, as the guarantor of rights and liberties, social conservative causes will resonate widely.

The elite media may loathe social conservatives. Republicans may find their continued presence an embarrassment and a hindrance. But if Bell is right that social conservatism is a force “increasingly unified and coherent,” then surely it cannot be ignored.

Andrew Walker is a policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky. He blogs at Mere-Orthodoxy.com.

Copyright © 2012 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

The Case for Polarized Politics is available from Barnes & Noble and other retailers.

Previous Christianity Today coverage of politics includes:

Santorum Wrong to Reignite ‘Freedom of Worship’ Controversy | Religious freedom rhetoric should not be a partisan tool. (February 29, 2012)

The Price of Religious Advocacy in D.C. | More religious groups are spending more money on political lobbying than ever before. (February 21, 2012)

Where the Women Were During the House Contraception Mandate Hearing | The effort to tarnish religious freedom concerns as sexism is clever but wrong. (February 17, 2012)

Why Last Saturday’s Political Conclave of Evangelical Leaders Was Dangerous | Brothers and sisters, we are neither kingmakers nor powerbrokers. (January 18, 2012)

CT posts regular political updates on the politics blog.

CT also has more books, film, and music reviews.

Also in this issue

The CT archives are a rich treasure of biblical wisdom and insight from our past. Some things we would say differently today, and some stances we've changed. But overall, we're amazed at how relevant so much of this content is. We trust that you'll find it a helpful resource.

News

Is the Lord's Prayer a Christian Prayer?

News

Nontraditional Believers Recover Christian Community

Defending Scripture. Literally.

News

Violence in Nigeria: Breaking the Country's Fatal Deadlock

Discipling the Eyes Through Art in Worship

Chuck Colson: Evangelicals Should Be Uniters, Not Dividers

'God Is Not a Genie in a Bottle': Ways We Misuse the Bible

My Top 5 Books on Christianity in North Korea

Review

Toleranceโ€”Or Else: Coercive Attempts to Impose Secular Beliefs

Editorial

How Pastors' Ponzis Affect Our Gospel Witness

News

Mass Appeal: Evangelicals Copy More of Catholic Playbook to Oppose Contraception Ruling

Review

Blue Like Jazz

Do Pets Go to Heaven?

Becoming Donald Miller

What Good Grief Looks Like When a Daughter Dies

Excerpt

Connecting Christ

News

Sex Sect The Family Cleans House

News

Go Figure

Jesus Disappoints Everyone

Proof of a Good God: 'Crucified Under Pontius Pilate'

News

Quotation Marks

News

The Problem 'Son': Debate Continues Over Translating 'Son of God' for Muslims

News

Passages

Letters to the Editor

Journaling Grief: How Web-Based Publishing Is Changing Everything

Jesus Through Jewish Eyes

Books to Note

Wilson's Bookmarks

Employers Can Limit Employees' Speech, TBNโ€™s Lawsuit, Bar Boots Catholic Group, and More News

News

Contract Concern: USAID Policy on Hiring Alarms Charities

Review

October Baby

Jeremy Lin, Tim Tebow, Josh Hamilton: Muscular Christianity's Newest Heroes

Interview: Why Sarah Macintosh Ran Away from CCM and Went Back

Review

Wrecking Ball

Review

The Clearing

Review

Feathers & Twine

Review

Songs of Praise & Scorn

View issue

Our Latest

Review

Safety Shouldnโ€™t Come First

A theologian questions our habit of elevating this goal above all others.

What Would Lecrae Do?

Why Kendrick Lamarโ€™s question matters.

No More Sundays on the Couch

COVID got us used to staying home. But itโ€™s the work of Godโ€™s people to lift up the name of Christ and receive Godโ€™s Wordโ€”together.

Public Theology Project

A Hurricane Doesn’t Tell Us Who to Hate

What natural disasters reveal about God and neighbor.

The Russell Moore Show

Belief, Experience, and Expectations of God

Steve Cuss talks about finding peace in the tensions of our faith.

Review

The Bible Contains Discrepancies. That Doesnโ€™t Make It Untrustworthy.

Scholar Michael Licona makes the case for a โ€œflexible inerrancy.โ€

News

The Gettysโ€™ Modern Hymn Movement Has Theological Pull

Yet even at their annual worship conference, thereโ€™s room for multiple styles of music to declare the stories of the Bible.

Be Afraid

Be Afraid Bonus Episode 2: Mac Brandt

Mac Brandt discusses horror, race, and playing the bad guy.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube