Fight, yes, but for what?

It isimpossible not to admire the resilience and fighting spirit with which DonaldTrump responded – literally within moments – to the failed attempt to take hislife.  And that he is among the luckiestof politicians is evidenced not just by his survival, but by the fact that the momentwas captured in photographs as dramatic as any seen in recent history.  His supporters are understandably inspired,indeed electrified.  And his enemies aresure to be demoralized by the sympathy this event will generate – not tomention the blinding contrast between Trump’s virility and the acceleratingdecline of his doddering opponent.  Naturally,that those enemies include some very bad people only reinforces Trump’ssupporters’ devotion to him, which is now at a fever pitch.  But it is precisely at moments of highemotion that the cold water of reason, however unpleasant, is most needed.

In the weekbefore the assassination attempt, a fierce controversy began to arise withinconservative ranks over some radical changes to the Republican Party platform madeat Trump’s insistence, and apparently rammedthrough without allowing potential critics sufficient time to study them ordeliberate.  The changes involved guttingthe platform of the staunchly pro-life position that has in some form or otherbeen in it for almost fifty years, and also removing the platform’s statementof support for the traditional understanding of marriage.  The platform no longer affirms the fundamentalright to life of all innocent human beings. Instead, it opposes only late term abortions, while leaving it to thestates to determine whether there should be any further restrictions, and explicitlyendorses IVF (which typically involves the destruction of embryos).

In short, theplatform now essentially reflects a soft pro-choice position rather than aclear anti-abortion position.  As Robert P.George has noted,the platform has in this respect become what liberal Republicans like ArlenSpecter had long but heretofore unsuccessfully tried to make it.  That would be alarming enough by itself, butit is made more so when seen in light of other recent moves by once pro-life Republicansin the direction of watering down their opposition to abortion.  For example, Senator J.D. Vance, apparentlythe frontrunner for the position of Trump’s running mate, has said that hesupports access to the abortion pill mifepristone, which is said to beresponsible for half of the abortions in the U.S.  Senator Ted Cruz supportsIVF, despite the destruction of embryos that it entails.  Arizona U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake hasdenounced a ban on abortion she once supported, and atone point even appeared to adopt Bill Clinton’s rhetoric to the effect thatabortion should “safe, legal, and rare.” 

Trumphimself now not only favors keeping abortion legal in cases involving rape,incest, and danger to the mother’s life, but declines to say much more, otherthan that the matter should be left to the states.  He no longer treats the abortion issue asfundamentally about protecting the rights of innocent human beings, but insteadas a merely procedural question concerning which level of government shouldmake policy on the matter.  Nor do most observersseriously believe that abortion (much less the defense of traditional marriage)are issues that Trump is personally much concerned about, given his notoriouspersonal life and the pro-choice and otherwise socially liberal views heexpressed for decades before running for president in 2016.  The most plausible reading of Trump’s recordis that he was willing to further the agenda of social conservatives when doingso was in his political interests, but has no inclination to do so any longer nowthat their support has been secured and their views have become a politicalliability.

Some socialconservatives have defended the change to the platform precisely on thesepolitical grounds, arguing that they cannot accomplish anything unless thecandidates who are least hostile to them first win elections.  They note that a federal ban on abortion ishighly unpopular and has no chance of occurring in the foreseeable future, sothat for Trump to push for such a ban would be politically suicidal.  But the problem with this argument is thatTrump does not need radically to change the platform in order to win theelection.  For one thing, even hisbitterest opponents have for some time judged that he is likely to win theelection anyway, despite the unpopularity of the GOP’s traditional stance onabortion.  For another thing, he could letthe existing platform stand while basically ignoring it.  Or he could have merely softened the platform,preserving the general principle of defending the rights of the unborn whileleaving it vague how or when this would be done at the federal level. 

In short, itis one thing to refrain from advancinga certain position, and quite another positivelyto abandon that position.  The mostthat Trump would need to do for political purposes is the former, but thechange to the platform goes beyond this and does the latter.  If this change stands, the long-termconsequences for social conservatives could be disastrous.  Outside the churches, social conservatism hasno significant institutional support beyond the Republican Party.  The universities, corporations, and most of themass media are extremely hostile to it. And those media outlets that are less hostile (such as Fox News)tolerate social conservatives largely because of their political influencewithin the GOP. 

Some social conservativeshave suggested that while the change to the platform is bad, it can be reversedafter Trump is elected.  This isdelusional.  Obviously, the change hasbeen made because Trump judges that, politically, the best course of action isto appease those who are hostile to social conservatism and gamble that socialconservatives themselves will vote for him anyway.  If he wins – and especially if he wins without significant pushback from social conservativeson the platform change – then this will be taken to be a vindication of thejudgment in question.  There will be no incentiveto restore the socially conservative elements of the platform, and everyincentive not to do so.

The resultwill be that the national GOP will be far less likely in the future to advancethe agenda of social conservatives, or even to pay lip service to it.  Opposition to abortion and resistance to othersocially liberal policies will become primarily a matter of local rather thannational politics, and social conservatives will be pushed further into the culturalmargins.  They will gradually lose theremaining institutional support they have outside the churches (even as thechurches themselves are becoming ever less friendly to them).  And their ability to fight against the moraland cultural rot accelerating all around us, and to protect themselves fromthose who would erode their freedom to practice and promote their religiousconvictions, will thereby be massively reduced.

In short, forsocial conservatives to roll over and accept Trump’s radical change to theRepublican platform would be to seek near-term electoral victory at the cost oflong-term political suicide.  Robert P.George, Ryan Anderson, Albert Mohler, and other socially conservative leaders have called onthe delegates at this week’s Republican National Convention to vote down therevised platform and recommit to the party’s traditional pro-life position.  It is imperative that all socialconservatives join in this effort in whatever way they are able.