So Long, Social Conservatives?

By Kayla Bartsch

Monday, July 22, 2024

 

The Trump-Vance ticket is distancing the party from a core constituency — and no one seems to mind.

 

Since J. D. Vance was announced as Trump’s running mate last Monday, a deluge of both glowing reviews and fierce critiques has flowed from journals of opinion. Undoubtedly — and ironically — mainstream media will continue to skewer Vance for being a “Christian nationalist.” Although a Catholic convert, Vance’s social-policy positions have moved to match Trump’s — which are not particularly Christian or conservative.

 

The “family values” that have heretofore defined social conservatism — being pro-life and pro–traditional marriage — have been traded out of the current GOP’s platform in exchange for a short-term jolt of populist power.

 

Rather than standing for traditional Christian values, the Republican National Convention underwent a TMZ makeover. OnlyFans star Amber Rose took center stage to deliver a MAGA speech. A seemingly Botoxed Matt Gaetz badgered former House speaker Kevin McCarthy on the floor. Hulk Hogan tore his shirt off at the finale.

 

This shift, however, is not merely aesthetic. It represents the substance of the new Trump platform on social issues. At the RNC, abortion issues were absent from the docket. An LGBTQ+ activist celebrated the GOP platform’s removal of language defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The topics of birth control and IVF were not broached.

 

The new RNC stands against “the elites” more than it stands for any particular principles.

 

The problem for the Republican Party now is that the rhetoric of populism does not translate smoothly into executive action. Any populist candidate faces an unavoidable dilemma — upon election, he becomes the man he claims to hate. The very nature of populism neuters the ability of populist leaders to implement effective solutions once they reach office. As it turns out, it’s much easier to express a litany of frustrations with a government than it is to run one.

 

This phenomenon has rippled across Europe in recent years. Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni ran on a right-wing populist platform, setting her sights on illegal immigration. And yet, her failure to stop the flow of migrants into Italy has illustrated just how hard it is to implement sweeping changes in policy. U.K. politics have been in shambles since Boris Johnson and Liz Truss made promises to the working class that they couldn’t deliver. The law of unintended consequences stubbornly remains.

 

The forced moderation of populist promises also occurred during the Trump administration. While Trump has certainly given voice to the problem of illegal immigration, the annual total number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. did not significantly decrease from 2016 to 2020. In fact, the number of ICE arrests and deportations reached greater peaks under the Obama administration than under Trump.

 

And so the strange marriage between populism and elite rule emerges. Underneath national conservatism’s mask of populism, the NatCons still want the elites in charge — but this time, they’re the ones sitting in cushy agency jobs.

 

Self-government ought not be confused with populism. The former was established, in a uniquely successful form, by our nation’s Founders. The latter is a force that can tend toward good or ill, as it has throughout history and across the globe.

 

Rhetorically, at the very least, Vance has shifted from emphasizing principles of self-government to principles of populism. Since 2016, when Vance often criticized the MAGA movement, going so far as to describe Trump as an “Opioid of the Masses” in the pages of the Atlantic, many have hypothesized about the sincerity of his radical shift to Trumpism. Though it’s impossible to read his mind, his total transformation — ideological and superficial — ought to raise questions for conservatives whose beliefs the MAGA movement has left behind.

 

Regarding the disintegration of white working-class communities across the country, of course Vance has a point. Famously, with Hillbilly Elegy, he diagnosed legitimate crises that need to be addressed — and urgently. The current populist passions are not without just cause. As Vance said in a 2021 speech at the second National Conservative Conference, “if national conservatism means anything, it means standing for the people in this country who have been screwed over the last 30–40 years.”

 

The question is: What will actually work to address these frustrations? To help American workers in the Rust Belt and similarly affected regions and towns across the country? As Vance told Ross Douthat in the New York Times, “the people on the left, I would say, whose politics I’m open to — it’s the Bernie Bros.”

 

Along with a departure from Reaganite free enterprise, Vance and others in his camp have departed from the pro-life and pro-family principles that for years propelled the religious Right.

 

Roger Severino, the author of the “Health and Human Services” chapter of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 — a governing agenda for a new Trump administration, with policy recommendations put forward in a 922-page document — declined National Review’s request for comment on Trump’s dismissal of the pro-life stance that chapter put forward.

 

Instead, the Heritage Foundation told NR: “As we’ve been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. However, it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement.”

 

Trump is not keen, however, on taking those recommendations. In response to Project 2025’s increasing notoriety — from President Biden’s derogatory posts on X (made while he was still running for reelection) to denunciations in mainstream media — Trump has distanced himself from Heritage’s efforts. He posted on Truth Social: “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. . . . Some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” Last week, Chris LaCivita, Trump’s senior campaign adviser, called Project 2025 a “pain in the ass.” At a rally on Saturday, Trump brushed it off as “far-right” and “extreme.”

 

Trump isn’t the only one distancing himself from social conservatism of late. Vivek Ramaswamy, the former primary candidate and bombastic Trump supporter, summarized this shift clearly and succinctly. In an after-midnight post on X last week, Ramaswamy wrote: “The GOP platform does NOT oppose gay marriage & does NOT support a federal abortion ban.”

 

At the RNC, Eric Trump followed a similar line when asked why his father no longer stood against abortion or gay marriage. He replied, “My father has always been there on those issues. That’s reflective of my father and what he believes in . . . and my wife Lara who runs the [Republican National Committee] and what she believes in. At the end of the day, this country has holes in the roof and you’ve got to fix those holes and stop worrying about the spot on the wall in the basement.”

 

The issues that have motivated social conservatives for decades have been publicly tossed aside. If this is the new Republican Party, social conservatives may find themselves in the wilderness for some time to come.