There are many Democrats who hold strong personally-conservative values. They work hard, are frugal, contribute to society, have raised their children also to be net contributers, love our country, believe in being faithful to one spouse (of the opposite gender), and believe in rewarding the people who follow the rules, not those who break them. They personally would never have an abortion.

Yet, as I see it, they often go out and vote for people who represent the exact opposite policies.

This makes for a problematic discussion: Whenever a certain effect on society is mentioned as a result of Democratic policies, many individual democrats will say -- quite rightly -- "But I don't support that!"

So the problem becomes that before the result occurs, it would be wrong to imply their policies lead to that, and after the result occurs, and the underlying cause is finally identified, it is wrong to link their actions and stances to it, since they don't or at least didn't personally support that result.

(Other times, they change their political values to match, but still allow their personal values to be the opposite.)

At each point, citing the charge is unfair because the person is feelings-based. They mean well, so any attempt to link their good intentions to a negative result seems unfair. They're not especially interested in doing the math to see how things work out, and they assume you're the same way.

Examples

To cite a very simple example, African Americans are, as a group, fairly conservative, and one of the strongest opponents of both abortion and gay marriage. Yet by a majority, they consistently support candidates whose policies bring about both.

To cite another: I was reminded of this trend when Ryan pointed out that most Democratic voters wouldn't support the Kelo decision, which allows the government to take property from private person A and give it to private person B.

Yet what are the underlying principles there? (1) A belief in an elastic Constitution, and support for judges who will re-interpret it to keep it "relevant" to modern life, (2) the belief that government knows better than individuals how to manage people's property, and (3) the belief that more taxes are generally better.

Take those three, and you inevitably get Kelo. And yet Democratic leaders openly espouse these values, and their supporters argue for them too.

Consider gay marriage. Had conservatives campaigned against Democrats through the 1980s and 1990s by saying that their policies would result in us proclaiming that two men could be called "married", and adopt children, they would have been viciously portrayed as full of hatred and extreme rhetoric. They also would have been accused of unfairly representing Democratic values and voters.

Of course, here we are.

Lots of new supporters of gay marriage or civil unions still believe that two men getting together -- however kind and accommodating we wish to be to them personally -- should not be considered "just as good" (especially when children are brought into the question) as relationships involving a committed man and woman. But they can't bring themselves to say that out loud.

The issue is currently framed in most people's minds as "Well, what's wrong with letting two people get together?" Of course, the question isn't one of "letting". We already let two men get together, live together, have sex together, pledge lifelong fidelity if they wish (most don't), and will their property to each other. And to the extent we don't allow, say, hospital visits, most of us are more than in favor of fixing that problem: Why shouldn't a person's best friend (if they so designate) be able to visit them in the hospital?

But the true issue is that activists want us to say it's just the same. However nice I want to be, I can't say it's just the same: it isn't, especially where child-rearing is involved. (I can see this from firsthand experience.) And I'm sorry if you don't feel validated by that dissent.

And since lots of people get their values from the government (if it's illegal, it must be bad; if it's not illegal, it must be fine) many are concerned the next generation of children will internalize the formerly-radical doctrine that it doesn't matter what gender you marry. And of course there will be unforeseen consequences for the children of that generation.

To haul out one last example, consider the "living wage." Study after study shows it produces unemployment among society's poorest people. But try to tell a die-hard Democrat that, and smoke comes out their ears.

And since they are emotion-based, and can't believe (or even consider) that their alleged desire for good can result in bad effect, they think you can't be considering that link either. So your arguments against living wage must actually be a mere smokescreen for the fact that you don't want to give poor workers a fair shake, and your "so-called evidence" is false because it supports (circular logic kicks in here) the evil policy of opposing a "living wage" -- and is tainted by association with those who have argued against "workers rights."

The ego fights for its survival mercilessly.

Rebuttals

There are several rebuttals which can be offered.

One is to point out that Republicans do bad things also, or support bad policies.

Certainly, this is true. For example, in response to the argument that "gay marriage" will undermine the institution of marriage, one points out that marriage (including among Christians, Republicans, or whoever) is already in bad shape.

But, at it's core, this is illogical in the extreme -- as if the existence of problems always justifies creating more problems. And of course most the reasons marriage is in bad shape can be linked back to "liberal" policies -- such as easy divorce and the assurance we were all given that kids will do just as well, if not better, with one parent if that parent is truly happy and fulfilled.

Nor does the failure of individual conservatives to live up to conservative principles don't disprove those principles. If I say it's bad to cheat on my wife, and then do so, it might prove I'm a jerk, but it doesn't prove it's wrong to believe or say we shouldn't cheat on our spouses.

Another example: Some of the pro-Kelo justices were appointed by Republicans. Again, the argument here is not that conservative policies cause harm, just that Republicans don't perfectly embrace conservative policies.

Probably the best counter-argument one could offer is that Republican policies can also ultimately lead to harm. And sometimes that's true: I often support favoring people's needs over, say, a perfectly pristine environment, and yet I'm distressed to see Bush support mountain-top removal coal mining -- and wrote against that. (I actually support a balance between those concerns, but my tipping point is further to the "right" than, say, those of Greenpeace or Al Gore (as he says it anyway).)

But I'd argue that's more the exception than the rule. Democrats are usually unhappy with the ultimate results of "liberal" or "progressive" policies, whereas I'm usually happy with the ultimate result of conservative ones.

I would like a smaller, less wasteful government, I would like fewer taxes, and fewer barriers to creating new businesses. I would like it a bit harder to have an abortion where the mother's life was not danger, and more resulting adoptions. And, ironically, I think most Democrats would like these things too.

If you hated this essay (or essays of this sort), thought it ran on too long, think I'm being unfair in characterizing a difference between left and right, or think I'm otherwise missing something major, feel free to have your say.

And a good day to you regardless!