Here’s my question, and the premise of her argument: Does conservatism need religion? In particular, does conservatism need Christianity?

I think there may be several relevant points here, but let me offer some clarifying (to me) observations. First, American conservatism is somewhat different than, say, European conservatism or Islamic conservatism. I don’t think too many people in the West think well of Islamic conservatism–certainly not many in the Republican party. American conservatism is, well, American. It gains much of its ethos from a relatively short history. But that history is profoundly religious–indeed, Christian–for better or worse.

Second, though there are some “conservatives” who claim to be atheistic (e.g. Christopher Hitchens), it’s hard to imagine how they aren’t somewhere being inconsistent. If the conservative “tent” is big enough to house a guy who’s most famous book is “god [sic] is not Great,” I wonder if shrinking the tent might be beneficial. Several commentators have noted that Hitchens–and others like him–are not merely atheistic, they’re anti-theistic.

I’m not sure what Parker is trying to do by marginalizing the Christian aspect of American conservatism. If she’s trying to appeal to those from other religions, fine. But it doesn’t follow that we should write off the Christian side of conservatism to do so.

Her example also doesn’t seem all that strong to me. She cites abortion as a conservative plank that doesn’t require Christianity. To her thinking, you can be an atheist who objects to any arbitrary killing, including killing the unborn. The argument has some merit, but it isn’t clear why arbitrary killing itself is bad. Her example is of a person who thinks of life as continuous in some sense, thereby validating the worth of any living person (?). This is true, but the continuity of life is a pretty vague concept that could be employed to make all sorts of very non-conservative arguments. Christianity offers a very good reason not to kill babies–they’re made in the image of God. But the moral government of God also permits the killing of murderers (by the state), and the ruler-ship of man gives him authority to use the Creation for his purposes since the rest of the world is made “for him.”

My tentative conclusion is that Ms. Parker’s fundamental premise is flawed. I have a number of other reasons for thinking that American conservatism needs religion, and her argument isn’t working as a credible counterargument for me.

Of course, not very many speakers tonight were nice–at least not when they were talking about Obama. Actually, is it unkind to tell the truth about someone’s public record when they are aspiring to the highest political office in the land? Maybe they were being nice by not mentioning houses in the Chicago suburbs and brothers in Africa.

I can’t wait to see tomorrow’s media commentary. I thought the media reaction to Tuesday night was intriguing.

Huckabee impressed me. His speech was very thoughtful.

Guiliani actually squeezed some relevant policy discussion around his sarcastic pot shots at the Democratic ticket.

Palin’s speech. Very nice. More subdued than I thought it would be, but that was probably a good thing. She moved nicely from the revivalist preacher mode into a serious explanation of her own record (read: accomplishments), then into a fairly coherent discussion of policy¹. Of course, she generously peppered her comments with sniper shots at the Democratic ticket–the comment about being a mayor vs a community organizer was great. When Obama picked Biden, the word was that the latter would be the “attack dog” for the Democratic ticket. I would caution him against underestimating his Republican counterpart.

Some bloggers have already claimed that her speech was like a high school speech. Great. That’s what we need: a clear, concise, direct statement. Skip the “nuanced” approach. Try communicating. Amazingly, there are a lot of high schoolers out there who are far better speakers that most political types. And they write their own speeches. And they deliver them without teleprompters. So it sounded like a high school speech. Great. That means it sounded genuine.

A genuine person in high political office. What are the odds?

1. Discussing difficult things like public policy never plays well on TV, and, as much as we hate it, candidates have to play to the TV. Palin did a nice job. back↩