Caitlyn Jenner, perhaps predictably, drew a less than amicable reception from those attending CPAC last Sunday.
The gender ideology inherent to Jenner’s lifestyle is irreconcilable with both the Christian worldview and the nuclear family as an institution, two things that exist at the core of conservative thought. It is both internally consistent and morally necessary for conservatives to reject transgenderism, which is precisely what they did at CPAC.
Following the incident at CPAC, self-proclaimed pro-choice conservative Tomi Lahren eagerly jumped to Jenner’s defense on Twitter. She condemned attendees for their opposition to transgenderism, insinuating in her tweets that those who oppose Jenner’s choice to identify as a woman are not true conservatives.
According to Lahren, conservatism is reducible to a desire for limited government paired with laissez-faire attitudes toward how others decide to conduct their lives. She is wrong.
Lahren conflates conservatism with libertarianism. While there is, admittedly, substantial overlap between them, the two ideological traditions are undeniably distinct. Embedded within conservatism is a paternalistic concern for the common good combined with the rejection of moral relativism, principles not necessarily present in libertarian thought. Applying these values to the policymaking process results in considerably different outcomes compared to what libertarian ideals would yield.
Consider the standard conservative and libertarian positions on prostitution, for instance. Conservatives hold that a certain moral standard, often rooted in Abrahamic theology, ought to be upheld to preserve the well-being of society. From this, many conservatives conclude that prostitution should be prohibited. Libertarians, conversely, see prostitution as a voluntary agreement between two individuals which the state has no right to impede upon, regardless of moral considerations.
There is nothing contradictory about conservatives rejecting transgenderism — if anything, doing so is necessary to ensure our movement does not abandon its guiding principles. Perhaps CPAC’s treatment of Jenner offended Lahren’s libertarian sensibilities, but it was otherwise perfectly in line with conservatism.
One could argue that Jenner, being transgender, is a formidable candidate in a state as liberal as California and that it would therefore be politically advantageous for Republicans to throw support behind Jenner, ignoring disagreements about the immutability of sex.
This is foolish for several reasons.
For one, there is no evidence to suggest that Jenner is even a particularly strong candidate. A poll from May has Jenner pulling just 6% of support among Republicans, definitely not a showing worth abandoning one’s philosophy over. Jenner being capable of garnering the votes necessary to oust Gov. Gavin Newsom is, as it stands, nothing more than beltway hype.
Even if a Republican, Jenner or otherwise, could take the governor’s mansion, it wouldn’t be much of a victory for Californian conservatives. An outstanding electoral feat for sure, but given the Democratic supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature, a Republican executive would not be that big of a deal from a policy standpoint. Once again, the costs for abandoning conservative principles simply are not worth the potential gains.
Jenner even supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, a view that does not represent the sentiments of California Republicans — a group that overwhelmingly threw their support behind Donald Trump and his immigration hawk rhetoric in the 2016 Republican primary. Is that the kind of political vision worth torching our views on gender over?
One governor’s race is not worth surrendering centuries of tradition, especially not Caitlyn Jenner’s race.
