ACT is not a viable party for social conservatives

Over the last few months I have been dismayed at the support David Seymour seems to be attracting from some misguided conservatives. I understand the impulse: Seymour holds himself up as a champion of free speech, which is an issue many conservatives are deeply concerned about.

But I maintain that no conservative should vote Act, and I shall here explain why.

The Act Party is deeply hostile to our beliefs

The Act Party is openly hostile to social conservatism. This is reflected in the fact that it expressly stated that the reason it is running a candidate in the Tāmaki electorate against incumbent Nat MP Simon O’Connor is that he is a social conservative. It has consciously declared itself an enemy, not an ally, to social conservatism and has targeted our representation in Parliament.

The Act Party was the driving force behind legalising euthanasia

Lest we forget, Seymour spent the better part of a decade campaigning to legalise euthanasia. That is the source of his hostility towards O’Connor and other social conservatives. You can be sure that he will widen the criteria as soon as the right moment presents itself. A vote for the Act Party is a vote for euthanasia.

The Act Party will be National’s coalition partner

If (as many political commentators seem to think likely) National wins the next election, Act’s support as a coalition partner will be necessary to form a government. If Act has a significant percentage of the vote, it may well seek to exclude social conservatives from cabinet. In other words, a vote for Act is a vote to potentially drag National in a socially liberal direction.

The Act Party’s support for free speech is a sham

When the abortion bill was introduced, it contained a prohibition on protests outside abortion clinics. Seymour opposed the ban, but said he would vote for the legislation even if the ban remained in place. In other words, he was able to make a lot of noise about free speech without actually having to pay any political cost.

When Parliament accidentally voted to remove the ban, literally not knowing what they were voting on, further legislation prohibiting protests outside abortion clinics was introduced. Here Seymour’s true colours became clear: the Act Party unanimously voted in favour of the ban. In other words, his earlier opposition to it was just empty words which he did not expect to have to make good on.

The Act Party’s economic policies are not conservative

I add that the Act Party is essentially a libertarian party. Libertarianism is the philosophy of selfish and wealthy people who dislike having a welfare system because they do not want to have to pay tax. I am at a loss to understand how any Christian could believe that we do not have social obligations to our neighbours.

I understand why some conservatives are tempted to vote Act over the issue of free speech, but I hope that this article explains why that impulse seems totally misguided.