Filed under: politics | Tags: conservative, democracy, gay marriage, liberal, politics, social conservatism
I’ve been thinking a bit about social conservatism as a force in American politics. What I’ve been wondering is whether social conservatives are always fighting a losing battle, and if they weren’t what the alternative would be.
I think I’ve mentioned before that I’m socially liberal, but not strongly. What that means is that I hold all the same views as your standard issue liberal, but that I just don’t care all that much and can get annoyed by my own side when it makes things a big issue. It’s not that I mind having the right to marry someone of my own gender, it’s just that I would have been fine not having that right especially if it meant all the energy that went into fighting for it had gone into coming up with practical solutions in the public education system.
My view, though, I think points out a potentially fatal problem for social conservatives. Most people aren’t really strongly on one side or the other of these issues, because most people aren’t very involved politically. Unfortunately for the social conservatives one side is fighting for new rights and freedoms and the other side is fighting not to have them and then to turn things back once the other side prevails on an issue. The thing is, I think most uninvolved people are a bit like me- once a new right is won, whether for themselves or someone else, they don’t really feel like giving it back. It may be hard to win new rights or new freedoms, but I imagine it’s much harder to take them away once people have won them.
In a democracy that is governed by the rule of law it would seem to be the case that social conservatives are always losing ground, always fighting a losing battle. On the other hand, it’s very easy to take rights away if you have military or police power behind you or if you’re willing to go outside the law. Again, most people aren’t willing to be arrested or risk their safety for these things.
To be perfectly honest, I find this troubling. I may be a social liberal, but I must admit a tendency towards judging excess and respecting people who are practical, sensible, and responsible. There seems to me no way to use the political system to encourage more practicality, sensibleness, and responsibility unless you’re ready to start taking away rights and freedoms. Cultural change just might not be something that lends itself well to legislation and activism, or if it does it might always favor more permissiveness and lower and lower standards for behavior. I’m not sure what solutions to that there might be, if any, but I think whining about it or trying to take away people’s freedoms don’t seem very attractive or very useful. How on earth do you steer a culture away from decadence?
13 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’ll post on this later. Deep.
Comment by Mrs. B September 6, 2008 @ 5:10 pmlegislating other peoples sexual behaviour is not very conservative when you think about it, but thats all that social conservatives are concerned with.
Comment by blouie2 September 7, 2008 @ 3:31 amblouie2- thank god. if social conservatives started legislating all their positions we’d have our very own Mao-style cultural revolution i think. which was partly my point- that social conservatism can perhaps only win politically with the help of a repressive style of government like that of communism, or oppressive arab regimes.
there is a huge break though, between libertarians who as far as i can tell really do want government to stay out of people’s private business and social conservatives who deep down, i think, would prefer it if the church was running the government.
i do think there’s a lot more to it than just legislating sexual behavior, though. they also want to ban the hippity-hop music. and make those damn kids stay of their lawns!
Comment by vive42 September 7, 2008 @ 4:43 amVanessa, Come on.
Social liberals want to legislate as much as anyone. They want to ban smoking, plastic bags, cars,hiring practices whatever.
I don’t think either side has more of propensity for legislation.
But over time, the pendulum swings back and forth. People get too much of one thing or the other….and then it swings the other way.
Comment by Mrs. B September 7, 2008 @ 11:19 amblouie,
I probably have as good a sex life as anyone. And Catholics are known for having gobs of kids. Liberals don’t have better sex lives.
Most of the social conservatives that I know are mostly concerned that their own churches are allowed to keep their own core values where they believe that the Bible commands. So although they do not want gay marriage made legal because it would require them to hold gay marriages in their CHURCHES, they could go along with civil unions. I know a lot of social conservatives. I am one. And I think it is wrong that people who have long term relationships cannot share property or visit one another in intensive care units.
There are wacko fringe people on both sides who have extreme positions.
But take a look at how Sarah Palin is dealing with her own daughter’s out of wedlock birth. She hasn’t been thrown out of the family. My daughter in the depths of her eating disorder, posed for Playboy. I haven’t stopped loving her. At the depths of the true Christian conservative is Jesus’s commandment, “Love one another.”
I think if you spent more time in an Evangelical church, you would find that Grace is one of the most frequently discussed theological principles. Because we are all human. We all sin. And no matter what, we are loved.
Comment by Mrs. B September 7, 2008 @ 11:27 ammrs b- first off- there has never been any question of legalizing gay marriage meaning that any church would be forced to recognize or perform those marriages. if someone’s been telling you the church would be forced to go along with it they are just wrong. the church isn’t forced to perform ANY marriage because it is seperate from the state. that’s why such a thing as marrying at city hall with a justice of the peace exists, so the church doesn’t have to bless any union it disagrees with.
so, now are you gonna be on board to legalize marriage, as long as your personal church can stay out of it?
i know you think what you’re saying is true when you say it- just like liberals think they’re the ones in favor of freedom and then they go and try to ban hamburgers for being too fatty. i actually agree with you that both sides have an equal tendency towards getting overly involved in people’s private life. there’s a certain kind of personality that just can’t leave other people alone because they are just so darn sure they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
social conservatives have a lot of that. which is why it probably never occurred to sarah palin what a shockingly wrong thing she was asking when she inquired how to go about banning books. when you’re caught up in being right it’s hard to realize when you’ve crossed a line and how it might seem to outsiders.
Comment by vive42 September 7, 2008 @ 12:33 pmhttp://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/
OK. Another web rumor. Where is it going to end with the stupid attacks on this woman?
Comment by Dawn September 7, 2008 @ 6:56 pminstead of linking to something put up by michelle malkin, a republican party hack, how about something from a reputable source like TIME magazine?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
she asked the librarian of Wasilla about how to go about banning books. no “banned books list” involved- but michelle malkin probably just made that up so she could debunk something without adressing the actual facts of the situation.
i’m sure it was naivite and a long time ago. not such a big deal- but not an internet rumour either unless TIME is a chain email now.
Comment by vive42 September 7, 2008 @ 7:07 pmActually,
Time Magazine is a hack magazine. Michelle Malkin is definitely a right winger, but how do YOU explain that some of the books she supposedly tried to ban had not yet been published?
The story has firmly been put to bed. She never tried to ban books. I can cite you several other sources if you like.
This is the biggest smear campaign I have ever seen about the woman who is what all these liberal women have always said they thought women should be allowed to be.
Unfortunately, she does not share their political philosophy. So she must be destroyed.
Comment by Dawn September 7, 2008 @ 9:16 pmDawn, I’m sorry but you’re wrong on this one. I never said there was a list of books she tried to ban. What the article says and what other news sources have reported is that she asked the librarian how she could go about banning books. No list, nothing more than one little question that never went any further.
So, no, she didn’t have some huge book banning campaign, there was no list of books. And I’m no big fan of TIME, believe me, but many news sources have reported that she asked about how she could ban books- and I assume she was told that the first amendment of the constitution said she couldn’t and she dropped the issue.
You’re the one who is making this more of a story than that. I put it down to innocent confusion at the very beginning of her career. but do the research- it’s not like TIME is out on a limb on this, I just picked it because I’ve always heard it’s more right leaning so I figured you might accept it more easily.
Have I told some story about her having a list? No, that was Michelle Malkin. If there really was an email about that I sure haven’t seen it. All I’m saying is what has been widely reported by numerous mainstream media sources. And you argue back saying I’m telling a story I never told and your only evidence is a right wing hack.
this will be my last word on the subject. i know how easily we both can get carried away
Comment by vive42 September 7, 2008 @ 9:26 pmPitt-bulls with lipstick have never been very attractive to me. More power to Sarah to hold beliefs and stick to them. The problem comes, of course, when and if she decides the rest of the country should be mandated to follower her beliefs. Those out of control liberals made it possible with blool and sweat for Sarah to have a vote, never mind running for office.
Comment by NChe September 8, 2008 @ 5:37 pmHealth care costs are our of control. Second hand smoke, in study after study, affirms that second hand smoke is hazzardous to health. If someone, who has been hooked by age thirteen decides she or he want to play Russian Roulette, so be it. However don’t play it with my children. I could go on and on and won’t. Breathe easy. Besides what does this have to do with health care costs – we all know the answer to that. And there is the matter of seat belts, injury, death, and health care costs, and the matter of certain foods linked to heart attacks, fatal or debilitation and health care costs and round and round we go.
I had a double major in B.U.s College of Arts and Sciences. Does that make me an expert – you bet your life it doesn’t. I will say unabashedly, the more highly educated (educated unlike conditioned) the more one knows how little one knows. Humility is not such a bad virtue – just don’t take my vote away or right to marry whomever I love or make decisions about the safety of my body and my family’s well being. Sarah says God wants us to force an eleven year old, trumatised, bruised, terrified – to carry a child conceived out of rape, to go further and give birth to that child. Has anyone out there ever had a child. OK, I promise never to bring up politics again. This is not the place for it. To me, I am not a citizen worth my citizenship if I don’t study from all angles the life giving or life taking, planet healing or planet bleeding issue and then act on them through emails, letters, phone calls, and finally, my hard won vote. I’ve written this in reaction to much I’ve read from various people on the blog over the weeks. end of story, blessed be, shalom, a deep bow.
NChe
And Barack Obama wants to murder children who escape a late term abortionist’s scalpel. Equally extreme and on the record. He has voted the most extreme liberal position on abortion.
Fortunately, people are beginning to look at the record and draw their own conclusions about relative morality.
I’m glad you consider your right to marry more important than a child’s right to life.
How far are we from the position of not caring for the weakest among us to ridding ourselves of anyone who appears to be a burden? It doesn’t seem very far to me.
Comment by Dawn Brockman September 8, 2008 @ 7:43 pmPerhaps Mr. Obama trusts women enough to allow them choice. He nor I advocate for abortion. We do advocate for choice and for the separation of church and state.
Comment by NChe September 9, 2008 @ 9:55 pmYou are glad I consider my right to marry more important than a child’s right to life. Huh?
child. I don’t know you, Dawn, and you don’t know me so enough! I can say in all sincerety that I admire the wisdom and compassion many of your posts contain.
NChe