|
|
|
July 18, 2004
Is socialized morality conservative?
This remark by Ramesh Ponnuru certainly passes muster as the quote of the day: [T]he split between libertarians and social conservatives is likely to determine the shape of politics over the next decades.I agree. And I am beginning to think that "social conservative" is a more descriptive term than "moral conservative." But as I said in a previous post, whether one is morally conservative isn't the point. Many libertarians are morally conservative in their personal lives. As James Glassman notes, young people today tend to be morally conservative. (I think that's a good thing too; and I say this as a veteran of the 1970s excesses, which killed dozens of my friends.) But politically, the question is not what you do personally; it's what you'd use government force to make others do. Example: David Weigel, 22, the former editor of a conservative magazine at Northwestern University, a contributor to the libertarian magazine Reason and an intern at the editorial page of USA Today, said that last spring his college paper had trouble finding any conservatives on campus who supported amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.NOTE: I try to fact check the New York Times to the extent that I can, and a bit of research revealed that David Weigel has his own blog, in which he confirms that he was quoted correctly. How much of a Big Brother are you? Attaching the word "social" to those conservatives who'd use government force to police morals places them on the social engineering side of the spectrum where they belong. That's fair, because the more big government one wants, the more the word "social" applies. The question might also be asked whether big government conservatism is conservatism at all. If not, then libertarian moral conservatives would appear in logic to be more conservative than communitarian social conservatives. But since when has logic had anything to do with social engineering? CORRECTION: Beck points out in an email that the quote I had misattributed to Ramesh Ponnuru above was actually Glenn Reynolds' commentary occurring directly AFTER Ramesh's quote. Beck is right and I appreciate the correction. The first paragraph above should read as follows: This remark by Glenn Reynolds certainly passes muster as the quote of the day: [T]he split between libertarians and social conservatives is likely to determine the shape of politics over the next decades.Thanks Beck! posted by Eric on 07.18.04 at 12:07 PM
Comments
I have more trouble with this issue than any other. "I'm against the drug war." "So you're one of those doper pot heads, huh?" "No, I don't take drugs." "I'm against criminalizing abortion." "Oh, so you think it is OK to just start killing fetuses left and right!" "No, I think it is a mortal sin; I just don't think we should put people in jail for it." I have to go through this on a regular basis. Phelps · July 18, 2004 10:28 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Excellent, again. No, "socialized morality" is neither conservative nor moral. I love your dualism of "libertarian moral conservatives" vs. "communitarian social conservatives". They are indeed "social" (as in "the men mixed by the social considerations", as Ayn Rand once put it). But the first thing we must do, we who value freedom and the individual, is refuse to concede "moral", "religious", and "values" to the Enemy. If we concede that to them, then they have won. It is we who must hold up the banner of the Holy. That is what the battle demands. Nothing less will do.