|
September 30, 2010
Can "social" be separate from "state"?
M. Simon's post has generated an interesting discussion about the conflict between libertarianism and social conservatism, and I am reminded of what I said when I praised Christine O'Donnell. What makes this so potentially important is that it might indicate a bold and positive new trend among social conservatives away from statism.Again, I do not have a problem with social conservatives unless they are statist social conservatives. Being sexually monogamous, observing the Sabbath, being opposed to pornography, homosexuality, or even masturbation -- these and more could be called socially conservative things. But demanding that people conform to such rules at gunpoint (which is what laws do by their nature) is the essence of statism. Anyway, my hangup with labels -- and terminology -- sometimes gets the better of me, and this morning I wondered whether it is wishful thinking to say that people who want the state out of their lives can be socially conservative. Might that be a contradiction? What is social conservatism? Is social conservatism without statism, possible? Or does positing such a thing gut the term of any real meaning? For, if we are we talking about personal conservatism (or religious conservatism), take the example of someone who opposes sexual hedonism, porn, gay sex, and dutifully observes the Sabbath, yet who does not believe the government should enforce these views. Isn't that person already something other than a social conservative, at least according to the conventional view? So, my question is a simple one. Is the term "non-statist social conservative" an oxymoron? Was I wrong to apply it to Christine O'Donnell? It's a simple question, really. If the "social" inherently implies statism, then isn't calling someone a "non-statist social conservative" a bit like calling for "non-statist social security," or even calling someone a "non-statist statist"? Or can "non-statist social conservative" also mean advocacy of social conservatism without resort to the heavy hand of government intervention? I hope so. But damn, these labels torment me. Perhaps we ought to ditch the word "social": The adjective "social" is also used often in political discourse, although its meaning in viveks a context depends heavily on who is using it. In left-wing circles it is often used to imply a positive characteristic, while in right-wing circles it is generally used to imply a negative characteristic. It should also be noted that, overall, this adjective is used much more often by those on the political left than by those on the political right. For these reasons, those seeking to avoid association with the left-right political debates often seek to label their work with phrases that do not include the word "social". An example is quasi-empiricism in mathematics which is sometimes labelled social constructivism by those who see it as an unwarranted intrusion of social considerations in mathematical practice,A lot of that makes sense, but I am a bit troubled by the phrase "in viveks." I suspect they meant "invokes," but that's a pretty wild typo. But what the hell, I can't even define the word "conservative," so I probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying over what it in viveks. I'm almost tempted to say that people who use these terms know what they mean, except I don't think they always do. Much time spent arguing could be saved if people agreed over the meaning of the terms they toss about, but who am I to talk? I just spent a post arguing with myself! But as I'm feeling so very social, I thought I would end with a San Francisco flashback: I'm dumbfounded whenever I try to come up with a definition, but I will never forget as long as I live seeing an elderly Chinese man interviewed on a local San Francisco "man in the street" television program. He was asked his opinion about a controversial left-wing proposal to do some damn thing I've long forgotten, and he flatly refused to say what he thought. This didn't satisfy the questioner, who kept pressing him, and finally asked him outright why he was so reluctant to speak.Almost makes me wanna become an antisocial conservative. MORE: Acting on a shady bit of advice from Veeshir, I decided to shorten the last link, which became http://5z8.info/bomb-plans_k6x1y_cockfights. posted by Eric on 09.30.10 at 10:42 AM
Comments
I hate to quibble with someone probably taller than me, but I was going to say,
The govt's job is to keep people from killing me, hurting me or taking my stuff. Unfortunately, very few people are on my side. I'm not saying gov't police are perfect, I'm saying they're necessary. Also, furriners want to kill me, not because America messes with their country, because the one thing that human beings do better than anything else (even better than rationalization) is try to kill each other. So we need a strong military. Otherwise, the world explodes the next day and we're fighting wars in Canada and Mexico in short order. At least the tea partiers are the close. There's no consensus on where to draw the line of size of gov't, but everybody knows that line has been crossed, spindled and mutilated. Veeshir · September 30, 2010 05:59 PM Eric, Thanks for the link. And as often is the case I did not read this before posting my latest. M. Simon · September 30, 2010 11:05 PM If Christine O'Donnell were not a statist, she would not have even have introduced personal sexual behaviors into the political debate. Why even bring up "solo sex" and homosexuality if you aren't trying to involve the state in these matters? In addition to being a Statist Social Conservative, the woman simply has a small, petty, vulgar mind and would rather harp on her strictly personal values than address the serious issues of state control and destruction of our economy, and the state-driven funneling of our citizens' remaining wealth to the Bankster Mafia. Or, perhaps the growth of an immense private fundamentalist paramilitary force, known as Blackwater, fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts granted by both the Bush and Obama administrations. We are confronting extremely serious threats to our essential liberties, and what somebody does with his own hands under his own bed covers in a private room is not one of those threats. How dumb has this country become that someone like O'Donnell is taken seriously? Laura Louzader · October 1, 2010 12:55 AM Laura, Taking into consideration this is a partisan site: http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/09/christine-odonnell-taking-on-top-gopers.html And my attitude is "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." - WC Obama first. Then we can sort out the differences. M. Simon · October 1, 2010 03:47 AM Congress shall make no law ...abridging ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... Isn't it sad that "socialism" has come to mean the sort of society that compels coerces and demands the people "assemble"? The Women's Christian Temperance League, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, The United Commerical Travelers, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, social organizations assembled for a common cause are part and parcel of the society as a whole and are enshrined in the US constitution. But those who insist that voluntary participation in their utopian schemes have stolen the word. "Society" in this usage means "Us, holding the guns -- join or die." Come to that, the John Birch Society starts looking almost rational pouncer · October 1, 2010 06:45 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2010
September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 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 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Bill Whittle Has Moved
My Abortion Politics Solar power! Can "social" be separate from "state"? Let The Bidding Begin No, Classical Values is not "malware" If you don't agree with me, it's because you're selfish! Martha Coakley Puts Innocent Man In Prison For Life - The Movie They Could Never Lose Christianist wiretapping theocracy on the rise!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I propose the following formulation:
"A true conservative believes his values will prevail on their own merit -- a conservative who uses the state to impose his values by force is just a different kind of leftist."