Fred-headedness 2 – Conservatism School Back in Session:
By E Pluribus Unum Posted in conservatism | don't hate Fred because he's beautiful | dyslexics untie! | Republicans | Russell Kirk — Comments (157) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
RUSSELL KIRK DESCRIBES CORE CONSERVATIVE VALUES IN THE TRADITION OF EDMUND BURKE, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, WM F BUCKLEY, AND GOLDWATER. CONSERVATISM IS, QUITE LITERALLY, WHATEVER HE SAYS IT IS.
File under: conservatism | Russell Kirk | don't hate Fred because he's beautiful | dyslexics untie!
Third in a series.
Republicans need to embrace America’s conservative roots which made her great in the first place
Here’s a question for ya. Why do REPUBLICANS need to embrace conservatism? Why do I say that? Shouldn’t DEMOCRATS also embrace conservatism? Shouldn’t Martians, tall people, and people who love horses also embrace conservatism (that’s for you, C)?
In point of fact, yes. EVERYBODY should embrace conservatism. But we are Republicans, and operating the political machinery of the nation to benefit the nation is our business. We’re smart, realistic, handsome (or beautiful), we shop at Home Depot, and we love America better than we love political power. The Dems can say those things too, but they are lying when they do so. So let’s start with us, and we’ll get to the others as time allows.
Follow me to school...
Today we continue the ongoing series outlining the true principles of conservatism. We Republicans desperately need to steer the Party back to conservative principles. Why? First, because America is great, and we want it to stay great and become MORE great; second, because the Washington DC version of the GOP has become nothing more special than Democrat-Lite, with no prospects of change ahead; and finally and more importantly, because EVERYTHING great about America – the greatest nation in the history of the world – has its roots in conservative principles. That is a fact, and that is beyond debate – although if you want to dispute that, hey, take your best shot. Let me say once again, I like the way that sounds: everything great about America has its roots in conservative principles.
What exactly IS conservatism?
First, let’s get this said. Words MEAN things. While the exact boundaries of conservatism may be a little fuzzy, it is NOT an elastic, evolving, “living, breathing” thing that adapts to fit peoples’ tastes and whims. It is ALSO not some unattainable, esoteric standard that nobody can possibly meet. That is a load of crap. It is an ignorant, self-serving copout that allows squishes and their shills to play the “me too” card. I can say authoritatively that conservatism, as defined, is FULLY embodied in your average Texan (who does not live in Dallas, Austin, or Houston), and average rural American anywhere. It is fully, 100% embodied in Jeb Hensarling, Coburn, Flake, DeMint, and a minimum 20 others in Congress. It is NOT fully embodied in a great many OTHERS of our esteemed elected Republicans.
Conservatism as a term is much bandied about, and its meaning seems murky, hard to pin down. Of course, to lefty commie Democrats (I repeat myself) and their Treason Press toadies, it means: starving children and elderly people, imposing Christianity on everybody, commandeering women’s bodies, taxing the poor to give to the rich, invading those perfectly happy Iraqis and stealing their oil, polluting, raising global temperatures, driving SUVs just to run over Priuses, taking jobs away from blacks and giving them to Christians (but what about black Christians?), ruining pristine Alaskan paradises with those unsightly oil rigs, and pissing off terrorists and Bill Belichick. But we knew that was slightly off. After all the Treason Media says it, so it is therefore a lie.
OK, I’m back (I do that, hey shoot me). Conservatism is a set of interrelated guiding principles that involve the way a free, self-governing nation should do its thing. I summarized the core principles the other day, crudely as these: traditional moral values that include moral absolutes, traditional family values, law & order, primacy of personal property and basic freedoms, personal responsibility and accountability, recognition that humans are both noble and utterly untrustworthy, and the humble recognition that as a good rule of thumb, that government which governs least, governs best.
Why study conservatism anyway?
You’re kidding, right? Why does a young prospective preacher go to seminary? After all, the Bible is all there, what do you need all that extra learning for anyway? Savvy? We study our craft to understand its roots, its basics, its effects, to become more closely in tune with it, to benefit from the wisdom of those who have spent lifetimes studying it, and most of all, to equip us all to forcefully and ably defend it, teach it, and hold our elected officials (and candidates) to accountability to it, in a world that is hostile to it.
Let’s Get Started
As we study specifically the Ten Conservative Principles as outlined by Russell Kirk, who built on the writings of Edmund Burke -- and which express themselves aptly in the writings, acts, and deeds of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and in this generation, the great Fred Thompson – you’ll start to see what I mean.
So with no further adieu, let’s get started with Conservative School: Books out kids, the text is found at the Kirk Center.
Conservative Principle 1:
Did you ever wonder how adherence to the rule of law came to be a conservative position? Or pro-life, or building the fence, fierce opposition to judges who “legislate from the bench”? How did SoCon and MilCon get to be 2 of the 3 legs on the conservatism stool? Family values (whatever that means), capital punishment, getting tough on crime? And how did evangelical Christians (in the main) come to be associated with conservatism, in that the term ‘social conservative’ has become the Democrat code hate word for Christian?
Before anybody goes yelping at this point that many or all of these are debatable as to whether they represent legitimately conservative views, I ask you to read on, then we’ll discuss. Quoth Kirk:
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.
Wow. Grand. Humble. Indicting. Can you honestly wonder why I love Kirk so much?
A moral compass. Absolutes. Some things are always right, and some things are always wrong. Obeisance to a higher authority – whether that higher authority is the One High God Jehovah, or whether to enduring moral principles of right and wrong, not especially attached to a deity. Hah, just try and sell ANY of THAT on the Dem side of the aisle.
Further down Kirk’s list we get to personal freedom, but THAT is not where conservatism begins. It starts with personal responsibility, personal truth, what I call the contract of civilization. Consider this: if the most high principle were personal freedom, then the first directive of society would be to ‘do whatever you want’. A purely and completely free society would last about 8 milliseconds, instantly devolving into the worst kind of chaos. There would be no order, therefore no safety, and very soon no freedom, because the criminal element would instantly use their freedom to deny you YOUR rights to life and liberty. We could spend all day giving obvious examples of how this would play out disastrously. Let’s not – let’s simply acknowledge an astoundingly obvious point -- society MUST begin with responsibility, with obedience to right and wrong, and with obedience to authority.
What are the spinoffs, the resulting principles (penumbras? I kid) emanating from acknowledgment of an enduring moral order? Let’s reel off a few, and they’ll sound familiar:
-- I, as a citizen, have responsibilities. My freedoms are not unlimited. I am responsible to obey the laws of the land. I am responsible to limit my own freedoms so that they don’t encroach on the freedoms of others. This rules out murder, rape, and theft (to name a few obvious ones) as exercises of my personal freedom. Liberty is not license.
-- In the same way, the GOVERNMENT has responsibilities. It has the responsibility to enact and enforce laws and institutions that respect and enhance the freedoms of all citizens (as well as aliens) and enforce adherence by citizens (and aliens) to the basic contract of civilization.
-- This leads unerringly, DIRECTLY to the Rule of Law. What laws have been passed must be enforced, and must operate in practice as the law of the land. Institutions operating under the banner of government MUST not be allowed to ignore the body of law, or to spin its OWN law (think judiciary, think bureaucracies, think the Congress itself). Follow this to its root, and in the United States we find that the MOST fundamental law of the land is the United States Constitution, as amended. It is sacrosanct. It MUST not ever be usurped, for it is the founding contract. Just as a legally created contract between two parties, once agreed to and signed, must not be re-written by one party to change the terms, absent the approval of the other party, so must the Constitution NOT be amended other than by the terms defined IN the Constitution.
-- The Constitution establishes the provisions by which it can be amended. It is a firm, self-contained contract. Because adherence to the Rule of Law is sacrosanct to conservatism, THIS is why conservatives find judicial activism, and the so-called living constitution, so morally repugnant. Oligarchs who use their position on the bench to usurp the Constitution and the statutes issued by the Congress, these people are violators of the rule of law, and violators of any moral code. These are vile people. No less vile are those in the Congress and the White House who practice the same thing. For example, the filibuster of judicial nominees, allowing a minority in the Senate to deny consent DIRECTLY subverts the text and meaning of the Constitution, and it is vile. People who do it are vile. People who in a position to stop it and don’t do so are useful idiots.
-- Note that while conservatives rail against judicial activism committed by leftists, they EQUALLY reject judicial activism operating on behalf of ostensibly conservative causes. To just state an oft-painted scenario by leftists, I hereby call out and reject those who would call on the judiciary to usurp the Constitution in order to illegally legislate Christianity as the state religion. Yes, yes, I know, few if any on the Christian right are actually agitating for that, but we sure get accused of it.
The adherence to the rule of law has other direct spinoffs:
-- Building the fence. Why is building a border fence a conservative idea? Oh, and by the way HERE AND NOW I assert that it is. Commence railing as you wish, but let me save you some time and agony, by establishing the terms of such an argument: this is NOT an argument about (a) whether it is ‘right or wrong’ to build the fence [by engaging this, you pre-suppose that right and wrong exist, THEREBY conceding a moral order before you start – MAN, I love me], nor (b) whether it is ‘legal or illegal’ to build the fence [Congress enacted the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which makes it the law. If you wish to argue legality, I see no other possible tack than to argue that it’s unconstitutional to establish and enforce sovereign boundaries – and good luck with that], but rather THIS is the debate front, (3) whether building the border fence is a CONSERVATIVE idea. Your sources are (a) the writings of Edmund Burke, (b) the writings of Alexander Hamilton, (c) The US Constitution as amended, (d) the Declaration of Independence, (e) the Federalist Papers, (f) the writings of Russell Kirk, William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. That’s it, no other original sources are acceptable in a claim of conservatism.
Here’s why building the border fence is a conservative idea. Conservatism teaches adherence to the law; more importantly to this issue, it teaches ORDER. Sovereign borders and citizenship are part of national sovereignty. A wide open border that is being actively invaded by what has to be a million illegal aliens per year constitutes a huge threat – order breaks down, it becomes increasingly pointless as a citizen to obey the law when so many others ignore the law (including all the citizens who support and encourage illegal immigration by hiring illegals or benefiting from the attendant underground economy)
Adherence to the rule of law means rejection of legal shuck and jive, semi-legal endruns, rejection of seeking legal loop-holes to subvert the plain meaning of laws, appeals not to enforce properly enacted laws, the use of Senate rules to subvert the plain meaning of the Constitution.
Further, and this is important, it means standing up to those who do so. Conservatism calls for courage. The forces of tyranny, of creeping government encroachment on personal property and rights (:ahem: AGW Nazis, for example), of nanny-statism, of judicial activism, of cracen political power – they will never rest. Comity is nothing but cowardice if that’s one’s excuse for allowing, unchallenged, these forces to run amok.
If you are an elected official and believe these principles, then either fight for them or get your dumb ass out of the way so somebody else can. If you are a regular citizen and believe in these principles, then insist that your representatives (and candidates) embrace these principles. When you MUST, work for the best of bad options, but NEVER give up in the long game. If a Republican won’t play, primary him.
Let's discuss
All right, now. I’m a student just like you all. I’ve tossed out some thoughts on border security, and some on judicial activism, as they relate to Kirk’s first conservative principle – enduring moral order.
Discuss these, and/or the other things I’ve suggested -- pro-life, family values, capital punishment, being tough on crime, and so on. Or bring up anything you want to that has some bearing on “enduring moral order”.
Tata! Don't feel like you can't read ahead. Next up – Fredheadedness 3 – Adherence to Custom, Convention, and Continuity – aka, why rush to change society?
You can e-mail it to Erick and he can forward to me.
I quit posting my e-mail due to a couple of nasty trolls.
Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
"while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society". Especially the "intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites". That absolutely nails down what our society has become! This is one of the most harmful and damaging moral evils that people can do that does harm the rest of us!
I know we can't legislate this problem out of our society. What we must do is unit together with one loud voice and say "We the people" are not going to let this moral evil distroy our great nation as it has done so to many societies of the past.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
EPU is not defining conservativism nor dictating to anyone what is conservative philosophy. He is citing Russell Kirk who was influenced by the writings of Edmund Burke.
Great stuff, EPU.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple
Let's please, please stay far away from "that" topic on this thread.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
EPU, although your words are pure gold my God is a jealous God and I am to have no idols before him. As such, the highest level of admiration I have to give is 2nd place. This is a Silver Medal diary and to be sure the best I have read in quite some time.
You may represent this Fredheart (the heart is where I keep my moral compass) anytime.
M Penny
Isa 48:11 "I will not give my glory to another".
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Thanks for the clear explanation of Kirk's first principal and for providing practical examples of how that principal creates the positions we take.
There is one argument against the fence that you haven't allowed for that would still fit into conservative principal: Some other technology has been shown to provide better border protection than the fence. But since such technology doesn't exist the fence is what we have.
So yes, the fence is a conservative idea. 8*)
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Right now the DHS is using the (so far not very effective) "virtual fence" as a way of thwarting the intent of the law.
Once we have some pretty sharp and field-tested technology in place that does as good as or better than physical fences, then hey, I'm on board.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that it needs to be "d**ned" to be a past participle and function as an adjective modifier for "class."
:-)
You did ask.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. lists "d**ned" in the entry for "d**n."
I was, therefore, wrong.
Happy Friday to you, too!
you're my hero (well, next to Coach Gamecock that is). And
Brilliant, my man, simply brilliant.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I find it odd that only us Fredheads are on the post. I think there is a visceral reaction to Fred's name among some on the site now (after the debates of the last couple of days).
Well done EPU. This is what we need to do. Remind people of the guiding philosophy of conservatism. This philosophy is conservatism. The positions are what result from the philosophy.
Bravo.
Now also found at The Minority Report
and there isn't much to discuss as shown by most of the comments being the "right on" variety (nothing wrong with that, it's a great blog post, but there isn't much to argue about in the context of the blog).
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
I offered "border control" and "opposition toactivist judges" as ideas spawned from "enduring moral order", and was hoping people would agree/disagree and tackle other areas (law & order, capital punishment, church/state issues, gay 'marriage', teaching morality in school (or not), stuff like that.
I agree, right at this moment, there's alot of tensions that are causing people (on both sides of the olive branch/no olive branch , as well as citizens who didn't get involved in that kerfuffle) to view this diary through the prism of "is this some continuation of the current spat?".
Which it is not. I've been writing this diary for over a month. absentee knows, I emailed him the first draft of this several weeks ago.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
And by the way, they're right. There's nothing to argue here. Don't do such a good job next time! That'll learn ya!
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
OK, but seriously C, I missed the target somewhat. I love that many of us are in sync ideologically at the core (and I wonder if I'm fully reading that right), and we all love "atta boys", but it's the exchange, the civil and gentle crossing of swords (like you and me do), over the expressions of Kirkianism, that I want to cause.
For example, this kind of thread: OK good, we got "enduring moral order" suggests some absolutes in right and wrong. What does that say about "legislating morality"? Where is the line where "legislating morality" crosses into government busybody-ness, intrusiveness into freedom of/from religion?
But I think I had already written such a lengthy diary I couldn't do any more. So I may do a followup in a few days that hopefully gets right down to that sort of thing and gets people to wrassling with the practical applications of Kirk # 1. What do you think?
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Just put links to the two fredheadness blogs into the "debate" blog, then pose a specific and provocative point. I don't think you're tromping on previous ground too much and certainly not being too lengthy. I therefore see no reason to wait days. Hours might be ok, but days isn't necessary.
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
and the relative importance of life, liberty, and property rights to properly draw the line about legislating morality. Without factoring the the life, liberty, and property rights of others, the answer would always be to refrain from the use of government power.
In other words, a an individual alone on an island has no need of government (while he or she still has moral obligations).
much uninterrupted time to write more than a few comments. I need to read this in the quiet. Kids are going down as we speak. Hubby is doing war tonight. You and Hay are tops on my "really read" list. And sometimes you are so brilliant, there just isn't anything left to say. :>)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
The diary in and of itself is a masterpiece.
I am disappointed in how the thread has played out though.
It seems as if it has become a place from our resident libertarian to debate moral authority.
I get the need for moral authority, the gist of it, and how it plays into conservative thought. I have not gotten a sense of how we sell that message as conservatives to Joe America.
Maybe my expectations were too much or misplaced?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
I don't think bird really messed it up - a bit exasperating though. Nothing compared to the seagulling that was done on my earlier diary though.
See if you can find a conversation on this page between me and absentee - I think we're going to put a little more out here on Kirk's first principle.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
They are enough social moderates and libertarian-leaning folks here for quite a good discussion. More light than heat, I hope.
Well, not exactly. I supported him until his campaign failed and broke my heart. The ship sailed and I didn't look back.
Dude, it's like a 3000 word essay in which Fred's name does not appear except for the caption and sub-caption.
It's about Russell Kirk and "enduring moral order". I'd like to hear your thoughts on all that.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
You do call it Fredheadedness!
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
It rhymes, and it's like a Fred-whistle - it gets the attention of all the right people. And all the wrong people.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
but an excellent post. Illuminating and well-written, as well as correct.
"Many of us are quite disposed to barter [freedom] away for what we call energy, coercion, and some other terms we use as vaguely as that of liberty - There is often as great a rage for change and novelty in politics, as in amusements and fashions." ~ Federal Farmer
the water's fine....
And anyway, Fredheadedness is not obeisance to Fred. It's fealty to Burkean/Kirkian principles. And ....look! There's a spot open, right over here!
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Kirk and Goldwater represent different strands of conservatism. There is not a single linear connection between all the great conservatives.
But they overlap on most things that matter, IMHO.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
They do overlap some, but I think understanding the core difference between the two helps put modern conservatism in context. Kirk tends to favor prudence and tradition. He loved the South and was an ardent reader of the Southern agrarians like Tate. Goldwater represents the wing more determined to promote individual liberties and is more associated with free and open West. In many respects those strands still exist today.
But don't you agree that Kirk gives due diligence also to personal liberties, free market, personal property, and all that? I do. If you have not studied him beyond what I have written, please do so (I think you have, though). He gets to all that, and he expresses pretty strong distaste for zealous governance.
His emphases on moral order and responsibilities tracks with my leanings, so I'm biased his way. But at the end of the day, both Buckley and Kirk/Burke embrace the same vision. My opinion, anyway.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Yes, I've studying him quite extensively. He did have a strong zealous governance, but also zealousness in general. He was particularly fond of the "politics of prudence" and rooted societies. Kirk is often credited with explaing and rooting conservatism in a way that countered conservatism natural tendency toward the sophistry of libertarianism. I am particularly fond of Kirk. It really bugs me when libertarian minded folks are overly simplistic and act if there are two camps, libertarianism and "SoCons". Kirk was not libertarian nor was he a TheoCon.
I was wondering if we were talking about the same people. Nah, actually I knew what you were shooting for.
Swamp, you are a closet scholar - I didn't know! You gotta post more, man.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
As Jonah Goldberg and Claremont point out, Goldwater's conservatism was also rooted in his belief in a standing moral order, contrary to those who would see him more as a libertarian.
Do you really not believe that belief in a moral order unites all the great conservatives?
Dude, *I* believe in a standing moral order.
Part of that moral order entails allowing others to make their own decisions for themselves even if this will result in them hurting themselves.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I can work with this part: allowing others to make their own decisions for themselves even if this will result in them hurting themselves,
but "enduring moral order" does not preach that - although I'll grant that it does not necessarily argue *against* that either. Others of Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles address (and champion) those personal freedoms.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
A Human Being is a Moral Agent and any attempt to limit his Moral Agency has to be seen as a Huge Cost, if not an outright act of Wickedness.
I'll quote C.S. Lewis.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I realize bird that you are some form of non-Republican (is that progressive, leftist, Democrat, liberal, or whatever - I do not know what label you ascribe to yourself).
But here's the basics. Conservatism argues for an enduring moral order, some things that are absolute in terms of right and wrong. You are arguing directly against it. So be it, you do not subscribe to our ideals. I see no point in continuing.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
But I want you to examine your ideals and explore them and see where they take you, even to the unpleasant places.
I am a Libertarian and believe in the Moral Agency of the Individual (though, strangely, I am not an Objectivist).
And, yes, I believe that there are some things that are absolute in terms of right or wrong.
Slavery, for one. It is an absolute wrong.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I would think my diary EXUDES the impression I've given it some thought.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
To consider whether it's possible for someone to hold a different conclusion without them being someone who thinks that rape might be okay.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Go down the page a bit and see where he thinks that I may be unsure of the moral status of, among other things, rape.
I wish I weren't making this up.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
... the moral order?
We're not talking about politics and law right now. Just morality. For example, morally speaking, should the government raise children on behalf of consenting parents?
Again, I'm not talking about whether that's legal (obviously it is), but whether that ought to happen.
Some people claim that their Standing Moral Order is taught to them through Pure Reason.
Other people claim that their Standing Moral Order is taught to them from a book.
Other people claim that their Standing Moral Order is based upon Special Revelation.
For my part, I do my best to use Reason and came to the conclusion that the Moral Agency of the Individual is VITAL and it is more important to come to a decision through exercise of Moral Agency than it is to come to the decision because one has been told to reach *THIS* particular decision.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Reason is simply a tool used on the raw material of faith-based first principles, some explicitly religious, others not but equally faith-based and valid.
Without resorting to pointy sticks, I'd rather focus on my own faith-based first principles that I have discovered through blood, sweat, tears, etc, than those that have been given to me by my elders telling me "these are the first principles you need to have and if you don't want them, well, we can't have a discussion."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
are you saying it's not necessarily settled for you that:
--murder is wrong
--stealing is wrong
--driving a car on a public highway while blind, stinking drunk is wrong
--raping is wrong
until you apply your "own reasoning" to it, and those who came before you can just take a flying leap? Wisdom of the ages counts nothing for you?
Dude, you are going to HATE the next few Kirkian Principles.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
... in the next principles so as to learn why his own position might not be the best intellectual one he can have.
Because if that's the case, perhaps it's better off if we don't discuss if all I am going to be is a representation of a leering leftist who argues that everything is relative.
I believe in the Moral Agency of the individual.
From there, can you get to my opinions of:
Murder?
Rape?
Stealing?
Drunk Driving?
Murder violates the Moral Agency of the individual. It actually results removing it entirely because the individual is now dead. Murder is wrong.
Rape? I think I may have an even bigger problem with rape than with murder. I can come up with a handful of cases where killing a person would be among the least bad outcomes but I cannot come up with a single one where raping someone would be.
Stealing is taking something from someone else who, presumably, has it as a result of making it or purchasing it or inheriting it. Stealing it is... dah dah dah! Wrong.
Drunk Driving (I'll use your description of "blind, stinking drunk") is wrong because it is likely to kill or maim another Moral Agent.
But, please, go back to pretending that I'm the leering college women studies professor who alternates between screaming about patriarchy's grip on cultural norms and dreaming about the day when no one ever has to judge another person ever again you wish I were.
You'll probably have more fun with the conversation and you won't have to read anything that I write.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
at least to some extent. I know that the above -- in fact, most of what birdmojo has said on this thread, embodies beliefs I have myself.
I also know that EPU and I tend to agree on what Conservatism is.
For me, like birdmojo, man is a moral actor. Immorality, when we strip it of any religious implication, consists largely of not interfering with another moral actor. In point of fact... I just blogged about this. It's all sounding so familiar...
it's like I knew this conversation was coming.
.
If you believe that principles you "have discovered through blood, sweat, tears" are better than those "that have been given to me by my elders," then that is your first principle, faith-based prerogative. :)
I, on the other hand, would like to stand on the shoulder of the giants of my intellectual elders instead of reinventing the wheel all the time.
The point is, no one reinvents the wheel. No one. Everyone takes his faith-based assumptions on ideas like "moral agency" that are equally valid in public discourse from authority figures, whether or not they call them that.
You cannot *prove* that your perspective that "human agency" is the greatest human good anymore than I can *prove* that delighting in God is the greatest human good (which includes human agency, properly understood).
But you will argue in the public square on the basis of your faith-based belief and desire laws on that basis, as will I on my faith-based belief and everyone else who has an opinion.
This is why faith/tradition/reason/hard work are not mutually exclusive. Everyone uses it all.
I've met many who haven't.
I see this as a bad thing. It results in people not knowing why they argue the points they have.
In the long run, you get people who don't know why they have the traditions they do.
That's "so what".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
... to understand doesn't depend on whether they rely on tradition, because everyone relies on tradition.
And at the root of tradition are these things called first principles or faith-based assumptions, not pure reason, and we can and ought to talk about them.
My gripe was just with your use of "pure reason." That's usually an anti-religion schtick as if religious people don't use reason.
I was making a distinction between folks like, oh, Thomas Aquinas who argued that it was possible to understand Natural Law through Pure Reason and those people who explain "the rules" using "Divine Revelation" in addition.
It's no more anti-Religion than Thomas was being.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
... used Divine Revelation in addition to reason to "explain the rules"?
And Aquinas would never, ever use "Pure Reason" in the sense that you would, i.e. unaided by tradition.
He argued that there was *BOTH* Natural Law that was revealed to us through Reason and Natural Law that is revealed to us through Divine Revelation.
I'm interested in discussing the Natural Law that is revealed through Reason.
If you want to jump straight to Divine Revelation, well... it's probably outside of the scope of this diary.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Because teenagers are pretty notorious for wanting to learn things on their own. The wise ones later realize that it makes to at least listen to advice.
Now when you need some light, do you rub two sticks together until you generate enough friction to create fire -- or do you rely upon Edison's invention called the light bulb?
I am just wondering how far you have taken this self-reliance and discovery in eschewing the wisdom of the ages.
When the waiter tells you the plate is hot -- do you still touch it to check for yourself?
M Penny
But to use technology is not the same thing as making moral judgments on right/wrong.
Unless we're talking about Environmentalism (which, we're not) or taking anti-biotics (which some might argue ties into the whole "Evolution" debate).
But I point out that there is a lot of Wisdom of the Ages out there. Why did you pick the one you did instead of a different one?
Is it because you were told to?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
mentioning that the plate is hot, and the government mandating that I not touch hot plates is extremely vast. I don't see where birdmojo has argued against advocating your own point of view. Clearly, as a member of RedState, he does such himself, as do we all.
.
So everyone who does not believe in relativism is a conservtive and all conservatives are the same. Good to know. Some Leftists and fascists beleive in a standing moral order too.
Obviously, if I believed that the one moral absolute is to torture as many people as possible, I would not be a political conservative though I'm not a relativist.
Belief in an enduring moral order is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a conservative. Other conditions apply, which will be discussed in later posts, and the content of the belief in moral order (i.e. what kind of moral order there is) is salient as well.
But, this means all moral relativists are NOT conservative. This is what a necessary but not sufficient condition means, logically.
I'm not sure where you are going or who you are arguing with. You attacked my assertion that the Kirk and Goldwater represent different strands of conservatism, which they do. Then you just go on tangents.
You stated: "There is not a single linear connection between all the great conservatives."
I suggested (sorry if it came as an attack): "What about belief in a standing moral order as a linear connection between all the great conservatives?"
Then you wrote these strange claims: "So everyone who does not believe in relativism is a conservtive and all conservatives are the same. Good to know. Some Leftists and fascists beleive in a standing moral order too."
To which I responded, essentially "Belief in moral order is a necessary but not sufficient condition of being a conservative. Which also means if you are a moral relativist, you are not a political conservative." (and there are few true moral relativists in reality. most apparent relativists just morally value freedom without limits)
Then you write: "I'm not sure where you are going..."
And so my point was only to suggest "Belief in a standing moral order is a necessary but not sufficient condition of being a conservative, and all great conservative thinkers have believed so."
In response to this diary and my discussion with EPU, I noted that Kirk and Goldwater represent different strands of conservatism. To which you wrote verbatim
"Do you really not believe that belief in a moral order unites all the great conservatives?"
I do not beleive a "moral order unites all the great conservatives" anymore than I believe it unites Jews, Catholics, FDR Democrats and others.
There is no gret link between these great thinkers because they believe in a moral order. A moral order is just one thread in the tapestry.
Swamp_Yankee,
This is from the sidelines, but I think the misunderstanding is that EPU is talking about belief in an enduring moral order while you're talking about a common moral order.
Even with the looser definition, I can take issue with at least two of your example demographics.
As a Catholic, I have arguments that convince me that the liberation theology element within the church is comprised of moral relativists.
As somebody who had to sit politely and catch a tedious earful of what it was like to be a teenager during the depression, waiting to hear the next fireside chat from "the great President Roosevelt who was telling us what he was going to do for us next," I see FDR Democrats as moral relativists who squandered our birthright of liberty for unsustainable collectivist security.
I believe that "belief in a non-relativistic moral order" unites all great conservative thinkers.
You don't believe that the "belief in a non-relativistic moral order" which all great conservative thinkers held constitutes a great link that unites them.
So far so good?
Okay, so the reason I think it is a great link is that the belief had huge implications for their general worldview, of which politics was a part.
For example, it is the reason that they respected the moral integrity of the family and expected the government to respect it as well in its policies. I think, for example, they would look on how the Texas police broke families in Texas up on the evidence of a anonymous phone call as something that is wrong.
Another example would be that their belief in a moral order allows them to say the state government ought to outlaw abortion, despite some people having a different moral opinion, because morality is NOT simply private opinion.
"morality is NOT simply private opinion"
That leaves you with two choices: 1) Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not conservative, and neither were they ideas on separating Church and State (Jefferson sought to protect the government from religious intrusion whereas Madison sought to protect religion from governmental intrusion.) OR 2) consider that you are wrong.
QUERY XVII - The different religions received into that state?
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginiaour rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...
Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter.
Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
It's quite clear that Jefferson and Madison are talking about religion, not morality. Like, just look at the title.
Your failure to distinguish morality and religion is why you are wrong.
Do you seriously believe that Jefferson and Madison would have thought that "morality is private opinion" so the government can't legislate? Well shoot, the government better let those rapist and murderers out of jail stat.
Jefferson and Madison believed in a secular, moral basis for law. But a good number of social conservatives want a specifically religious (Protestant) legal morality. It is you, after all, who finds secularism objectionable.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Do conservatives believe that wealth, health, or happiness are areas the government should control for the individual? Of course not. But when it comes to morality, too many "social conservatives" want a nanny state to teach us - even coerce us - into a Christian (Protestant) moral order. Surely you can see that is a contradiction? However for some reason, this isn't obvious to all.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Get government out of the businesses of wealth, health, and happiness, and I will gladly concede the futility of legislating morality.
Stop using the force of government to compel me to fund the institutions promulgating moral confusion, and I will gladly concede the futility of legislating morality.
Decentralize governmental authority and allow smaller communities to establish their own standards, and I will gladly concede the futility of legislating morality.
Until then, I am on board with using the philosophically contradictory tactic of legislating morality as a kitchen-sink approach to slowing the leftward death march.
Misery needs company.
That's a practical approach, but it means you can't claim to be a principled conservative (promoting the nanny state) nor claim to support a strict interpretation of the Constitution (re: decentralizing the government and usurping the 14th Amendment).
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
I know what I want. I know what I'm not going to get. It would be monumentally stupid to start playing canasta after being dealt a hand in go-fish.
So long as I'm compelled by the threat of imprisonment to pay toward the nanny state, I'm going to have my say over how it's run.
If the 14th Amendment means that I'm stuck living in a community that is too large to maintain any meaningful standards, then I'm going to argue for standards that comfort me.
I'm not going to let my enemies use my principles against me.
Law is always teaching morality. It's the KIND of morality that is important, namely that which is proper to the nature of political governance, and that's what needs to be discussed.
Simplistic generalizations like "government shouldn't legislative morality" don't help and only perpetuate ignorant rants against so obviously hypocritical and evil Christians trying to impose their morality.
Half the time this gets the response "What? So we can't outlaw *RAPE*? What kind of person must you be to think that you can't outlaw *RAPE*??? Are you a rapist or something? Isn't there a law saying that rapists can't use the internet?"
The other half of the time this gets the response "We're not talking about stuff like making it illegal to drink alcohol again, sheesh. We're talking about the very important issue of whether marijuana ought to be made illegal for the sake of The Children."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
... is valid for the government to legislate and what's not.
And we can certainly start from common ground.
Prohibition was morally wrong.
It wasn't a case of it being poorly implemented by an inept president who didn't have enough will to see it through to the end by stepping up enforcement and tougher laws...
But it was wrong to attempt in the first place.
(if you want me to say something about the best of intentions, pretend that this parenthetical sentence is that something)
Do you agree with this post or do you disagree with it?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The imbibing alcohol goes back centuries. Protecting people from themselves as a general matter is not conservative unless the people are children, or impaired to the point where they are no longer moral agents.
Please realize that the majority of the time that people say this, they aren't speaking about whether it's possible to pass a law against rape.
They're talking about stuff like "should it be illegal to mock The Prophet?" or "Should it be illegal for consenting adults to share a bottle of something?" or "should it be illegal to prevent homosexual partners to visit each other in the hospital if next of kin are opposed to the idea?"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
in all "legislate morality" threads. people know what libertarian conservatives mean, but they still waste bandwith asking about murder etc. This is one more place where the libertarians have the most consistent and ideologically pure view. There SHOULD be laws against one man harming another full stop. When we talk about legislating morality, we are talking about those who have no fun and want to make sure no one else is having fun. :)
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
as opposed to merely laudatory.
A conservative thinker would desire to make laws to cover instances where one persons behavior can directly impact the life, liberty, and property of another.
Rape clearly infringes one's liberty. Drinking alcohol only impacts one's life or liberty if the person is performing an activity that is dangerous.
Conservatives are humble about the coercive power of government, and do not attempt to bring about a nanny state. Prohibiting dancing, drinking, etc. is not a humble use of power and doing so fails to respect the compact between a soverign individual and the necessity of government to prevent anarchy.
Thomas Jefferson and the Catholic Church both believe that one can discover a Christian morality by reason alone (ex:because all humans are fundamentally the same, what is fair for one is fair for all ex:because my life is worth protecting, all (human) life is worth protecting, etc.). That means law can be secular and moral.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Morality/ethics can exist without a belief in God. Ayn Rand definitely thought a lot of ethics while thinking God was a fairy tale.
seems to me that sauve qui peut is a pretty weak basis for building any society more complex than a cave dwelling one.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
If you can show how you get from rational self interest to every man for himself you might have a point.
You could start by actually reading the article you linked to:
The starting point for Rand's meta-politics is the observation, which she calls "the Trader Principle," that one can preserve and enhance one's life more effectively by interacting voluntarily, by way of cooperation and trade, with other individuals. The rational individual needs a politics to tell him how to preserve his individual rights while interacting with, and benefiting from cooperation and trade with, other individuals in society.
[...]
Far from regarding capitalism as a dog-eat-dog pattern of social organization, Objectivism regards it as a beneficent system in which the innovations of the most creative benefit everyone else in the society. Indeed, Objectivism values creative achievement itself and regards capitalism as the only kind of society in which it can flourish.A society is, by Objectivist standards, moral to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their goals. This freedom requires that human relationships of all forms be voluntary (which, in the Objectivist view, means that they must not involve the use of physical force), mutual consent being the defining characteristic of a free society. Thus the proper role of institutions of governance is limited to using force in retaliation against those who initiate its use — i.e., against criminals and foreign aggressors.
Thomas Jefferson but as a Catholic I find your statement a bit far fetched. Morality is based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Grab a copy of the Catechism and check it out.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
conservatives? At least with respect to adults. Most of social conservatism is focused on the raising of children, an area where the parents are the proxy right holders in most instances. Thus, the term nanny-state should not be used when it comes to restrictions placed on what children do or see.
Pro-life is protecting life, which stands above liberty and property, and protecting life is the primary purpose of a government.
Prohibiting gay marriage is not a nanny-state policy. Resisting the use of government to expand the definition of marriage is not nanny-statism.
Pro-life is protecting life, which stands above liberty and property, and protecting life is the primary purpose of a government.
To our founders, life stands shoulder to shoulder with liberty and property - that's why we remember phrases like "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," and why our soldiers swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
wrote it. If you want to hear it, go here:
http://independentthinking.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/my-government-ii-lif...
.
Why rebel against the mother country if life comes before liberty? The reason the King wanted to tax us, after all, was to pay for the military needed to protect us from the French and Indian tribes. Liberty must be equal to Life because both are absolutely necessary to protect the other.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
does nothing to say why we shouldn't fight tooth and nail to end abortion in this country (which was the point to begin with, I believe).
But, further, you choosing to rebel is one thing. You're offering your life for something. It is your life to offer. But we must put the lives of -others- in front of our own liberty, or else -we- become the tyrants.
.
that life is protected and that liberty and property are meaningless. Rather, the government must protect all three, but when it is impossible to protect all three, there is a hierarchy of weight.
The ideas of Locke and Burke influenced the founders more than other philosopher.
And so, using your logic, it would be correct for the government to ban smoking because when life and liberty are in conflict, we must choose life before all else.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Thus we allow smokers, but prohibit personal nuclear bomb devices. The fact that the liberty of person A comes into the conflict of the life of person B does not always mean that person B wins---it depends on the degree of risk/intrusion.
Furthermore, Locke is not talking about protecting people from themselves, he is talking about protecting people from OHTER people. The impact of secondary smoke is murky at best.
We allow smoking, alcohol, weapons, and all manner of other dangers to those beyond the user precisely because liberty and life are equals and need support of the other to permit a free and just society
The Thought of James Madison
Charles K. Rowley The Locke Institute and George Mason University, 1999In enumerating the powers of the legislature, Madison followed the precepts of John Locke in formulating a set of restrictions designed to protect property rights. In his mind, as in the mind of Locke, human rights and property rights buttressed each other, indeed were indispensable to each other. There is no evidence that Madison was ever party to any conspiracy of the propertied class to behave selfishly in this regard. Indeed, any reading of Madison's writings makes it abundantly clear that his approach to governance within a compound republic was grounded in Enlightenment morality and singular high purpose.
James Madison, Property, 1792
...a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
James Madison, Note to His Speech on the Right of Suffrage, 1821
The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts...
In all Govts. there is a power which is capable of oppressive exercise. In Monarchies and Aristocracies oppression proceeds from a want of sympathy & responsibility in the Govt. towards the people. In popular Governments the danger lies in an undue sympathy among individuals composing a majority, and a want of responsibility in the majority to the minority. The characteristic excellence of the political System of the U. S. arises from a distribution and organization of its powers, which at the same time that they secure the dependence of the Govt. on the will of the nation, provides better guards than are found in any other popular Govt. against interested combinations of a Majority against the rights of a Minority.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
and in his philosophy, protecting life is more important than protecting liberty.
However, the protection of liberty does require that soldiers put their life on the line, no question there.
With the exception of military service, Lockean thought is that the government must protect the life of the innocent, and that this duty is first, before liberty, just as liberty stands before property.
There is a hierarchy. So there are times when someone elses liberty or property is outweighed by life.
This is not saying that liberty and property are unimportant---to the contrary--they are very important.
In a free country, a government does not force an individual to chose between liberty or death. War with a foreign power will essentially place the choice on soldiers, but the government cannot otherwise compel someone to say "give me liberty or give me death."
I don't see a lot of morality nanny-statism being pushed by conservatives?
That may depend on how you define (true) conservatives.
And my gut feeling is you see less nanny-state shenanigans from (R)'s than (D)'s although the difference seems to be slimmer as time goes on.
But for a summarized set of examples:
But the American right, which has traditionally claimed to favor limited government, is no better. The Republican-led Congress is attempting to prohibit Internet gambling. That same Congress wants to expand the FCC's regulatory power beyond broadcast television to include cable television and satellite radio. President Bush's Department of Justice has declared prosecuting pornography a "top priority." And of course, the Bush administration has enforced the nation's drug laws with particular vigilance, paying little heed to traditional conservative notions of state sovereignty. The White House has vigorously defended the federal government's authority to regulate medical marijuana, physician-assisted suicide, and prescription painkillers, for example, even in states where voters have explicitly indicated their preference for laxer enforcement. In the case of medical marijuana, White House efforts may have resulted in the final deathknell for federalism.
Though the public health movement seems to have come largely from the left, and the "culture war" crusades against gambling, pornography, pop culture, and drugs largely from the right, it's important to point out that there is significant convergence between the two. Fervent anti-alcohol activists such as former Carter administration official Joseph Califano, for example, are every bit as active in promoting drug prohibition. National Review contributing editor David Frum has called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie foods, joining more left-oriented organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Family values advocates like William Bennett and John DiIulio and Republican Congressmen like Tom Osborne and Frank Wolf have joined with liberal organizations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in calling for heavy government regulation of alcohol. And there seems to be wide, bipartisan support for a powerful state on issues like continuing the drug war, instituting smoking bans in private bars and restaurants, the aforementioned ban on Internet gambling, and increased government scrutiny over pop culture media such as rap music and violent video games. [from 2006]
Now, I'm perfectly willing to concur that bans on gambling, "moral" regulation of subscriber-based cable and satellite, pornography bans, sex toy bans, increased regulation of video games and other non-broadcast media, advocating for sodomy laws, and so forth aren't actually conservative positions. I might not merely concur, I might even argue that they aren't. Maybe they're simply the pet peeves of some un-conservative (R)'s.
But these issues have something in common with typical liberal meddling regarding smoking, trans-fat bans, gun control, forced charity through government welfare and foreign aid, and so on: the use of government authority to ensure that their views of how adults ought to behave and what activities adults ought engage in are being forcefully pushed on the people being governed.
kids. The FCC does not regulate cable or satellite TV, so adults get can porn pretty much whenever and wherever they want.
I agree that some on the right are not really approaching things from a conservative perspective (I am not a big Huckabee supporter).
I am opposed to laws requiring motorcycle helmets, so you know where I fall on the continuoum.
I agree that some differences are being diminished, which is why I try to stand up for conservatism whenever I can.
The FCC does not regulate cable or satellite TV
They don't, currently, which is the point - some (R)'s [and some (D)'s] would like for that to change. Increasing regulation of a subscriber-based (i.e. opt-in) medium hardly strikes me as conservative.
"Protecting kids" is too convenient of an excuse for everything, but I'm willing to take it on a case by case basis!
I was going to read the entire thread, comments and all prior to adding my 2 pennies worth, but your statement: "too many 'social conservatives' want a nanny stat to teach us...a Christian (Protestant) moral order." led me to prematurely jump in.
Can you give me one example of a moral absolute, as defined in this diary, that is purely "Protestant" and which would be outside the realm of a morality defined by the conservative ideal?
Can you give me an example of the opposite, a moral absolute that is not within the realm of the "Protestant" moral code?
Thanks
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
In the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments, the Fifth reads "You shall not kill." The Vatican's position is that, given the current options by the state, the need for the death penalty is "practically nonexistent". I don't know if all Protestant Bibles are this way, but the Sixth reads "Thou shall not murder." Clearly these are two different moral absolutes derived from the same divine law.
“You shall not kill” or “You shall not murder”?
Wilma Ann BaileyNearly all English translations of the Bible during the last third of the twentieth century have changed the wording of the sixth commandment from “kill” to “murder.” The Hebrew word that appears in the commandment has a broader semantic range than “murder.” Wilma Ann Bailey discusses why the Protestant and Jewish traditions changed the wording and why the Roman Catholic tradition did not. She also examines the impact that the wording will have in the future for people who believe that there is no general prohibition against killing in the Hebrew Bible and why questions of killing that are broader than murder—death penalty and just war—are no longer part of the discussion of this commandment.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
To see the connection between Kirk, whoappaears to be a strong moral philosopher in his conservatism, and my conservative hero, Goldwater, who while certainly made moral arguments, was not fond of the hot button socially conservative arguments ie abortion and gay marraige, and rather focuses his social conservatism as I do, on the doctrine of American exceptionalism and the Shining City on a Hill.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
really shoudl play a huge role.
More and more, I think we have totally lost our way on the concept of federalism.
More later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
Honestly it's why I really liked Paul domestically if he had just been more agressive and understanding on the GWOT, in addition to not being a certifiable loon, I would have been really happy being a rabid Ronulan. He was very true to federalist and conservative principles, but seemed to be living in another era in terms of foreign policy, and we simply cannot live as isolationists in a post 9/11 world. I think Goldwater was originally Ron Paul without the crazy.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
You and I are in agreement on this, BR. Both thoughts, actually: that Federalism is, sadly, being left behind (and we need to do something about that) -- and I, too would have happily been in the Paul camp if not for his insanity and total lack of comprehension on the GWOT. I think, probably, many of us would have been.
.
Part of the problem is that "States' Rights" was used in service of Wickedness by a certain subset of folks for so very long.
To hear someone crow for States' Rights now makes any given listener listen *VERY* closely to the next few sentences.
For good or ill, "States' Rights" means "Separate But Equal" to a huge number of people. Sadly, there is a very small subset of these people who support it for these reasons. A non-zero number of these people hitched their wagon to Paul.
They wrecked Federalism for all of us.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Goldwater, like Paul may not have been overt racists themselves, but they got a lot of racist friends. Goldwater however was from Arizona and was more about preserving the constitution rather than maintaining segregation-I hardly think a Jewish man would seek out the support and love of the KKK. However, I don't think federalism as a principle in and of itself has been totally wrecked by the evil cons-I think the fact that we call it Federalism rather than States Rights however, is indicative of the wish to stay away from the evilcon alliance and convey a desire for less government, which was Goldwater's idea in opposing the Civil Rights act of 1964. Unfortunately, he didn't understand the grasp of Dixie's willingness to kill themselves economically over racial hierarchy-he wrote about the economic stupidity of segregation and was decidedly on the sides of the good guys in that fight.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
I am not saying that Federalism is necessarily bad.
I'm just saying that, for myself, I've stopped fighting for it... it's actually because of Ron Paul, surprisingly enough. When Don Black (or whatever his name is) supported him, I conceded defeat.
I think that most of my energies now go towards Repeal of Prohibition 2.0 and fighting for gay marriage. The former because I think that that will actually result in the greatest net gain of Liberty for the country. The latter because I hear echoes of other injustices in the arguments against gay marriage (and any given gay marriage argument tends, in my experience, to lead to the anti-side saying something exceptionally cruel at some point and that makes me hear echoes as well).
My arguments for Repeal do include some minor appeals to Federalism (State Medicinal Marijuana laws, etc) but they tend to get waved away by people who were arguing for Federalism a few moments before... and so that tells me that the Federalism hill, while perhaps a worthy hill to die on, will not be the hill that I will die on, if I can help it.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
'enduring morals apply to gay marriage and legalization of drugs, I totally, though sadly, concur with the accurateness of this thought:
For good or ill, "States' Rights" means "Separate But Equal" to a huge number of people. Sadly, there is a very small subset of these people who support it for these reasons
I have many 'progressive' white friends, and not a few African-American friends, who hear that phrase and just immediately tune out thanks to the immoral, disgusting morons who used that phrase to hide behind their vile and disgusting racism.
Such a pity.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Kirk gets to all that, and if you're a Goldwater guy, you'll be alright with Kirk. They kind of hang out in different eddies of the conservative stream, but there's much more similar than different.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
...all the tags fit that time :-)
I was curious, what's the character limit, something like 120 or 200?
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Was going to be 50, but we've got it nice and long now for the serious tags (very important, because they're replacing categories altogether) and for the fun ones that we all just can't help but use. :-)
And by learn, I mean ponder and digest Kirk's thought.
The problem with these types of debates is that they are easily taken out of context. People often have their own idea of what is correct and try to shoehorn all great ideas and thinkers into a little box that justifies their pre-concieved notions.
While I've been a long time student and fan of Kirk and agree with most of EPUs diary, I think its important to rememeber that this is just one tenant. Jihadist beleive in a higher moral order as well. Conservatives often have to battle the malaise of relativism and cultural decadence it bears. This relativism of the Sixties inspired Kirk greatly, but it still remains one principle. I think a beleif in abolutes is important. There is such a thing as right and wrong, but such a principle must be placed in context.
There is nothing wrong with the statement "Conservatives believe in an enduring moral order." The context is Kirk's 10 Principles.
You took the statement out of context by bringing in Jihadists. Where does anyone bring that up? Nowhere in this discussion...
Just so you know, Kirk never had a static list of ten principles. They were constantly evolving. He had a list a five core principles which he expanded to ten and then changed from time to time. So yeah I know a little about Kirk's principles.
Belief in an enduring moral order is necessary to conservatism, but it's the details that trip-us-up, and rightly so.
We cannot square the fact that, as individuals possessed of free will, one man's moral clarity is bound to be viewed by another man as moral confusion.
Then, while we argue details among ourselves (as we should), the relativists sneak-in and steal the floor out from under us.
Cheaters always win if you let them cheat.
In our history, our country has taken dangerous shortcuts to get out from under reprehensible injustices. In doing so, we corrupted and damaged what the Founding Fathers bequeathed us. Any criticism of these shortcuts is easily and dishonestly painted as support for reprehensible injustice, so we are stuck with rotten precedents, entangling interdependencies, and enshrined institutions that guarantee that we trade away liberties for more license with each click of the pawl.
So, how do we get past the built-in entropic bias?
Fred Thompson's fundamental, conservative principles that have unified us for over two centuries:
-First, the role of the federal government is limited to the powers given to it in the Constitution.
-Second, a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person who earns it, unless the government has a compelling reason why it can use it better.
-Third, we don't spend money we don't have, or borrow money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.
-And the best way to avoid war is to be stronger than our enemies. But if we’re caught in a fight, we need to win it because not doing so makes us much more likely to be attacked in the future.
-Also the federal judiciary is supposed to decide cases, not set social policy and bad social policy at that.
-And the bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our lives.
*from Fred Thompson's message to Iowa voters, December 2007
We will all continue to miss him as the man who should have been our nominee, we are lacking a new elegant spokesman for conservatism.
Someone's got to punch the hippies.
Fundamentally, we were endowed by our creator with the ability to think and act for ourselves.
He then gave us free rein to do whatever we want to do with that ability.
He also gave us some ideas that He suggested might be put to good use in order to both get along with Him and get along with our fellow free individuals.
There were ten of them.
We can chose to free think ourselves into chaos, or free think ourselves into peace.
Government is placed over us in order to help, not hinder that free thinking into peace. Anything a government does contrary to that is chaos.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
I see where you're going with this, Andy, and it's a good place. But don't forget that those are the 10 Commandments -- all too many Christians treat them as the 10 Suggestions.
But yes, they are a tremendous starting point wrt governance.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
One way to legislate morality is to make a rule that says, "don't do X, or we'll fine you or throw you in jail." A variation on this is to make a rule that says, "you can't keep somebody from doing X, and if you try it, we'll let him sue you, or we'll fine you, or we'll throw you in jail."
Another way to legislate morality is to take money (from some but not from others thanks to the progressive tax code and the tyranny of Ways and Means) under threat of imprisonment, and then appropriate that money for societal institutions ostensibly established for "the common good." Thanks to our legislators' treating the treasury as the "magical ATM-in-the-sky" as they gleeful spend other people's money, the only controlling factor in the morality of spending is the horse trading it takes to get bills passed.
Through this kind of legislated "morality," every year, Uncle Sam takes a sizeable chunk of my earnings and transfers it to the evil eugenicists at Planned Parenthood.
Thank you for the insights on Kirk.
I have never read a book on conservatism, but I can see myself citing this quotation often. It jibes so well with Sunday School and my Mayflower and pioneer grandcestors. I am much more secularist than religious and I agree with Mr. Kirk 100%.
Is it even a possibility that liberals could understand that morality and religion are not exactly the same thing?
Freedom is a highly moral concept. Great post.
Leftists are opposed to all accountability (to themselves). Since Christianity calls for personal accountability, they reject it. They rope all forms of morality into the same pool, and indiscriminately clump them together so it;s easier to reject.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Dude, you so rock!!!
I am going to have to read it again more closely, but I think I agree 100% with every single thing you say.
More! Give us more!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...