Confused...
Is anyone a small ‘c’ conservative these days?
I’m young and admit that my opinion is constantly developing, so I shy away from applying a political label to myself. Hell, it often changes hour to hour.
However, I’ve always been attracted to classic conservatism.
By that I don’t mean a strict adherence to all tradition…that is just silly.
A conservative, I think, places trust in the individual…they balk at the prospect of giving the government the task of enforcing morality.
How then can anyone who calls themselves a conservative want to give the government the power to decide the ‘right way to live’ for some individuals?
Specifically, I’m amazed at the opposition in this state to civil union/gay marriage legislation by those who consider themselves conservative. There is nothing conservative about it. If you take away the personal religious opposition, the argument against gay marriage crumbles.
How can a true conservative ever want the government to get in the business of choosing one group’s morality over another? Conservatives rally against income redistribution. Isn't morality redistribution just as unwarranted?
It should be a dinner table discussion, not a committee room debate.
But, I very well could be missing something here. Who knows. What am I forgetting?
25 comments:
You're not forgetting anything. You are asking the right questions. And if you find that the current lot of Republicans represent true conservatism (the kind you are struggling to discover, not the kind they advertise) then go with them. But if you are unsatisfied by their arguments and their positions, then drop them like a hot potato. That's what I did when the religionists took over the party 30 years ago. Good luck. - Jerald
While government obviously cannot get involved in EVERY personal moral decision, it is neither possible nor desirable to completely separate law from morality. The issue isn't whether government should decide what's right and wrong, but just how far government should go in that regard.
Every criminal law represents a moral judgement that a certain action is wrong -- whether it be a violent action like murder or rape, a fraudulent action like theft or bribery, or a dangerous action like driving while drunk. The government "chooses one group's morality over another" all the time.
It seems to me that abolishing the death penalty, setting a particular level of tolerance for illegal/undocumented immigrants, placing restrictions on gun ownership and restricting the use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other substances are just as much examples of government deciding what's right and wrong as are restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.
I am not saying that all "liberal" ideas are necessarily bad, nor do I agree with all ideas currently labeled as "conservative." I am just saying that the "government shouldn't impose morality" argument only goes so far.
But, like you, I do not understand how certain issues get linked together under the conservative or liberal labels, or how certain issues come to be regarded as the so=called litmus tests of who's a "true" conservative or liberal. I also find myself disillusioned with the current lot of Republicans, though probably for different reasons than you or Mr. O do.
I can agree the morality issues can get cloudy ... but commercial issues are not. The GOP today is far too concerned with protecting the commercial interests of the corporation over the economic issues of the citizen. Wall Street dominates, Main Street is faltering. True conservatism seeks that which is best for all citizens in the most efficient manner with the least government necessary.
Unemployment and inflation are at a historic low. We have had quarterly economic growth for each quarter in the last 7 years.
The stock market performance has been tolerable, but not spectacular for the last 8 years, netting about a 10% gain, or 1.25% per year. Investment bankers at Bear Stearns and other firms lost 99% of their personal wealth in many cases.
Yet, the mind numbing drivel coming from the media and blogs has it that
"Wall Street dominates, Main Street is faltering"
which is almost entirely wrong. Main Street seems to be doing just fine, while Wall Street hobbles along.
JBP
Laws originated from religious beliefs. Somehow the Ten Commandments morphed into The Ten Thousand Commandments as decided upon by our prophets (or is it our profits and profitesses?) down in Springfield and Washington.
As far as "Gay Rights" (or perhaps it is "Gay Wrongs"?) go, the underlying issue (if the truth be known) is the financial implications if same-sex marriages were to be recognized. The financial implications are huge (think health insurance, auto insurance, joint tax returns, etc.etc.). The recognition of gay marriages would play havoc with the economy due to it's monstrous economic implications.
The world of finance is what moves the way that we (and our churches) see the "morality" of issues in our daily life. Religion is (and always has been) a business. That does not mean that it is a bad thing, however. It just means that religion has been infected by the same disease that societies have based their values on for over the last two thousand years. Like Wild Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy,stupid." He was simply "on target" when it came to the first time that he got around to speaking the truth. Bill knew how to both # 1)cut a phrase and #2) to cut an issue down to it's lowest common denominator.
Hi Bookworm-
Thanks for reminding me of the gray area that does surround the legal/moral worlds. You are certainly right that the government does make "right and wrong" all the time.
However, the examples you mention seem to be the government intervneing when one person's actions interfere with another: murder, theft, rape, drunk driving, and others. Doesn't the government regulate these things because they potentially involve violating/harming another individual unjustifiably?
That where I think the gay marriage issue is different. Who is the state "protecting" by limiting the rights of gay couples? I don't find any real reason except to appease the loud, personal moral shoutings of some citizens. If gay marriage would potentially harm other citizens I could understand the debate...as it is right now, I don't.
Anon-
Good point. The economic nuts and bolts of the issue is so very rarely discussed that sometimes I forget to even think about it.
But I'm not sure if I yet agree that the economics of the issue is what is preventing its passage. Do you think that the General Assembly members who cannot support civil are doing so because they think it would be too expensive? OR is it because they would be punished by their socially conservative constituents for doing something that would be perceived as "gay friendly?"
In the end, as you mention the economic impact should matter more, but I still think it is the morality policing that is driving the debate.
What is being forgotten is the key to the homosexual debate. What causes homosexuality?
If, as classic psychological theory holds, it's due to a child's misidentification of male and female roles, THEN it DOES make sense to say
"children should only be adopted by married couples"
"in a divorce, the normal parent should have custody of young children"
"children should NOT be exposed to homosexuals in school/Scouts/etc"
After all, if we can ban smoking since it might cause others health problems, can we not restrict some areas from homosexuals to prevent mental health issues in young children?
Hi Pat-
The more I think about it, I think you've hit the nail on the head of this debate- and all other debates related to gay issues. If there is some potential "harm" that could come to others if gays had 100% equal treatment, than I can somewhat understand the issue being on the government's radar.
But the truth is that every credible expert and researcher in the area has come to the same conclusion: Homosexuality is not a choice, it is unalterable, and does not pose any 'danger' to children or others.
The American Psychological Association's general explantaion:
http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
I suppose, this is what seems to bother me the most about this. It seems that the moral judgments have clouded the actual expert position. The public is not able to process the information clearly, because the truth about sexual orientation is presented in such a cloudy, unclear way.
What is being forgotten is the key to the homosexual debate. What causes homosexuality?
Nop. doesn't matter in the least. If 2 people want to enter into a contract. It is not the governments business to evaluate how solvent the contract is based on any criteria.
If, as classic psychological theory holds, it's due to a child's misidentification of male and female roles, THEN it DOES make sense to say
LOL. "Misidentification of male and female roles"? What are these male and female roles? And how do you identify them? Are these roles law?
Good post Paul. And you're right, from your standard, minimalist government, anti-theocratic influence conservative perspective, there is absolutely no reason to stand opposed on this issue - in fact - just the opposite. But there is another side to that, but they generally evade facts and hold their argument on "U R NOT CONSERVATIVEZ ENUFF< U R LIBERTARIANZ, SEAN HANNITI SEZ U R DANGER TO MERICA".
I'm still loling at this:
"children should only be adopted by married couples"
And by married, you mean what? Only people that have gone through the sacrament in church?
"in a divorce, the normal parent should have custody of young children"
What exactly is a "normal" parent? I'm a parent. Am I normal? Based on what am I normal?
"children should NOT be exposed to homosexuals in school/Scouts/etc"
Yes. We should probably pass laws to prevent schools from employing LGBT teachers because ummm....schools shouldn't be teaching kids to exist in the real world, they should be sheltering them from the real world.
Ha. Thanks for that Dan. Good stuff.
What is it about this issue that makes very smart people come off as woefully confused?
The official position
Which, of course, has no data behind it. That is, ALL research showing "genetic" or "in born" causes have been later shown to be wrong. Even their link states that it's formed at an early age, and that "environment" has a role to play.
Bottom line is, they DON'T know, and aside from research to prove a genetic link, there IS no research.
Imagine a science where some questions can't be asked, some data can't be looked into.
And lets' ask this: If we DO ever identify a gay gene, will you then outlaw aborting gay babies????
shelter from real world
Shelter them until their orientation is fixed. Big difference.
As for marriage, it's legally defined.
As to your normality ^**^.
No one is stopping people from entering into contracts. But Marriage is special, it should have children and their welfare as a key focus.
Bottom line is, they DON'T know, and aside from research to prove a genetic link, there IS no research.
And lets' ask this: If we DO ever identify a gay gene, will you then outlaw aborting gay babies????
LOL. Way to drop the conversation to Illinois Family Institute level dumb.
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if it's genetic and it doesn't matter if it's a choice. If it is a choice, it does not significantly change the final issue: that the government has no business deciding who is worth of participating in a marriage contract.
Shelter them until their orientation is fixed. Big difference.
So you really believe that exposure to queer folks will result in kids being gay? Even when the context of interactions has nothing to do with sexuality like in schools?
This is bad, Lesbian Aunty Sarah was at the hospital the day my daughter was born. Does that mean my daughter is going to be a lesbian?
As for marriage, it's legally defined.
And the definition is currently discriminatory.
But Marriage is special, it should have children and their welfare as a key focus.
So what if a couple can't have kids? should they not be allowed to get married? What if a couple just doesn't want kids? Should they not be allowed to get married? How about if a couple fails to produce kids in X years after getting married? Should their marriage be washed?
Do you really want the government to be in the business of legislating child birth?
Hi Pat,
I can certainly respect your position that the research is not 100% clear. There is very little in the social sciences that everyone is in universal agreement.
Personally, when I look at the collective knowledge on the topic, I strongly believe that our scientific community has a persuasive general consensus.
I suppose my main concern is that when we are denying a group of American citizens' fundamental rights to marry the one of their choice, adopt children that need homes, work where they chose, etc. than the burden of proof is strongly on the side of the government to prove that restricting these key areas is necessary for collective security.
I have yet to hear any persusasive argument that these restrictions do any such thing. Claiming that it "might" be harmful is nowhere near good enough. At least in my favored view of the role of government...small and limited.
What is it about this issue that makes very smart people come off as woefully confused?
Paul: it's called homophobia. Generally you can observe it in 2 forms:
1. People who are just weirded about by LGBT people and want to make more public the "difference".
2. Religious kooks who believe that their rights are being violated because Joe and Bob want to get married.
Granted, the above two can feed into each other. Some people hate teh gay because they're religous nuts, and some people are religous nuts because they hate the gay.
Speaking of nuts, did everybody see that so-called pro-family champion, Peter Labarbera is now citing radical anti-semites in his so called "pro-family" work?
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/05/20/anti-gay-‘christian’-activist-cites-radical-anti-semite/
But remember: He's a Christian.
Here's a link to the article mentioned above.
Now why would a "leader" of the so called "pro-family movement", who's so respected by the numerous alleged "pro-family, christian" organizations here in Illinois be citing reference to this guy?
Anyone? Anyone?
Paul, your views sounds more Libertarian than conservative.
Michael wrote: "The GOP today is far too concerned with protecting the commercial interests of the corporation over the economic issues of the citizen."
That has always been the true conservative agenda throughout American history. Nothing new about that.
Michael also wrote: "True conservatism seeks that which is best for all citizens in the most efficient manner with the least government necessary."
Conservatism has never been concerned with an economy that is "best for all citizens." I know supply side policies are sold as best for everyone but every historical example of conservative economic policies being put into place has benefited the few at the expense of the many. Always.
Look to Keynesian liberalism or Marxism for a philosophy designed to benefit "all citizens." I'd call what Michael describes as some kind of left-libertarian decentralized anarcho-socialism.
Mr. Powers,
In 1973 I graduated high school and went to work at Caterpillar at the age of 18. In 3 months I bought a 2 bedroom house and a couple months later I bought a new 1974 auto to put in my garage. I retired 30 years later (at the age of 48) living in a home worth approx. $200,000, with full pension and medical benefits. Now explain to me why my son who just graduated high school can't do the same if "Main Street" is doing so well? In fact, had he just graduated college with a degree he couldn't do as well. The simple fact is that today's generation is not better off than their parents and is, in fact, much less well off financially.
Paul, your views sounds more Libertarian than conservative.
Watch it Paul. This is a classic move for the wingers when they are without argument.
Basically, the anti-gay argument is never substantiated in any demonstrable fact. If you analyze their arguments, it almost always comes down to absurd or irrelevant nuance like:
-Well what if people and rocks/animals/aliens get married?
-For the children!!!
So, if you call them on the absurdity of their argument, their only response is to tell you that you're not allowed in the conservative club because you don't hate the gay enough - as though there's no room in Conservative ideology for a pro-gay rights thinking - which of course you've shown in this post (and I've shown numerous times) that there's plenty of reason to be pro-ssm under traditional conservative ideology.
Libertarian? Hmmm. Maybe so, I just don't know.
But Dan your 'big tent' approach make more sense to me.
I thought conservatism was more than a group of people who thought alike on certain specific issues. If that were the case it wouldn't be worth much at all.
It has to be a principled lens through which to view government decision-making, right? I thought it transcended what certain people happened to believe in a specific part of the work or at a certain moment in history.
I don't know if the tent is really big enough for those still in denial that Darwin may have been on the right track. At some point these people become incompatible with the modern world.
Dan L dismisses rather bizarrely any disagreement with his position.
I think the original poster is correct that genetic predisposition does grant more rights as many types of "choice" behavior including related to sexuality has always been regulated or at least not "protected".
I think Mike is right and JB is wrong only from ancedotal stories.
You can give me all sorts of statistics about employment and economic growth but it seems like a lot of people are hurting and it was easier for some folks to get jobs some generations ago. Some of it change, and tech and internationalization other may be well I don't know but it is not good for some people. Foreclosures are at all time high. In my condo association there are a number of foreclosures just to make it very practical and immediate. Every two weeks I am spending well over $100 in gas. Many people are driving less. The gas prices are out of control as are utilities which have tripled on me in the last 6 years or so and I don't think I consume more.
Hi, I'm back. You raise a good point about government getting involved in decisions that might adversely affect innocent third parties. But then there is the issue of actions in which individual rights have to be weighed against the potential adverse effect over time on society in general.
This is why government gets involved in things like environmental regulations, outlawing certain types of drugs, breaking up business monopolies, etc.
And this is where the debate about gay marriage really starts. Now, I don't think either the liberals or the conservatives are completely right on this issue for reasons which I will explain.
In order to survive, to have a next generation, society needs to encourage, or at least not discourage, men and women from marrying and having children. Traditional marriage and family life, based on permanence, fidelity and (if biologically possible) the potential for childbearing, is the basic building block of society and the first place where most people learn how to get along with others.
Now, of course no family is perfect and single parents or same-sex parents can turn out good children while heterosexual married parents can turn out really messed up kids. There will always be exceptions but in general, I think, we will agree that stable marriages and families are good for society.
The main argument social conservatives raise against gay marriage is that it dilutes or makes less special the status of traditional marriage, which over time will mean fewer people will be attracted to that state, therefore fewer intact families will form and society will suffer as a result.
However, what this argument misses is the fact that civil marriage as it exists right now has ALREADY lost much of its special and protected status due to such practices as no-fault divorce and cohabitation outside of marriage. Since individual rights already take precedence over the integrity of the marriage bond in civil law, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to argue that same-sex couples should not have the same rights.
My suggested solution would be for civil "marriage" to be abolished altogether and replaced by civil unions for any two consenting adults who are not related by blood and wish to be recognized as each other's legal next of kin. Traditional marriage would then be left entirely to religious and cultural institutions. Registry of a civil union would be completely separate from a religious or cultural wedding and clergy would no longer sign off on marriage licenses. This way, all citizens are treated equally before the law while churches and cultural groups can continue to practice their beliefs without being forced to cooperate in or participate in something they do not believe is right.
I propose this not as a moral endorsement of gay marriage but as a way to realistically reconcile the rights of all citizens before the law as it exists with the right of individuals and groups to freely exercise their moral convictions.
One more thing I'll throw in before I sign off. It seems to be that instead of conservatives campaigning for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, we should be seeing liberals campaigning for an amendment to LEGALIZE gay marriage.
I don't see how anyone can possibly argue that the framers of the federal constitution intended to endorse gay marriage, any more than they intended to abolish slavery, give women the vote, institute an income tax or allow Senators to be elected by direct popular vote. All these things were clearly not in the original Constitution and had to be changed by the amendment process.
Obviously an amendment to legalize gay marriage would face a lot of opposition and would take much more time to accomplish than would simply relying on favorable court decisions. But any right granted by a few men or women on a federal court bench can be just as easily taken away by a few men or women on a future court bench.
If and when a pro-gay-marriage amendment passed, we would at least know it was done fair and square through the democratic process.
Post a Comment