Do conservatives misdefine integrity of character as obedience?

Great Debates
1

The main problem I have with core conservatism in general is that I believe they completely misdefine integrity of character, and thus many of them end up lacking self-honesty, self-courage, self-loyalty in favor of being someone else’s fool.

I define integrity of character as expressing one’s freely developed personality from a process of discovery that assumes equal opportunity, independence, common sense, knowledge, experience, which ultimately leads to self-awareness. I might also suggest that there is no substitute for this.

I see core conservatism, however, as emphasizing loyalty to a set of traditional rules (called values), which often includes the morality of adhering to a set of stale prefab religious ideals (which were supplied to them before they could question it–a false discovery). This then enables devotees of this process to clearly see political or religious dogma as morally right or wrong, good or evil.(A paranoid conservative might suggest that without this moral “brainwashing” it would lead us to sin, chaos and mayhem–but this assumes that humans are naturally evil, which often negatively defines the depth of the conservative definition of character).

The deepest flaw in top-down, supplied ideals is that one is led to assume absolute authority (whether a person or ideal), and this in turn assumes that one is subject to elitism, and often a “follower” of elites via awe towards them (Elitism: advocating that someone can be artificially or dogmatically more deserving across the board).

So what? Well, elitism relies on a pyramid-shaped class system with a figure-head on top, and advocates submissive values to protect their concentrated wealth and power. It is always marked by a third-world waste of talent and resources, and when a poor/ignorant person cheerleads elitism, this then defines their “lack of character” by my definition above.

Also, another deep flaw in social conservatism is their false principle against progress or change (by definition of the word “conservatism”), which then also precludes personal discovery and change.

So, when conservatives believe they have integrity of character via their conservatism, is this always a self-deception, or is it sometimes a coy political trick to fool the masses? Does selling a slavish adherence to a group morality make them politically more effective, because they emphasize robotic obedience, and because their natural opponents are less uniform and unorganized as individualists?

2

off hand, I’d have to say the biggest flaw is attempting to characterize and analysis a large group of people who may or may not adopt any number of the specific ideologies that you attribute to the word “conservative”.

And a large character flaw, it is, too, IMHO. (so sayeth a card carrying liberal)

3

I trust your criticism would apply to conservatives as well. So, are you also saying that we can say that individuals have character flaws, but not large groups, despite their influence over individuals?

4

The problem, Mr. Bunnyhurt, is that you use the word “conservatives” when you should say “many of the most right-wing religious Republicans”.

5

I am saying that your OP has problems.

  1. There really is no, clearly devised consensus, even among those who consider themselves conservatives, exactly what that may mean.

  2. That when some one attempts to characterize people based on a genearlized stance, such as conservative, (or liberal), they must make some leaping assumptions, which often completely destroy any point they’re attempting to make.

  3. when you attempt to ‘discuss’, ‘debate’ etc. with anyone of a viewpoint that is not yours, it is beneficial to fairly characterize their viewpoint. For example,

You leave out the possability that (ahem) you may be wrong, there are other possabilities.

For more on my opinion : see this thread

6

If someone thinks that by being politically conservative that they then have integrity or superior character, are they not then being conservative, even to the core (by definition)?

The implied assumption here is that a core conservative (fiscally and socially and whatever else) is someone who identifies as a conservative via their definition of integrity as moral obedience.

7

Sigh. By your definition. by your assumption. Have fun.

8

quote:

So, when conservatives believe they have integrity of character via their conservatism, is this always a self-deception, or is it sometimes a coy political trick to fool the masses?

What is wrong with this statement again? I assumed two possible deceptions. Are you saying it is not a deception when a conservative believes their integrity of character derives from conservatism itself (ie, loyalty to a party or religious dogma)?

By you saying that I don’t get it, are you referring to me not understanding why conservatism is morality itself? In that event, I think I understand it quite well.

Or, are you suggesting this phenomenon does not exist?

9

I am suggesting what others have patiently attempted to explain to you.

Your characterization of ‘conservatives’ has exactly two options. either they’re decieving themselves or attempting to decieve others. I am suggesting to you that you’re assesment is erroneous, in that there are plenty of other options. I am suggesting that until you can get to a point where the ‘opposition’ is not simply peopled by delusional or self indulgent folks, that you’re not going to get much of a debate.

In short, you’re assuming some deception. It ain’t necessarily true.

10

I used the word “When” so clearly and plainly–do you still not see it. I’ll even rephrase it to take the emotion out of it, “When a smoker claims to have sex appeal via smoking, is this always a self-deception or is it a coy attempt to fool others?”

In this case, I could be referring to a mere handful of smokers.

11

That has got to be one of the most awkward sentences I’ve ever seen. “…that they then…”?

Anyway, you’re assuming causation where there is none… being “politically conservative” and having “integrity or superior character” are not necessarily linked. Just like someone doesn’t need to be gay in order to be liberal.

It is inaccurate to believe that “conservative = integrity”. It’s also inaccurate to belive that conservatives derive their morality from their political orientation.

Yes, in most cases, it is accurate to say that the smokers’ comment isn’t correct.

However, YOUR stance, as stated by the OP, would assume that ALL smokers think that smoking provides sex appeal, and that they smoke SIMPLY for the sex appeal, which is hardly the case.

12

None of the words you use are clear or plain.

13

Ok, will try it again.

In your OP, you speculate that there are people who describe themselves conservative, and also

.
Having speculated that such people exist, you then go on to describe them as being delusional either towards themselves or to others.

So, again, where is the debate? You’ve certainly not proven that such people exist. And the parameters you’ve set up are self contained, and self conclusive. IOW: If they think that they achieve their integrity of character via their conservatism, they either lie to themselves or to others. Of course, beecause, you see, integrity of character is an independant character trait from political idealogy. So, they can be conservative and have integrity of character, but one is not related to the other.

14

The main problem I have with the OP in general is that it identifies certain undesirable traits, and attempts unsuccessfully to define them as characteristic of “conservatives”.

Apply some thought to the matter, Brian, and you might see that slavish adherence to dogma and a belief that certain groups are automatically more deserving than others are not unique to a subset of conservatives.

Then again, it can be amusing to make sweeping judgments. I’m reminded of the time Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon were together at some convocation of ex-presidents, and Bob Dole commented: “There they are…See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Evil.”

15

I’m coming into this late, but:

I don’t know anyone who thinks like this. Even if I take the most rabid, intolerant, no-liberal-can-be-a-good-person idiot, they would say that superior character and clear moral vision drives them to a conservative political vision, not the other way around. I can see no earthly way of coming up with this reverse causation train of thought. I have read this entire thread and I have no idea of where you are coming from; it seems you are creating a straw man, not even from a caricature of someone real, but from your own imagination, and flailing away at it. Where is this coming from?

But even the Jerry Fallwells of the world don’t think this way. They identify a conservative as a moral person who comes to his or her political beliefs as a natural outgrowth of his or her moral and religious center. The political comes from the moral, not the other way around. If obedience is a question, it is obedience to their own moral principles, not to their party or movement.

Now, in fact, most conservatives that I know (and I know a good many) can respect a liberal that truly believes his or her doctrines, and acts from them. They reserve their scorn for the pragmatists who seem (to them) to act from no moral base whatever. They can respect a Paul Simon (the senator, not the songwriter) or a Hubert Humphrey while despising a Clinton or Kennedy (Teddy) (or, for that matter, a Warner or a McCain). You may ask the basis of their judgement; I will leave that to another thread, as I am offering this as illustration not as debate. But action from a true moral base, even one with which they disagree, is something which most conservatives I know will respect even if they find they must fight against it.

As far as obedience is concerned, I can’t say that every conservative I know has invoked Nuremburg at one time or another, but it is frequent in our conversations. Moving from a moral center is what is important. As a conservative activist told a friend and myself as we mounted a write-in campaign some years ago, “If you know what you believe, and believe it right down to your socks, we’ll get along, even if we disagree at some points.”

16

Bingo/Bravo. This is the SAME THING by association, reverse or not (that was your refusal, not mine). Conservatives just don’t know that they are equating their integrity with their political views and vice versa. You have amply provided for it. Wring–feast your eyes on the above.

17

Unless you assume that it is impossible for a person to discover agreement with a traditional moral code through the process described, you have no case. If you do make that assumption, then it would be simpler to just state your prejudice outright.

18

Um, Brian, it is not the same thing. What dlb was saying is that conservatives, like liberals, communists, anarchists, libertarians, etc., believe that their moral integrity has been instrumental in their decision to adopt their particular political philosophy. They do not equate their integrity with their political views, they merely presume that their political views are the ones most consistent with their morality.

Your OP presents such moral justification as a “flaw” unique to social conservatism, when it is in fact a trait common in those who deeply hold any political convictions.

19

You should apply a bit more thought to this. It can easily be reversed to apply to liberals. Let me see if I can do it fifty words or less, because honestly, I think even that is more effort than this subject deserves. Please note also, that I’m not using the term liberals as a blanket; unlike Mr. B. and his apparent sycophant, I believ,e most people, be they liberals, or conservatives, are not unthinking dogmatists.

Liberals believe they are altruists, and as such, own the moral high-ground. Morality is the foundation of integrity. Government is also altruistic. Government is therefore moral and we should necessarily have more of it. When government’s creeping tentacles finally invade every orifice of the body politic, we’ll also achieve integrity.

Exactly fifty words. There ya have it. And my apologies to P. J. O’Rourke for stealing the “tentacles in every orifice,” phrase.

20

And I need to address one more thing here. It’s most certainly off-topic, but this is the final straw, so to speak.

What the hell does Nuremberg, the Nazis, and/or fascism have to do with conservatism as practiced in the U.S.? The core beliefs of Nazism and fascism demand a strong central authority and stringent economic controls. Both of these are anathema to conservatives in the United States. I’m getting really tired of these thoughtless (dogmatic?) comparisons.