Freedom and Traditional Values: A Question for the Conservatives

Great Debates
1

I was reading through a couple other threads that deal with traditional values, and I realized I had a question for our resident conservatives. Not wanting to divert the threads in question, I decided to open a new one. A cursory search didn’t turn up anything that I noticed pertaining to this topic, so here it is.

First, two quotes that stood out in the other threads.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction between “less government interference” and many of the other positions stated. The broad question is this: How does the government enforce the practice of traditional values in the private lives of the citizens while simultaneously not interfering with the private lives of the citizens?

I’ll give a few examples of the contradictions I see in this viewpoint:
“Oppose Immorality”: This statement brings to mind regulations such as those regarding private sexual conduct or the creation and distribution of controversial literature and artwork. Government interference here seems pretty straightforward: people are either prohibited from engaging in harmless, mutually agreed up actions within the privacy of their own home, or people are prohibited from expressing or being exposed to certain ideas.
“Welcome religion into the public sphere”: There’s some wiggle room as to interpretation with this statement (as with the last one), but I’ll assume it means government sphere. This constitutes interference by recognizing certain groups of citizens as being correct, or as being more “patriotic” due to their associations with one set of beliefs over another. This in turn damages the equality of all citizens under the law.
“Reduction of good role models”: This is more of a complaint about current society than a proposal for legislative action, but I have a hard time imagining what could be done about this that does not involve increased government interference, especially without any form of increased government control over the media. Of course, prisoner never said he was opposed increased government interference, but his post seemed to reflect the points mentioned by Bricker.

The list provided isn’t a complete list of the apparent contradictions, just an example. I’d like to ask that we not discuss the merits of any of the ideas provided by Bricker or prisoner, simply whether they conflict with the idea of “less government interference.”

Are my views justified? Or do all of the ideas quoted fit together sans contradiction into the conservative frame of mind?

2

There are many strains of conservative thought and, as you point out, there are many instances when the family values strain is in conflict with the less government strain. While there are things that both can agree on (lower taxes, no government aid for abortion, opposition to “special rights” for gays, etc.) there are many things upon which they will disagree (pornography, indecency regulations, etc.). It does a disservice to the conservative movement to lump both camps together (not to mention the other conservative camps, such as neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, etc.). Each camp has its primary focus and they all make up the broader conservative movement. However, they all disagree to a large extent.

Back in the 1950’s, Frank Meyer and National Review magazine tried to combine all the divergent conservative camps into one by stressing what was called fusionism. Basically, it said that we needed to limit government and fight communism so that people could be free to do good. On the domestic level it essentially meant cut government and praise religion, but don’t use government to promote religion. This premise worked pretty well while the conservatives were in the opposition, but then when Reagan was elected, the Moral Majority vs. Libertarian split became more obvious. Religious people didn’t just want the government to leave them alone so they could worship their God, they wanted government to facilitate the worship of this God and to impose religioulsy-oriented laws on everyone. Then when the threat of communism left the scene this simply removed one more layer that was holding the two opposing camps together. Fusionism hasn’t been the same since, although I’m still drawn to it.

3

They don’t. But, let’s be honest, contradiction and hypocrisy have always been the cornerstone of conservative thinking.

4

You’re mixing the notions in conservative thought on whether the government ought to be involved in questions of a social nature. I believe only the far right feels that more legislation is required to curb personal behavior. Moderate conservatives point to personal responsibility as the key, and that morality needs to be addressed socially through open forums discussions.

Forums like The O’Reilly Factor. :wink:

5

I agree with your larger point here. All too often, people think that they’ve identified a contradiction in the political opposition when all they’ve really done is identify two opposing camps within the opposition.

However, Dr. Love cannot be accused of this. The Bricker quote, at least, shows one and the same person expressing, in the same breath, a desire both for less government interference and for policies which (the OP persuasively argues) will necessitate more government interference. Nor do I think that Bricker is alone in subscribing to the views expressed in that quote. It is reasonable to ask those conservatives who agree with the quote to explain how they are not contradicting themselves.

6

Wrath:

Nonesense. Rank-and-file conservatives generally believe the Big Government should be used to oppose:

[ul]
[li]Gay Marraige[/li][li]Medical Marijuana[/li][li]Assisted Suicide[/li][li]Abortion[/li][/ul]

And don’t us started on the contradictions that the phrase “personal responsibility” points to.

7

And who qualifies as “rank and file”? Is it safe to lump all liberals into rank and file as well? Or would you liberals prefer to pick and choose your liberal issues?

Gay Marraige: Preventing gays from obtaining a marriage license does not stop them from living their lifestyle. Personal behavior is not restricted.

Medical Marijuana: Wrong. I think you’ll find a majority of conservatives in favor of medical marijuana, and sup[port among “rank and files” is growing. Even 50% of Protestant Ministers support it. Medical use and personal use are two different things, and rational conservatives understand that.

Assisted Suicide: You’ll probably find that it’s mostly hard-core religious conservatives are against assisted suicide.

Abortion: Another area where the religious right wants the Government to step in, but moderate conservatives leave that to the individual. As one born-again friend put it, “it’s between you and the Lord.”

That’s the Libertarian in me.

8

Gays do not have a “lifestyle.”

Let’s rip up your marriage certificate, see how hard it is for you to live your life with the person you love. It’s damn near impossible. Not that the gay-hating conservatives give a shit about that. If they could, they’d just as soon have us herded into camps for disposal. Gotta make the place clean before Jesus comes, after all.

9

They don’t cohabitate with same sex partners? Engage in sexual relations with same-sex partners? Enjoy a circle of friends or clubs that are same-sex based?

Not impossible at all. I’ve cohabitated my whole life without a marriage certificate. In fact, I’d rather get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

…and who is bashing whom?

10

This is a most amusing post. First you appear to condemn a fairly innocuous stereotype by stating that gays do not have a “lifestyle,” then you engage in a much greater and more hateful stereotype yourself by lumping all conservatives into gay-hating would-be murderers. I’m a conservative and I have absolutely no problem with gays whatsoever, and I most certainly would not want to see any gay person “disposed” of. I know a great many other conservatives, both staunch and fairly liberal, and not a single one of them would ever advocate, even in private, anything close to what you are attributing to them. Nor do they harbor anything remotely like what you describe in their hearts and minds. On the contrary, most conservatives I know say they have no problem with gays either; they just think marriage, as they’ve always known and accepted it to be, should be between a man and a woman (and even this will change in time, I’m sure). The fact that many conservatives oppose SSM does not mean they hate gays or want to see them killed. Extrapolate much?

11

What he’s saying is don’t call being gay a “lifestyle”, which is a set of activities you choose voluntarily and you can take or leave.

There are gays with yuppie lifestyles, gays with back-to-nature lifestyles, gays with gung-ho macho lifestyles, gays with quiet bookish lifestyles, gays with boisterous lifestyles, gays with Type-A rat-race lifestyles, gays with irresponsible lifestyles, etc.

12

Thanks to everyone who replied. The different camps expaination makes sense, but I’m sure I’ve heard many of these ideas expressed by the same person before.

To be fair to Bricker, his post was offering a list of positions that are generally popular with the (conservative) public at large, not specifically stating his support to any of them.

13

I understand that. What I am saying is that the things which gays enjoy that heteros do not (i.e. same sex relations, same-sex issues) are not mitigated by the lack of a marriage license. I hadn’t realized the word “lifestyle” was now considered offensive. This PC stuff moves too fast.

14

What you may not realize, Wrath, is that some people on both sides think that “gay lifestyle” refers to a specific set of behaviors, including promiscuity, a drug and alcohol club culture, etc. Basically, the media-communicated “gay lifestyle” of the disco 70’s. Some on the right play up that culture, which to be sure exists but is not typical. In fact, it’s weird how people are talking at cross purposes these days on many gay rights issues. The cultural conservatives are concerned about this “gay lifestyle,” but many gays are equally or even more concerned about exactly that lifestyle and seek exit from it into the culture of 2.5 kids, a picket fence and a minivan. They just want to do it with someone they love, who happens to be someone of the same sex.

As to the OP, no sane person on the right would attempt an answer in good faith after such gems as “contradiction and hypocrisy have always been the cornerstone of conservative thinking.” This is obviously just another typical left-wing SDMB circle jerk and I’ll have no part of it unless and until OPs, moderators or someone stops self-appointed – I can’t even think of an appropriate term, but self-appointed somethings – from answering on others’ behalf with such idiocies.

15

As requested, I’ll reiterate my earlier disclaimer and add a second: This thread is not intended as a debate on the merits of any of the positions listed in the OP, and blanket insults are not welcome.

The debate topic is: Is there a contradiction within the positions stated? And, if there is not, please explain why there is no contradiction.

16

You are a supporter of the Bush admin right?

The Bush admin does not support medical use of marijauna.

So ergo you think the Bush admin is not rational?

17

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I may not be the best person to answer, as I am culturally more liberal than most conservatives. But yes, there are some contradictions. But not as many as one might think.

Let’s go through some of them:

“No gay marriage.” I support gay marriage. That said, you have to understand that legally, marriage is a wholly invented institution. If the State were starting with a blank slate, they could select to receive the benefits of this thing called “marriage” any arbitrary group they chose so long as that group is not specifically protected by the Constitution. Say, only people who affirmed that they intended to try to have children. Or only those who said they wanted to care for their aging parents rather than cosign them to medicaid and a nursing home with a visit once a year. The arbitrary selection the State chose happens to be the one which came from 10,000 years of culture, refined by a couple thousand years of monogamy. Expanding that definition is something on which the burden might reasonably be placed on the persons wishing the change.

“Tax cuts. Less government interference.” Presumably, these are some of the things which the other things are in conflict with. So they get to stand on their own. :wink:

“Less political correctness.” This is actually not a contradiction. Whilst many people think political correctness is simply politeness, and sometimes I agree, it’s not a contradiction of smaller-government principles and more freedom to think that politeness ought not be enforced by the government, universities, employers, or whoever.

“Welcoming religion into the public sphere.” This one’s tougher for me to explain, as I believe the church ought to be quite separate from the state – I am an atheist. That said, it’s not unreasonable to think that acknowledgement of our religious heritage, which did and does exist, does not rise to the level of an “establishment” of religion.

“Oppose immorality. Be definite about right and wrong” Again, this is a toughie for me – perhaps someone else, heartened by your encouraging words in your prior post, can help more. I will say that I think support for government encroachment on personal morality would drop precipitiously if so many people didn’t suspect that any backing off would be quickly followed by a vast increase in personally immoral behaviour which would bleed into the public morality (legalizing drugs being accompanied with crime increases, for example). I make no representation here as to the merits of such arguments.

"Support traditional American institutions - Boy Scouts, church, marriage between a man and a woman. " This one, I think, is the crux of a lot of the others. I think there’s a widespread belief among cultural conservatives that a lot of people who are hostile to government involvement with some of these institutions are also hostile to the institutions themselves. And they’re often correct. This leads to a certain defensiveness which can sometimes result in hypocrisy. I think much could be done if those who are not hostile to the institutions themselves would do a better job of telling those who are to STFU.

18

I’m more Libertarian. Bush is much farther right than I am. He has my support on some issues, and not on others.

Not on that issue.

19

Reeder, there are many other threads geared towards whether the Bush administration is rational or not.

manhattan, thank you for posting your reactoins on the issue. Yes, I’m mostly comparing the positions with “Less goevernment interference”, and I agree that there is no conflict between that and “Tax cuts” and “Less political correctness.” I don’t think I have any objections to any of the points you raised, so thanks again for your candor.

20

I’m a small gov’t conservative/libertarian type. I usually vote republican.

The OP has a good point in that many republican positions (pro-life, most notably) are in direct violation of the general conservative principal of smaller less intrusive government. However, overall the repulican party is still the party of small government and less interference, especially when compared to the democrats. Even the issues where rep’s are on the side of government interfering (like abortion) they have backed off and are moderate. For instance, right now the republicans control all three branches of government and aren’t really trying to do anything on the abortion issue. The only steps that have been taken are reasonable things like banning partial birth abortions, which most Americans favor.

The democrats on the other hand, have moved further and further to the left. Issues involving frightening amounts of government control and interference with people are at the spotlight of the party. Socialized medicine is clearly a possibility if they gain control of the presidency or senate.

Anyway, on to the OP’s question. I would argue (and I think many conservatives would agree ) that it’s not the role of government to enforce the traditional values as much as it is the duty of government to not interfere with them. Many believe that allowing gay marriage erodes traditional marriage. Welfare encourages single women (especially blacks) to have children and this results in less families that can support themselves. Etc.