Help me understand this inconsistency in Conservative thought.

Great Debates
1

A thumbnail sketch of how I understand Conservative thought is that they are in favor of Small government, personal responsibility and very aware of unintended consequences when it comes to attempting to change society.

Perhaps the best example of this is how Conservatives point to the horrible failure of such social programs as Welfare or HUD as examples of how big government is a clumsy and poor tool for managing people’s lives. This is also cited as proof that the good intent (have a safety net so that people in trouble are not starving in the street) had the unintended consequence of actually spreading poverty and crime and keeping generations of people from success.

I know that there is more to conservative thought than this, but I want to use this as a starting point.

Here is where I start to get confused: It seems to me that a large portion of Conservatives limit these philosophies to regulatory and financial matters, but are perfectly content to allow the State to be as large and intrusive as they want to be when it comes to social matters. A lot of this was sparked by my reading of this thread in the Pit in which we were discussing the Bush proposal to start screening school kids for drugs.

It seems to me that this proposal will probably garner much Conservative support, and yet it is very much counter to what I understand the Conservative philosophy to be. I am interested in hearing what folks have to say about this.

One final note: I have zero interest in this turning in to some sort of pissing match between Liberals and Conservatives. I am well aware that there are some profound differences between the two ideologies and that this is a source of some strife and bitterness. I would suggest that it is better to try to view each other more as loyal opposition, and that at the end of the day both sides have things of value to say to the other and that we would all to well to try to listen.

2

I think the answer to your question is that there are different types of conservatives, and a lot don’t have the problem with the government spending money to do what they feel benefits society or supports a certain set of values.

3

If you’re looking for an answer other than “most conservatives are simply not consistent with their stated philosphy”, I think you are going to be disappointed. Basically what you are asking is: Why aren’t Republicans libertarians? And the answer to that question is that libertarians don’t get elected, Republicans do. By and large, the American people are OK with giving up certain liberties in order to satisfy their sense of what is moral, or to make themselves feel safer from activities like drug use.

4

I’ll give you a simple answer, which of course will be nitpicked into oblivion, but it’ll get you started.

Welfare is an entitlement. Drug testing is law enforcement.

And just because you think it’s a stupid law doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be enforced. I think banning “assault weapons” is stupid, but I don’t carry an AK-47 in protest. Laws should be enforced until they are no longer operable.

In that respect, I don’t consider drug testing an intrusion at all.

5

Depends on your DEFINITION of “conservative.”

Originally, I was led to believe that “conservative” meant believing in smaller government, responsible government spending, LESS government spending, personal responsibility, and leaving the social arena OUT of government, except where necessary to pass laws which may be required to reinforce our Constitutional beliefs (liberty, equality, and so on.)

Nowadays, “conservative” doesn’t seem to mean much of anything. Republicans claim to be “conservative,” but durned if I can see where the current Republican party agenda coincides with any of the principles stated above.

As near as I can tell nowadays, “conservative” seems to more or less be synonymous with “jingoism.”

6

Call this a nitpick if you want (I don’t think it is), but there is a world of difference between enforcing drug laws and forcing random drug testing. You are conflating the two. The OP was referring to the latter, not the former.

7

Cap’n:

What then do they have in common that the term “conservative” encompasses?

8

Because conservatives are just as inconsistent as liberals. One might equally well make the argument that liberals talk a big game about protecting your rights and letting you follow what makes you happy, but start talking about money or guns and it’s all control, control, control. The truth is that conservative and liberal are both identified with interests rather than coherent philosophies, so their tenets reflect that.

9

Not too much, I think, any more than New Deal/pro-labor economic “liberals” have in common with the pro-choice, pro-drug legalization cultural “liberals” of the 60s and 70s.

10

I’m in an american government class right now, and I’ve struggled with the OP question for a while. One point the professor made in class clarified the whole thing for me very much; it’s still a little hazy, but the cloud has lifted considerably. Maybe it will help… but if it seems sophmoric, forgive me.

There are three core values involved in the model I learned; order, equality, and freedom. Order opposes free will because to keep order, certain freedoms must be compromised. (e.g- th epatriot act, laws against gay marriage, etc.) Equality also compromises free will (eg.- affirmative action, govt regulating big business to prevent monopoly, etc.).

In the current division of political thought, neither side is truly a proponent of freedom. Both recognize that free will must be compromised. But liberals compromise their freedom in exchange for equality; conservatives compromise their freedom in exchange for order.

The concern for equality is a relatively new development, so i think the definitions of ‘conservative’ and liberal’ have been a little confusing recently.

Does that help?

11

#1: Who’s calling them “liberals”?

#2: You’re comparing 2 different historical periods, while consevatives are two-faced right now.

#3: They’re not inconsistent. Liberalism is pro-labor in that it targets classism along with racism, sexism, etc.

#4: Liberalism says, “Do whatever you want. Think however you want” (whereas conservatism says, “Do this. Think like this”) so you can’t expect everyone to wind up thinking the same.

#4: Even if 2 wrongs made a right, discussion of conservatives does not automatically involve “liberals”. There’s such a thing as objectivty.

12

I think a more apropos analogy would be to say that in order to enforce the existing firearms law police should be able to randomly and without a warrant search people’s homes for assualt weapons. In my opinion that would be less intrusive than forcing someone to piss in a cup. In the one case you’re dealing with someone’s property, and in the other with their person.

13

Bill:

Nonsense. Testing for drugs on the common public ground as a precondition to school falls in the same category as searching for weapons at the entrance to a court building or airport.

You might as well be arguing that a mandatory scoliosis screening at school equates to random intrusive searches of homes.

It’s a fundamentally ridiculous comparison.
I thought Airman answered the question very well.

14

This only holds up if you make school non-mandantory. Everyone has a choice in entering an airport, or a courthouse (unless you’ve been summoned). Minors are compelled to attend school.

Of course, people who believe that minors don’t have the standard set of rights won’t accept this reasoning. But that’s not the debate here.

-Psi Cop

15

They’re calling themselves that. Both people who are primarily economic liberals (who support strong labor unions, workers rights, greater benefits to the poor and underprivileged) and people who are primarily social liberals (who are strongly pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-legalization of drugs) call themselves “liberal”

The different strains of liberalism developed at different times, but they coexist today. If you look at the presidential race, Dick Gephardt is liberal, but his main supporters were workers and farmers, attracted to him by his protectionism and his stances supporting workers rights, which is different from the equally liberal supporters of someone like Howard Dean, who were attracted to him because of his stances on gay rights and his opposition to the Iraq war.

[quote#3: They’re not inconsistent. Liberalism is pro-labor in that it targets classism along with racism, sexism, etc.[/quote]

It does do that, yes But within liberalism, there are people who are more concerned with things like racism than classism or workers rights, and people more concerned with prolabor views, who aren’t very concerned with things like racism. Equally, there are conservatives with a libertarian bent, who want to see as small a government as possible, there are moral conservatives, who want to see things like an end to abortion and return of school prayer, and there are conservatives who want to see government help businesses and American corporations. All of these people get called “conservatives”. but really they don’t have much in common.

My point is that inside both the liberal and conservative movements, there are a diversity of views and beliefs.

Of course it doesn’t. And, I hope you realize that in my post, I was not being critical of either conservatives or liberals, merely arguing that both terms are unspecific, and contain a variety of viewpoints.

16

Minors are not compelled to attend school. They are not compelled to attend public schools, either.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Minors do not have the same rights as adults as a matter of law.

17

How…partisan of you.

Look, you have to realize that there are different kinds of conservatives and different kinds of liberals. Neither side is composed of one homogenous mass.

Generally speaking, political conservatives want less government, while political liberals want more government. Economic conservatives want less government spending while economic liberals want more government spending. And social conservatives stick to religion and tradition as guiding forces in social change (or the lack thereof) while social liberals move away from that and end up advocating for more change. Generally.

Besides that, a person’s political views may sometimes conflict with his/her social views, forcing him to pick which is more in tune with his overall perspective (and which is best in the long run).

I think rose explained it quite well in terms of the three ideals.

18

Incorrect. At least, incorrect in the state of Virginia (where I currently live). I cite § 22.1-254, specifically the following phrase: “Except as otherwise provided in this article, every parent, guardian, or other person in the Commonwealth having control or charge of any child who will have reached the fifth birthday on or before September 30 of any school year and who has not passed the eighteenth birthday shall, during the period of each year the public schools are in session and for the same number of days and hours per day as the public schools, send such child to a public school or to a private, denominational or parochial school or have such child taught by a tutor or teacher of qualifications prescribed by the Board of Education and approved by the division superintendent or provide for home instruction of such child as described in § 22.1-254.1.”

Translation, literal: Every parent or guardian in Virginia has to send their kid to public school or otherwise educate them between the ages of 5 and 18, with a few exceptions.

Translation, practical: If yer under 18, you go to school.

There are exceptions, yes, but only a few. For the typical minor in VA, school is mandantory. I suspect this is similar to all other states. As you pointed out, they are not compelled to attend public school, the parents can send them to a private or religious school, or even home educate their children. This isn’t an option for many people, however, and public school presents the best value.

My apologies, I misspoke. I should have said “…people that don’t believe that minors…” instead of what I initially said. However, minors do have most of the rights that adults do. They can’t vote, buy tobacco, or serve in the military, certainly. But they do have the basic rights of freedom of speech and protection from unreasonable search and siezure. Drug testing comes down to unreasonable search, in my opinion. Since a minor has no (legal) choice in whether to attend school, drug testing is wrong.

Oh, and a question. I presume that you would object if police stopped your children in the street and demanded a urine sample to make sure they didn’t have drug x in their system? Why does the wrapper of a school make this any more right?

-Psi Cop

19

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Minors are not compelled to attend school. They are not compelled to attend public schools, either /QUOTE]
Not to change the subject but when the truant checked up on me when i was sick for a month almost every day or so I felt compelled to go to school …

Also thats news to the kids parents who do jail time or fined cuase their kids arent there

20

Weapons are searched in school out of concern for security. It’s really hard to learn if the constant threat of violence is lurking in every classroom, and every “outsider” is perceived as a another member of the Trenchcoat Mafia.

I don’t see how drug use affects the security of a school, though. If a kid is using, they are hurting themselves more than others. And if drug use is the cause of a student’s disruptive behavior, they will stick out like a sore thumb. They should be handled like any other disruptive student (and appropriate recommendations should be made to their parents).

I keep hearing comparisons being drawn between scoliosis testing and drug testing. A scoliosis test is much cheaper and less intrusive than a drug test. Furthermore, there are no criminal implications if one has a crooked spine. The state will not force you to do anything if you get a “positive” result. And are scoliosis tests mandatory? I don’t know. I’m having a hard time believing a child could get expelled if they refused to lift up their shirt and bend over.

Did anyone see the segment on Goose Creek on 60 Minutes last night? I don’t see how any conservative would advocate anything as intrusive as that, and yet many apparently do. But maybe I’m wrong in assuming a typical conservative would have a problem with a swat team storming their place of business and forcing them to the floor at gun point.