And they were in favor of legalizing drugs and SSM? I like what mbh said, above. Why is it necessary to label him?
Wouldn’t there be some contradiction in believing both in the equality of gay marriage and in the need to bring God back into the classroom?
No, most National Security Conservatives weren’t calling for drug legalization or gay rights. But the OP was asking what kind of conservative such a person would be so I was identifying what sub-group of the conservative movement he was in.
Two people might both call themselves Fiscal Conservatives because they have identical views on economic issues. But one of them wants to see mandatory prayer in schools and the other one is a staunch atheist. Does that mean that one of them has to stop calling himself a Fiscal Conservative because they disagree on non-economic issues?
I don’t know, the part that threw me is him wanting god back in the classroom. I’ve known conservatives who are tough on national defense but socially liberal. This guy sounds like that except he sounds contradictory on being a social liberal or concerned with social morals. On one hand he wants god back in the classroom, on the other he is indifferent to other cultural wars.
Self-serving.
If you don’t fit a dichotomous mold you’re self-serving?
ROFL, kids these days.
He sounds like the kind of “all over the map” guy who nevertheless votes straight Republican in every election. I know a lot of guys like this. They say they’re fine with legal pot and SSM, but they’d never vote for the sort of legislators who would enact those things if they could instead vote for some anti-welfare pol who promises lower taxes.
Full disclosure, I’m much the same way in the opposite direction. I’m conservative on a lot of economic issues, but as long as Republicans nominate anti-science, anti-science homophobic bigots, I’m going to vote Democratic every time.
Well, in the sense that his outlook seems to be “Everyone should be free to do what they want . . . as long as I personally approve!” Hence legalizing gay marriage and pot, but not allowing secular schools. While I’m not sure if it’s worse than traditional hard-right religious conservatism, it makes even less sense.
I think I may have overstated my point when I said he wants to “bring God back into public schools.”
My friend would like to see kids forced to recite The Pledge, to include the words “Under God” every day, like they did in the Good Old Days of the Eisenhower administration, but only in the sense of inculcating in kids the notion that the US was, and is, a culturally Christian nation. He supports prayers before graduation and such, not necessarily full-on religious indoctrination (although to be fair, the line can be a thin one indeed).
This sounds like “as long as I personally approve” to you?
Regards,
Shodan
This seems to me to be a class of people called “everyone”.
I think the human brain is always trying to interpret the input it receives into “patterns” it can recognize and categorize, in order to quickly make generalized decisions about them in a broad sense. Danger/No Danger. Food/Not food. Mate/Not mate. Clan/Not Clan.
Obviously there are limitations when trying to use broad brush labels, especially on an individual. Broad brush labels can lead to sloppy analysis, as well as open ourselves to abuse by propaganda.
I have seen these labels being used as justification to not having to debate a whole subset of humanity.
Obama’s a “socialist”. (With the underlying assumption being that socialism is “bad”.)
Conservative’s are “racists”.
I’d call him a libertarian if I had to choose one label. Libertarians view defense as a valid use of government power. Most of them currently think we spend way too much on it, but thinking we spend too little on it wouldn’t be heresy. The God in schools probably is libertarian heresy, but having one out of line position doesn’t disqualify political labels, or no one could identify as anything.
More power to the police and the NSA doesn’t exactly ring libertarian, either.
He’s a libertine/plutocrat.
(I’m okay with the people who have the gold making the rules, as I either am or expect to one day be one of those people is the plutocrat part, and as long as I can indulge my own appetites as I please is the libertine part.)
I’d say he’s a cross between a libertarian and a fascist. He recognizes people’s rights to do what they want, but only within their own homes. For the lives we lead in public, he’s fascist to the core. You will be Christian and you will give perpetual glory to anything in uniform and if you ain’t one of us you deserve whatever you get.
Socially liberal militarist?
I don’t know, but they’re pretty common in my part of Missouri.
ETA: Oh, I forgot about the “Get God back in our schools” part. Um, authoritarian. kaylasdad99 and BobLibDem are probably not that far off.
ETA 2: I agree with “National Security conservative.” Thanks, Nemo!