Why I'm a SoCon
I've always thought of myself as a conservative, but now I'd like to embrace the SoCon label. I suspect it is a derisive term, but I want it anyway. Libertarians (had to capitalize it--it's at the beginning of a sentence), you'll be glad to hear that for me, being a SoCon is about freedom, but perhaps a different sort than you espouse.
I like to think that the most important factor behind my political views is raising men and women who are capable of exercising freedom, with its gifts, burdens, responsibilities and pitfalls. I think we all know people for whom freedom has backfired. People who, throughout their lives, find themselves in debt, addicted, in jail and perennially unfree. What, then, is the best way to raise up people who can successfully handle freedom while giving something back to the society that engendered them? And what is it they should give?
Children, of course, are not exactly free individuals. Since they come in such helpless little packages, it is many years before they are able to take care of themselves or make independent decisions. They are however, pre-programmed with personalities, talents, abilities and desires. Parents have an overwhelming task--they have to give children "care and feeding," try to determine where their talents lie, socialize them so that they know how to behave and treat other people well, teach them values and ethics, and somehow get them to the point where they can support themselves. They have to tailor all this to the individual child. And every parent hopes that their children will give them grandchildren and raise them well. Parents want this not just because they want grandchildren, but because they know that having your own children helps turn people into responsible grown-ups.
I've watched a lot of kids grow up, in my own household and others, and I've noticed that almost every child has flaws that could lead them badly astray without a good upbringing. It's wonderful to watch a child with a good family overcome what could have ruined their life if not for wise and steady parents. Not parents who never make mistakes. Every parent makes lots of them. But the mistakes don't matter so much when family life is stable overall.
There's just no doubt in my mind that family life works best when Mom and Dad get some education--high school at least--then get married, welcome children into the home, and set about the job of rearing them while having fun along the way. They eat dinner together, attend lots of sporting events and recitals, go on vacation as a family, and, during good times and bad, have extended family (and hopefully a church community) that gives them support. In short, children do best when they have a life embedded in families and communities that teach ethics and values, give them ample opportunity to discover and develop talents, teach them what it means to be an honorable man or a woman, and show them first-hand how successful families work. Such an upbringing frees children from numerous varieties of baggage, emotional and otherwise. It gives them the greatest chance of being the sort of person that can use freedom wisely and raise similarly responsible children.
In anticipation of an avalanche of criticism, let me just say that I know perfectly well that people can overcome bad family situations, and those who do are to be admired and praised. I also know that kids from good families can go wrong. But overall, outcomes are just better with a solid home life. It is a tragedy that so many lives are diminished or ruined by fatherlessness, parental addiction, and numerous other avoidable problems.
Engendering good, solid families is not a pipe dream for contemporary Americans. I know many such families. But cultural assumptions--and hence education--are not helping these days. In school, kids are taught many things that undermine family life.
-- Increasingly, the tiniest school children are taught that it's just as good if boys marry boys and girls marry girls. Beyond the fact that kids who have a Mommy and a Daddy like it that way and instinctively know that this is a really good thing, kids aren't stupid. They know that boys and boys and girls and girls can't have children. The message is that children are not an important part of marriage. Remember the old schoolyard chant, "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Mary with a baby carriage?" It reinforced some important assumptions, both personal and demographic. In short, that message served the common good.
-- Older children, but not much older, are taught that teenage sex is the norm and that it is fine, even encouraged. The moral part is using a condom. What message does this send about love and fidelity? What sort of emotional and physical baggage do young people get from engaging in hook-up culture? I doubt that it makes them more likely to eventually have strong and stable marriages and families. In fact, it short-circuits the whole pathway to marriage once sustained by dating and courtship.
-- The importance of career is overemphasized to both young men and young women. Work and career are important, of course, but most jobs are mostly mundane and unlikely to survive you. Children and family, on the other hand, do. As an organist, I attend many funerals of people I know and just as many that I don't. Work is almost always mentioned in passing. It's character and family that get the attention when life ends. And yet, I just read an article about how the number of young people who say they want children has fallen by half in the last 20 years. Those who don't want children say they fear children would interfere with their career. This is tragic. For many people, the charm of children escapes them until they have their own. Then they realize that children make life infinitely richer and more meaningful.
I often wonder why our world has become so topsy-turvy, why so many societal messages now encourage irresponsible and selfish behavior that doesn't serve individuals or society well. In part, it's the result of misplaced ideas about freedom. Freedom isn't just doing what you want to do. It's understanding how actions and consequences work and making wise choices that allow you to develop your own talents and give back to family and community. At some point, our nation became so rich and so blessed that we were able to move away from the harshness of actions and consequences, at least for some people.
Consequences are harsh, but they are instructive; they help us grow and learn the necessary lessons of life. They teach us to take care of ourselves. Contemporary society reminds me of the stories about rich Brits I used to watch on PBS. Their wealth and position in society freed them from consequences, and yet they were perpetually unhappy and messed up, but didn't understand why. Remember the story about the baby chick pecking its way out of its shell? The child watching pities it and helps it along by cracking the shell, only to watch the chick consequently die. It was through pecking its way to freedom that the chick gained the strength to live.
So that's why I'm a proud SoCon. Maybe it's not all about the children, but a good part of it is. We think that with all the riches and abundance in America, the children will be fine no matter what adults choose to do. There's ample evidence that this is not so. Good families that teach responsible behavior and allow young people to suffer the consequences of their behavior forge the steel of a strong society, which in turn allows people to be truly free.
- Comment (226)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (19)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
I'm actually an oddity here. I'm a libertarian who agrees with SoCons on virtually everything in principle.
My disagreements stem primarily from a belief that government is a clumsy and ineffective mechanism for accomplishing the goals of SoCons.
So when you mention the terrible education in public schools, I agree. But I'm not partial to trying to get the government to fix them. I partial to getting the federal government out of the schools entirely.
I also agree that family is more important than a career. But I don't want a government bureaucracy trying to figure out how to teach them that.
I think social conservatives and libertarians have more common ground then either presently recognize. My criticism will come only when you suggest a government program to deal with a social ill, or try to use the power of government to enforce norms of behavior. It just doesn't work.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Yes, Frank, I have to agree with you there. That's the puzzle, though, isn't it? Culture is so slippery and difficult to influence and change. The left has done this through government, media and a thousand other ways. We have to combat it. We have no choice. But what are the best ways to do it? At the very least, we need to fight tooth and nail the efforts of the left to undermine religioius freedom and other consevative values. But our argument is always harder to make because it is embedded in human nature and common sense and it seems stodgy. We really need to use some of the tools of the left-- a conservative comedy show that makes fun of the left would be good. Rich material there. We also need to actively combat more than complain. Just hoping to get ideas here....
May '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
You've just described the life of my most liberal friends, which just goes to show that one can live a conservative lifestyle and yet aggressively espouse policies that would destroy it. The human capacity for delusion knows no bounds.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Yes--that was Charles Murray's point. Lefties, especially elite lefties, champion irresponsiblity and leftyism while living conservatively. They somehow don't see that what is good for them is good for everyone. In their minds, it's "compassion."
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
I know a lot of lefties, however, whose children haven't elected to have children. The parents don't understand why because they don't think it through, but they are shooting themselves in the foot with the messages they champion.
Mar '11
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Differentiating "SoCons" from "Conservatives" doesn't make any sense, as there is no conservatism without social issues. Take away the social stuff, and you're either a liberal hawk or a libertarian. And that's fine, if those things are what you believe. But quit calling yourself a conservative, otherwise. The whole point of conservatism is to conserve, to defend what is against wrongheaded change. to stand athwart history yelling stop, because history is an idiot when throwing away moral codes that have served humanity for many millennia This is why I shake my head whenever I hear guys like James Delingpole say that conservatives need to get with the times and embrace social liberalism. We wouldn't be conservatives, then.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
I think you're right, Douglas, social conservatism is the heart of the matter, but people like Delingpole don't see it that way. They like to separate fiscal and social issues. You can't really, which is part of my point. I kind of hoped some of them would explain to me on this thread why they think you can.
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Frank Soto: I'm actually an oddity here. I'm a libertarian who agrees with SoCons on virtually everything in principle.
My disagreements stem primarily from a belief that government is a clumsy and ineffective mechanism for accomplishing the goals of SoCons.
So when you mention the terrible education in public schools, I agree. But I'm not partial to trying to get the government to fix them. I partial to getting the federal government out of the schools entirely.
I also agree that family is more important than a career. But I don't want a government bureaucracy trying to figure out how to teach them that.
I think social conservatives and libertarians have more common ground then either presently recognize. My criticism will come only when you suggest a government program to deal with a social ill, or try to use the power of government to enforce norms of behavior. It just doesn't work. · 10 hours ago
I agree. It's a trap a lot of us fall into -- which the left exploits. Our side is always talking about "smarter" government. We should be talking about "more powerful citizens."
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Frank Soto: I'm actually an oddity here. I'm a libertarian who agrees with SoCons on virtually everything in principle.
My disagreements stem primarily from a belief that government is a clumsy and ineffective mechanism for accomplishing the goals of SoCons.
So when you mention the terrible education in public schools, I agree. But I'm not partial to trying to get the government to fix them. I partial to getting the federal government out of the schools entirely.
I also agree that family is more important than a career. But I don't want a government bureaucracy trying to figure out how to teach them that.
I think social conservatives and libertarians have more common ground then either presently recognize. My criticism will come only when you suggest a government program to deal with a social ill, or try to use the power of government to enforce norms of behavior. It just doesn't work. · 11 hours ago
That's my position exactly. Not only is government not championing the traditional values SoCons hold dear, it is actively undermining them. Big government is a powerful tool for progressives, and I say we take it away from them.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Do you libertarians think SoCons favor big government? I certainly don't. I do think government should protect religious freedom, but not with a program or anything, just that courts should side with religion in the cases against the HHS mandate, etc. I think schools should be run locally. But here's what I don't understand about many libertarians. They favor of gay marriage, and I can tell you that the consequences of that are not going to be pretty for religious freedom or for family values. They are going to crush anyone who disagrees with that to a powder if they get their way, and they are going to use the power of government to do it. That issue is not about freedom. Marriage is one area where I have to disagree with libertarians. It involves children and property, so the state is involved whether it wants to be or not. I don't think it is realistic to think the state can extract itself from marriage.
May '11
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
I agree with and try to live my life in accordance with most of the principles espoused by SoCons. However, I take a more libertarian viewpoint in that it's not my place, nor the government's place, to force it on anyone else. Our approach should be to convince people of the benefits of the SoCon way of life, not to compel them. It's both good policy and good politics.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
I guess there are different levels of coercion, BSC. I, for example, do not favor legalization of drugs nor prostitution. Holland is an example of where this leads. The whole culture is degraded, and apparently they are trying to pull back from these things. I don't favor euthanasia, because there is just no way to keep people from pressuring old people to allow themselves to be killed. But I would happily abolish many federal departments and agencies. I think I would put it this way--I don't favor legalizing various vices because it sends the message to children that those things are OK. Once something is legalized, you get more of it. And I think gay marriage is a ridiculous idea. Anyway, we're about to see the effects of some of these things that are newly legal in some states. We should at least give it time to play out so that we see the effects of some of these things before the rest of the country jumps on the bandwagon.
Feb '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
"Do you libertarians think SoCons favor big government? I certainly don't."
I don't agree that so-called SoCons favor big government; in fact, I don't know where you got this idea.
I'm probably a total SoCon, but I'm in total agreement with the idea of the smallest possible government - and most all of my similarly-opinionated friends feel the same way!
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
But you realize by trying to signal that vices are negative you are sentencing thousands of people to death through the illegal drug trade, right? Is it really worth that cost? I imagine you are capable of teaching your children without the government's help.
While I agree with pretty much all of your instincts, there is ample evidence that how your child turns out at 30 has little to do with how you raised him, if you raise him in a western society and a happy home. Twin-adoption studies show the only thing you really can influence is how they perceive their childhood, their political and religious affiliation (as opposed to opinions), and how long girls (only) wait to have sex. The evidence argues that good kids are the result of good parents mainly because of the good genes the kids received.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Virtue imposed by force is not virtue. In fact, it robs the victim of even the opportunity to be virtuous, as it robs him of the ability to exercise the choice to be virtuous.
Imposing laws to force people to live better lives destroys the thing that social conservatives profess to want, a more virtuous populace. Not to mention the colossal hubris involved in deciding that one is better able to decide the fate of someone other than themselves.
Oct '10
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
And it seems that most SoCons here agree with you.
This week I'm calling myself an Empirical Minarchist, because I believe experience has shown that anything other than a very small government indeed becomes a very large government, and that large government is inconsistent with human flourishing. So that, while I'm sure strong families (and churches, and other intermediating institutions) are necessary for human beings to live their lives for the best, trying to use the power of the state to support these institutions is dangerously flawed.
May '11
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
It's a very dangerous thing to legislate all aspects of culture, particularly at the national level simply because there is no consensus. It used to be that local communities would regulate behavior through shame and peer pressure. Loss of your reputation meant you were considered outside the society. Now we look to the federal government to address all our grievences. Let's at least devolve decisions about cultural issues to the lowest possible levels of government so that local communities can decide for themselves.
Nov '11
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
"Bravo" to a well-considered post and comments. From my perspective one of the more interesting points made concerns the disconnect between what many Progressives practice in their own lives and what they support in the public square. I, too, have seen the sad consequences of their misunderstanding manifested in their own children, but, as many have noticed, even more disastrously, manifested among those without family resources.
Sep '12
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Imposing laws to force people to live better lives destroys the thing that social conservatives profess to want, a more virtuous populace. Not to mention the colossal hubris involved in deciding that one is better able to decide the fate of someone other than themselves. · 7 minutes ago
But children have to have someone decide what is best for them, don't they? Do you think it is wrong to force children to be virtuous--to not allow them to hit their playmates and not give them cookies between meals and the like?
Well, I'm skeptical about your definition of virtue. And my point is that what government says is OK by making it legal then becomes "virtuous" whether it is or not, or at least not as unvirtuous. People do not decide what is "virtuous" in a vacuum. I also wonder, do you favor legalizing prescription drugs? If not, why not?
Dec '10
Re: Why I'm a SoCon
Imposing laws to force people to live better lives destroys the thing that social conservatives profess to want, a more virtuous populace. Not to mention the colossal hubris involved in deciding that one is better able to decide the fate of someone other than themselves. · 13 minutes ago
Indeed. The problem we face, however, is that the liberals, libertines, and the left in general use government as a bludgeon against any non-governmental entities that would foster virtue in society. No one on the socon side (at least here at Ricochet) is advocating for a Department of Homeland Morality.