Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Secular Conservatism, Libertarians, Progressives, and Marriage
I take conservatism to be an appreciation and defense of what has been proven to work, and which benefits society and the individual in a balance.
If that seems overly-broad, let me provide an example. Morality is effective in curbing largely destructive impulses and reactions, therefore morality is worth defending in principle, with some room for debate on many fronts. Not all morality is the same, and it is not always helpful in the particulars. But to hold that morality is not a necessary part of society is anti-conservative in my view, as morality is the most tested method for a society to control its own behavior with respect for the society and the individual in balance.
Libertarianism is a radical extreme that places no value on society as a body, and progressivism is a radical extreme that places no value on the individual. Conservatism is the compromise position arrived at through experience, and stored in our cultural traditions as the wisdom of the ages. To a secular conservative, the Bible is one of many instruments to this end. Just because there is a religious proscription against adultery doesn’t mean that only religious people can defend a belief that adultery is harmful to individuals and society. Likewise with other religious proscriptions.
Religion is, of course, a large component of the conservative movement, but philosophically it is not a necessary component of a thoroughly conservative position. Not even for marriage. I view the partnership between religion and conservatism as a co-development from a common origin. Shared predicates yield shared conclusions, and therefore common interest. Where religion ascribes things to God, secular conservatism agrees to the extent that it is destructive of society and the individual for mankind to mess with certain things. Progressivism on the other hand is the confidence that a small group of people in the present know better than (on the one hand) everybody else across time, and better than (on the Other hand) God in His infinite wisdom. Secular conservatism and religion get along just fine as defenders of our culture.
I see value in describing much of libertarianism as allied with progressivism, because conservatism is where the middle is, and to pull us off that mark either this way or that is just as destructive. If a movement seeks to abolish our traditions as proven over time, it is not conservatism. Progressivism and libertarianism get along just fine as disruptors of our culture.
There is already a philosophical position consistent with conservatism which enshrines human rights and the liberty of the individual: it is called conservatism.
Now, not every tradition is valuable, and a slavish devotion to traditions which are not good is not conservatism; that’s mechanism, on the process level. Radical opposition to a flawed and failing government is not anti-conservative, but radical opposition to the institutions of our culture, most definitely is.
For example, you could argue that big spending by government is now a tradition and that it is therefore conservative to defend it and radical to oppose it, but this is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it may be a tradition, but empirically it has not been proven to be a useful one. Some spending is necessary, some spending is excessive — making judgements is important, and at any rate, even if all projects were equally worthy, the sheer sum of spending which displaces other worthy but non-government projects must be taken into account and weighed for relative merit. Big spending is anti-conservative because it is destructive.
Second, the dependencies come to play in that objects and policies are not the only subjects to be appreciated and defended. The decision to spend less is no less valuable than the process by which we arrive at that decision, and its implications. If we feel that the accumulated wisdom vouchsafed in our culture is probably more valuable as a guide for society (in the aggregate) than the intellect spawned in a few brilliant fellows, then a process which lends itself to operation gently over time by many rather than abruptly, once, by the few is an inherently conservative method of arriving at conclusions. Big spending is anti-conservative because it operates through an anti-conservative process.
As the free market is operated gently by many, and government spending is operated forcefully by few, any problem not specifically recommended for government remedy is probably better handled outside of government. So no matter how “traditional” big spending may have become, it is not conservative in itself, and it is not conservative to defend it merely because it is the status quo.
Marriage pre-dates any law. It simply is, and it is between one man and one woman. This may sound circular, or like a “no true Scot” defense, but I assert it as a foundational fact. Marriage is not produced by law any more than our rights are. Marriage is enshrined and defended by law in our culture, and if the law should fall, marriage would remain, just as our rights do. The law does not trump marriage.
This should not be too alarming; conservatism is a platform, a set of positions. Some planks rest upon others and not all must be as heavily pedigreed. I hold that marriage is a foundational plank in the conservative platform. I hold that marriage is an emergent cultural defense against various destructive impulses and reactions, including those of jealous males, engineering females, and hostile out-group sentiment. Good manners are a defense against some offenses which can become lethal, and marriage is a defense against outrage.
Humans are sexual beings (as our grade-schoolers are reminded every minute by government busybodies), and many of our impulses and reactions are not rational in the way we would like, no matter how logical they may be from a chromosome’s point of view. As manners are typically maintained by society itself, morality is often maintained by religion as a specific example of a philosophy operating in context.
As the male-female pairing is not up for debate in conservatism (I challenge you to convince me that it is not what has been proven to work), so the societal adaptation which defends it is a necessary component of conservatism. I realize that many “conservatives” disagree with this, but they are mistaken about either their conservatism or their conclusions.
Published in General
On the contrary, it’s the political expression of the moral code of the value of the individual.
Talk is cheap. “I support SSM, but I sympathize with those of you who bear the burden of government coercion in your lives and livelihoods.” Uh… thanks, I guess?
I side with conservatives on most things, except in matters relating to sex (including SSM and abortion). So, two questions: (1) What is the “much else”? (2) How much do I have to agree with you in order to not be your enemy? 90%? 99%? 99.9?
No. Government licensed marriage between heterosexuals has been around a long, long time. The evidence that it provides a social good is in. Particularly in regards to the naturally produced offspring. I think the burden is on you.
Also, “The harm is to freedom” isn’t supported in your statement. Those seeking affirmation/legitimization from the state for their relationship are almost universally doing it voluntarily (and, if not, it’s illegal). Who is coerced in the traditional arrangement?
You missed Fred Cole’s post in which he called everyone who disagrees with him about open borders “Statist.”
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” – Ronald Reagan (Attributed. I cannot find an exact citation.)
Where to set the limits is always the argument on the right side. There are no limits on the left side.
Government registration of marriages in the United States goes back to about the 1820s.
Prior to the 1920s, only 39 US states required a marriage license. It was only in 1929 that they became a federal requirement.
The impetus for requiring government licensing was to prevent interracial marriages.
Marriage licenses in other countries go back much earlier than that, but they were almost invariably issued by the church.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html
I see little problem with that axiom.
If one believes in the value of the state’s existence, then one is by definition a “statist”, no?
I believe in the value of the state’s existence. I also believe in limited government and the expansion of individual liberty.
As such, I do not believe that statism and libertarianism are, strictly-speaking, wholly incompatible.
It reminds me of the passage from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress where one character argues the merits of monarchy in protecting individual liberty.
Only if you think the type of non-reproducing sexual relationships matter to the state. It seems an extremely un-libertarian act of social engineering to encourage or discourage any behavior when only consenting adults are involved.
It’s the very nature of male/female relationships that makes them a matter of public interest. They typically (although not always) produce offspring — citizens, with rights that need to be secured, if you take the state’s view.
And folks, don’t pull the “contraception changes all that line” on me — contraception of all forms fail. How many of us are out here without volition on the part of our parents? Many.
Why just one woman, incidentally? Why not between one man and several women? Polygyny has been pretty common throughout human history.
Just about all of politics is talk. Are you suggesting any support short of armed resistance is to be disregarded?
Im sorry, but on the question of religious liberty it seems like you just won’t take yes for an answer.
I would point to Colorado City as an example of why polygamy and polyandry are corrosive and why the state has a compelling interest in banning them. These arrangements create demographic imbalances which ultimately undermine society.
For larger examples of this, you can look at Saudi Arabia and the various other Arab Muslim nations where one of the main contributing factors in perpetuating radicalism is a steady influx of young men who have been denied sexual access to women (and have no long term hope of gaining it) because of this exact practice. It makes them easy prey for extremists who promise them boundless sexual conquest in the afterlife.
1) Yes, the state gets to set boundaries for who qualifies for the license. We’re currently arguing about where those boundaries should be. Conservatives think the traditional arrangement makes sense for the public good. Libertarians have (generally) given way on the male/female requirement, but are all over the place on the others — two, age of consent, and consanguinity. The former two being truly arbitrary and the latter only being against the public interest after several generations of incest.
2) Right — it doesn’t mean sex outside of marriage is illegal, though (the activity is marriage, not sex). It means only people who qualify have the right to marriage.
This is where the distinction between something being “legal” and something being “legally recognized” becomes important.
In Canada, there are polygamous Mormon communities, centred mostly in Alberta and British Columbia.
Now, the marriages in these communities are not recognized legally by the government. The men did not apply for marriage licenses for each of their wives. That, after all, would be illegal. One can only get a marriage license for one couple.
But the men have no interest in having their marriages recognized by the government. It is of zero concern to them. They believe they are married in the sight of God, and that is enough for them.
In Utah, however (at least until recently), these marriages would be illegal, because under Utah law the state had the power to declare people legally married even if they never applied for a license or had the marriage registered.
Have I told you “I love you” lately?
:)
I do what I can.
WC- I’m sorry you think of me as an enemy. That is certainly not how I view you. That we have differing views on the merits of same-sex marriages true. If that makes me your enemy so be it.
On the issue of religious liberty, however, you have absolutely no justification for questioning my commitment and, frankly, your tone on this subject is both incredibly condescending and somewhat off-putting. I take the Constitution very seriously and that you treat that so dismissively is insulting.
I’m not precisely sure what your views on the proper role of government are and I’m confident that I would prefer less government then you would, but if you told me you favored a decrease in the size of the state I would take that at face value and be happy to have your support. My response would not be to say, “Well, it doesn’t matter if you agree with me on this because you still would support excessive levels of government.”
I don’t view Libertarians as an “enemy” on this topic, but the fact that their positions on this place them with some peculiar bedfellows doesn’t alarm them confuses me.
While the undergirding principles of the politics supporting this policy are different between progressives and libertarians, the ends are the same. What I don’t get is the fact that ultimately, given the existing governmental structures that we have, why can’t Libertarians perceive that getting their way for this miniscule minority is going to unleash a tide of chaos, which ultimately plays into the left’s hands, as their goal is to gobble up an ever-increasing radius of the public sphere, typically premised upon controlling an ill which was paradoxically caused by policies they’ve championed!
For instance, the calls have already begun for the replacement of Obamacare with a single-payer healthcare system (surprise, surprise) because the victims (I mean, clients) of the Obamacare exchanges are discovering that they (gasp) have to PAY for healthcare and insurance and can’t get Doctors to accept the insurance.
The Ricochet editors are constantly trying to elevate religion to a place of greater prominence in the political dialogue. They have a religious intellectual agenda. They evangelize, not in a crude Elmer Gantry way, but through deft control of the editorial levers. They think. They’re really not very subtle at all.
The religious agenda is being rejected everyday by more and more Republicans, especially the young. Just don’t expect the old guard to go quietly.
Why? Do you think the justification for the state’s involvement in marriage is to usurp parental rights?
That is well-argued, Majeystik, and it’s an argument I’m fairly sympathetic to. But your argument is different from saying that marriage between one man and one woman simply is.
Majestyk- I’m gratified to hear that you don’t consider me your enemy, but I’m not sure what the relevance of the Obamacare reference is. Libertarians opposed Obamacare, just like conservatives. That the left sees it as a step toward single payer is true, but largely irrelevant (as an aside, single payer would be much more constitutionally sound than the ACA). If the public wants single payer it will get it, if it doesn’t it won’t. I don’t think Obamacare has increased the public’s affinity for state involvement in healthcare.
I support SSM as a matter of policy, but I’m with you on all the constitutional issues. I’m sure there will be some litigation about bakers’ religious liberty, but I’m confident we will prevail on these issues. Religious liberty is experiencing something of a renaissance in the courts. Basically, this is a slippery slope argument where the slope isn’t actually very slippery.
Speaking of condescending…
Try not to take it personally, Sal. I like you and think you’re astonishingly intelligent (btw, sometimes I wonder if that isn’t a handicap in matters of this nature). But, my position is described very well by Majestyk.
I think conservatives know the enemy of liberty better than idealistic libertarians. You’re right when you accuse me of not taking “yes” for an answer. I don’t think being for SSM and for religious liberty will prove to be a coherent operating philosophy, given the ascendancy of the totalitarian Left. There is no compromise with totalitarians. You’ve chosen their side on scant evidence of the public good of “SSM.” I can have contempt for this position while still appreciating your other worthy attributes and viewpoints, don’t you think?
It was certainly not my intent to be condescending. I’m genuinely puzzled as to why the procreative function of heterosexual unions justifies state interference in the family.
Didn’t James of England refute much of this back in 1.0? Anyone have access to that thread?
Salvatore Padula: I support SSM as a matter of policy, but I’m with you on all the constitutional issues. I’m sure there will be some litigation about bakers’ religious liberty, but I’m confident we will prevail on these issues. Religious liberty is experiencing something of a renaissance in the courts. Basically, this is a slippery slope argument where the slope isn’t actually very slippery.
This seems to be the bottom line. Libertarians trust that the constitutional order will be retained and are willing to experiment with the very foundation and buttress against the overweening state — the family. Conservatives are apt to nod toward Franklin — “A republic, if you can keep it.”
We have supreme court justices mind-reading conservatives on the issue of SSM and finding “animus.” Yet, somehow, such arbitrary rulings you expect to become less common as we go along? I think the rulings in favor of religious liberty have actually been quite modest. And I fully expect SSM to be affirmed as a constitutional right within the next decade, and probably within the next couple years.
If you’re okay with that, I think you’ve misread the consequences — and the Constitution.
Why do you think support for the Constitution is an incoherent position?
Traveling, so can’t make long comments , but Sal, I think your assertions about religious liberty are woefully naive. That these cases are being brought at all show what dire straights religious liberty is in.