Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Are you assuming that Libertarians aren’t intensely concerned with culture and healthy ways of living?
I never did like the term “Social Conservative” as I’m pretty anti-social. Social Conservative makes me feel like I should go out and be friendly with people. *shudder*
Although I do like the term “Virtue”. I’ll avoid making the terribly geeky joke this time.
I like the idea, but as Jamie points out, it’s liable to be received the same way “compassionate conservative” was.
I think Social Conservatives are typified by believing that government has an obligation to protect/encourage social public goods, particularly those regarding family and church.
If there’s a way to condense that into a snappy label, I think that’d be ideal. Honestly, I think Social Conservative isn’t half-bad.
Well, Compassion is a virtue of the Avatar … okay, I couldn’t make it past three replies. Sorry, everyone.
I’m with you, Rachel.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
On the serious side, I like Virtue if only because in general it speaks towards a certain concept and ideal, while on the other hand the specifics can be discussed rather vigorously as the ancient Greeks did. There is no real religious claim to the word “virtue”.
It is different than “compassionate Conservatism” precisely because of the generality. “Compassionate Conservatism” specifically implied one thing: using big government as a comfort to the less fortunate, although managed better (supposedly) than Liberals could. It was an attempt to find the middle between the two political impulses in America, and really impressed no one.
“Virtue Conservatism” takes a side, speaks towards a general concept, and doesn’t necessarily mean “big government.”
I dunno. It could work.
There was a bit of blowback, too, because people took it to imply that regular conservatives aren’t compassionate. Even though it was intended as a point of emphasis, some took it as a slight.
I’d be delighted if social conservatives became “virtue conservatives.” Virtue, pretty much by definition, cannot be compelled. Virtue conservatives who took the term seriously would become libertarians.
The problem with labels is that they lock an individual into a pre-determined set of parameters, much like political correctness. We have “social”, “fiscal”, “compassionate”, “neo”, and who knows what other adjectives out there available for conservatives. Personally, I prefer to stay with the generic “conservative” label and debate differences among friends.
Sure, no two conservatives share the same position on every issue, but our similarities far outweigh our differences. I believe this attempt to define conservatives with adjectives is a liberal attempt to drive a wedge into us, separating us into groups that are divided and thus can be more easily conquered.
Liberals have successfully done this with Democrats. Remember when there were Democrat politicians that loved God, loved guns, loved America, were for a strong national defense, and fought for the rule of law? They’re gone. I believe their former supporters are the Reagan Democrats, now without any Democrat candidates to vote for. We can win them over again, if just get the right freakin’ candidate to run for President, Governor, Senator, House, etc.
And Rachel, you rock. Keep the posts coming!
Hi Sal, I have this lovely bridge available. When would you like a tour?
Yeah. Another meaningless nebulous term that will…surely…attract a lot of people.
How about another suggestion? Keep this stuff out of politics, because ultimately, it isn’t government’s business. Isn’t that what a…conservative…ought to be aiming for in the first place? Wasn’t that what allowed “virtue” or whatever you want to call it to exist in the US in the first place? And wasn’t government involvement in social issues, what destroyed “virtue” in the US?
Did we learn nothing from Rick Santorum? This stuff doesn’t work. No one wants to vote for a Pope or a nanny. We’re voting for people who do budgets and run the military.
Different job requirements. If you want to promote social conservatism or “virtues” or whatever, do it in the public sphere, not the political one.
Otherwise what’s the difference between you and the Left who also wants to legislate every social issue.
Exactly, AIG. I have been making this point in another thread:
http://ricochet.com/notes-on-libertarians-and-responsibility
I disagree. The idea of virtue needs to be a part of a civil society. We should, in fact, govern with a mind on a pursuit of virtue.
How about Moral conservatives or Non-Hedonist conservatives?
(Let the brickbat throwing begin!)
I should confess that every time I read the title of this post, I think of this:
I am not a conservative.
But I make common cause with conservatives on many issues because, as a believer in evolutionary epistemology, I value the painfully-acquired experience of the hundreds of generations above the theories of credentialed professors, and I’d rather rely upon the traditions so-derived than hurl ourselves into the unknown based upon some utopian vision.
Since the Great Society, we have had the state acting in ways which subvert virtue and morality. One need not look beyond the rate of illegitimate births, but there are abundant other metrics available if that doesn’t make the sale. The question, as I see it, is whether the blunt instrument of the state should be employed to promote virtue and morality, and whether that is plausible when the minions of that selfsame state have largely been recruited from those who oppose those values.
Digging out of this hole will require both re-establishing the link between actions and consequences by dialling down the welfare state and instilling virtue through non-governmental institutions such as churches, civic organisations, and boy/girl scouts.
We need two terms: one for those who view social conservatism as an explicitly political stance and one for traditionalists who believe that cultural battles should, with few exceptions, be fought outside the realm of politics. The former would make sense as a right wing antonym for libertarianism, the other would be at least compatible with it.
Yes yes. Here’s the problem you’re overlooking however: what makes you think a “Great Society” run by you, me or Rachel Lu is going to produce better results than one run by LBJ?
This is the most important point of conservatism/classical liberalism/libertarianism, whatever you want to call it: people are flawed. Any system which concentrates powers in the hands a few, is going to lead to corruption.
Hence the goal is to have one where individuals in authority have as little and as limited power as possible.
Instead, “social conservatives” take precisely the opposite approach: concentrate government power in the hands of a some mythical “virtuous” individuals. In their view, if you put a “virtuous” individual in charge of dictating every social issue in the world, things will work out fine.
They are virtuous, after all. How could it not work great?
So, do you want Rick Santorum for Pope of the US?
PS: In 2 little words we manage to alienate just about everyone. By branding ourselves as “virtue conservatives” we explicitly declare that everyone else is not…virtuous. That only we are…virtuous. What is “virtue”? No need for definitions, or its practical implications.
Platitudes are enough. Virtue, morals, lots of other good words I can’t think of. That ought to be enough.
And in the meantime not only do we give the electorate precisely what they keep telling us they don’t want: i.e. condescending moral preachers who want to use government to intrude into their lives even more, but we make it even more condescending by branding ourselves as the “virtuous” ones, and the rest as the unwashed cattle in need of our clearly superior moral values.
PPS: Just to be clear, I support “social conservatives” about 99% in all they say. I just wish they would realize that…government…isn’t what we want to legislate morality or virtue. If you can’t do it in the churches, in the schools, in the streets and in the media, then maybe reconsider the message, the messenger, or yourself. Don’t use government. That’s not…American.
I’m not claiming there’s a direct analogy (there isn’t), but in the 1970s “structured programming” was all the rage. Donald Knuth attributed this, in part, to a disinclination of people to advocate “unstructured programming”.
When he created the discipline of “literate programming” he figured it would triumph because who would advocate “illiterate programming”?
Not not-hedonist, please. Most people can only be motivated to pursue virtue if they believe it will ultimately bring them pleasure, even if it’s only the rarefied, spiritual pleasure of heaven rather than all the base pleasures of the flesh. (And hey, many pleasures of the flesh can also be enjoyed in virtuous ways.)
People are already falling away from virtue because they’re not taught the long-term rewards it brings. We don’t need to make virtue sound even less pleasurable.
Virtusative. You saw it first here.
Rachel – I’m with you, I like your term. When we moved to Qatar in 2005 we formed a LifeTeen youth group and took as our motto: fidelity (lex orandi), virtue (lex credendi), and service (lex vivendi). I’ve always felt that the progressives hijack the “social” part of justice and cringe when I hear libs and progressives speak of “values”. Count me a virtue conservative. Pray for me that I may live up to that.
Let’s see…
Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, virtusative…
Yeah, it has a certain ring.
Stad has it right at # 10.
For those who say that we shouldn’t use the law to legislate morality, I ask:
what in the world do you think that the criminal laws (which are generally the same in most states) are designed to do?
I think your analogy is pretty good.
What puzzles me is how exactly “we” figured “we” are the virtuous ones? If its religious convictions that defines it, I seem to recall something in the religious texts about humility and humbleness. Parading as the party of “virtue” doesn’t strike me as particularly humble. Nor is trying to mandate through government how one ought to behave in their persona life, particularly full of humility.
I also seem to recall something about Christ not coming here to rule us through the sword, or through government, but coming here for our individual souls. Something to do with an individual’s struggle.
Something about all this tastes of theocracy. Which will go a long way in driving the “conservative” movement into oblivion even faster than the populist tendencies in certain circles will.
Day by day “we” are becoming a caricature of what the left portrays us as.
Which demonstrates one of 2 things:
1) “Morality” is such an ambiguous term as to be completely meaningless as a “platform” for anything other than political platitudes.
2) If we already have a law that governs “morality”, then by what stretch of the imagination are we more “moral” or “virtuous” than others?
Of course criminal law governs “moral” behavior. That’s a given. The question then is, what above and beyond that, do we seek? Judging by the dozens of previous posts by “reform conservatives” who now suggest to be called “virtue conservatives”, the aims seem a bit broader.
The proper place for this “broader” moral engagement, according to tradition, and practice, over the last few centuries, is precisely not government but the public sphere. Since we’ve pointed out the importance of “tradition”, tradition points us in precisely the opposite direction.
The problem with social conservatives is not their ability to win the moral tug of war, it’s their unwillingness to pull, opting instead to outlaw the other guy from pulling.