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.
Let’s Be “Virtue Conservatives”
I’m dissatisfied with the term “social conservative.” I’m wondering if we can’t come up with something better.
What is a social conservative, anyway? Just a person who’s religious and cares a lot about abortion? We know the type, but the name is kind of nebulous, particularly when it’s contrasted with “libertarian” (as it so often is), it makes it sound as though libertarians have a real philosophical foundation and social conservatives just have a lot of strong opinions about how people should live (generally rooted in prejudice or blind obedience to religion).
I submit that the strongest distinguishing trait of the people we call “social conservatives” is an intense concern with culture and healthy ways of living. So why can’t we be “virtue conservatives”? That broadcasts what we really care about. Anyone with me?
Published in General
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:
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.
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.
You lost me at government.
Social conservatism starts with the notion that Man is a social animal. We live together. We conduct our social lives through institutions. The main social institution is family, but business and religion, for examples, are also legitimate social institutions.
Politics also has an important role, to be sure, but it’s only one role among many … and it’s hardly the chief role.
The problem is that now more than ever, government sees itself as the supreme social institution. Politics is simply arrogant, believing that government has the right to manage, define, and command all the other social institutions.
All of these are pathological symptoms of the basic mistake that government is really the supreme social institution, and the rest of social life must be subservient to politics.
Libertarians don’t like government either, but for different reasons … libertarians just don’t like social institutions in the first place, because they believe that social institutions should be replaced by individual choices wherever possible.
When I hear ‘virtue’ I wonder (a) as opposed to deontological and consequentialist?; and (b) Aristotelian, Thomistic or MacIntyrean?
As a political label — and I’m aware that the OP is not suggesting this be a political label — it fails to clarify the key political question: what is the role of the state?
Or perhaps I’m looking at this too narrowly. Perhaps this is a name for those who agree that the culture is going to hell in a handbasket and will support community- and faith-based initiatives to rebuild society, while agreeing to disagree on what the government should do. In which case the ‘conservative’ part of the label seems a bit of a draw-back.
Pro-virtue, anyone?