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
I agree with the critique that “virtue conservative” sounds arrogant. I can’t envision myself using this label for myself, especially since I remain suspicious of your desire to, as Badger says in the Wind in the Willows regarding the irrepressible Toad, take us in hand and make us sensible.
Didn’t the term “social conservative” arise from the liberal/pro-abortion Republicans who wanted to distinguish themselves as “fiscal conservatives?”
I favor plain old “conservative” in politics, unsexy though it may be. I don’t fear being misunderstood.
KC, I agree with most of what you say until this paragraph. I’d rephrase it to say, “they believe that social institutions should be created and sustained by free individuals who seek to make common cause in one matter or another and freely associate, making their own rules and regulations to govern their free associations as they choose.”
A little different from, They “just don’t like” them, no?
^This!
Look, we may be wrong or naive to think social institutions can be maintained without state support, but we do believe in their importance.
I completely agree that the Left thinks the state is the supreme social institution, and I don’t see what I wrote that implies that SoCons agree with them. My earlier point was that SoCons believe that the state has a significant role in bolstering and protecting social institutions, though it should remain subservient to them.
Libertarians, as Mama Toad said, believe the state should have either a limited role in protecting such institutions or none whatsoever (often on the grounds that such help would be dangerous to the institutions).
Yes! “I’m from the government; I’m here to help.” Eeeek!
Sometimes people ask if I don’t want “help” from the state homeschooling my children. Ummmm, I homeschool to avoid state “help.”
Perhaps, but that’s why conversations about Ayn Rand (ones we’ve had on Ricochet anyway) are revealing. Rand’s egoist philosophy is fundamentally a belief that no matter what else happens, an individual’s first obligation is to himself. Sure, there will be some collateral benefits, but the individual should look after himself, regardless of whether others benefit.
That’s different from my point of view. As a social conservative, and a Christian, I am indeed responsible for my neighbor. (Serendipitous, today’s gospel makes this precise point: we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.) Free market ideology argues that it is more practical, and ultimately more efficient, that individuals seek their own self-interest first; but that’s only a matter of strategy, not goals. We are still equally responsible for our neighbors, not just ourselves. Randian egoism denies that.
If someone says that they promote individual freedom, and (of course) social institutions are an integral part of that process and should be supported, I’m perfectly at home with that. But that isn’t Rand.
I am morally opposed to abortion. I think there should be a federal law banning all abortion (except when it is done to save a life), because I think the Constitution guarantees a person the right to life and that personhood begins at conception. If I did not think personhood began at conception I would oppose such a law, but not change my moral view. There are many conservatives who think abortions should be illegal except in the case of rape, etc.. In many cases this is probably nothing more than a political cop out, but assuming they hold a sincere corresponding moral view, I would not agree with it, but have little difficulty accepting it. I do have a problem with their assumption that they can enshrine their moral beliefs in law without a principled legal basis for doing so. Many, if not most of their fellow conservatives have little or no problem with this. To me many conservatives are nothing more than people who have slightly less disrespect for the rule of law than a liberal does. If you want to spend time coming up with a new label perhaps you should look a changing both words.
Huh? Were we talking about Ayn Rand? And are all libertarians Randian atheist zealots? I’m surprised.
Anyway, Ayn Rand has a weird erotic fascination with physical perfection and a predilection for unending chapters in which the supers, I mean protagonists, monologue without anyone interrupting, a state of nonreality that can’t help but render her impossible for me to take seriously.
I sure wasn’t talking about Rand and I certainly wouldn’t describe myself as a Randian (there’s a lot to like in her work, but there’s also a lot to not like).
In fairness to the Randians, though, it’s not as if event they eschew social institutions: Galt’s Gulch is a community after all).
I didn’t think so, but, hey? Why not?
Rand’s heroes are a joke, but her villains are ripped from the headlines.
OK, but let’s be clear: one does not need to follow the teachings of Ayn Rand to consider one’s self libertarian. I, for example, am happy in my marriage vows and am not seeking the most Alpha Alpha guy I can trip up to land in my bed. Or get carried off by. Or whatever. And I like helping people who are in need. And I don’t even despise my foes.
To be Christian, one must know Christ. Not the same with Rand and libertarianism.
Though I haven’t decided about “virtue conservative”, here’s a great reason not to use “social”: it’s a Cultural Marxist term (isn’t it?). “Social justice”, “socialization”, “let’s socialize that industry”, blah, blah, blah. Sick of it. Too much emphasis away from the individual.
All my plans… ruined!
;)
No, but libertarians come in many forms, but I don’t have a scorecard to identify each libertarian flavor. One might suspect… horror of horrors … that libertarians don’t have a firm grasp on what libertarianism actually is, or what the essential qualities are. There are as many definitions as there are libertarians.
Besides … besides … hey, wait a minute …
This is a post about virtue/social conservatives, right? I make one little offhand comment about libertarians, and suddenly the whole post is libertarian-gazing.
One little off-hand?…. Well, let it teach you caution, then.
Caution? Where’s the fun in that?
Of which there are as many definitions as there are virtue/social conservatives. Evidently.
This is simply not true. Either you don’t understand libertarianism and libertarians or you are being mendacious.
Or you’re just picking the type of libertarian boogeyman that comfortably fits into your particular biases in order to win an argument.
OK – skip past the labeling, and tell me –why– you think it’s not true. If all you can do is issue a declaration, you add nothing to the conversation.
Social conservatives support individual freedom and social institutions. You argue that libertarians do the same. So what’s the difference? What makes a libertarian any different? I submit that libertarians believe that all associations (including social institutions) should be individually chosen. By that, I mean more than the platitude that marriage requires the individuals’ consent; it means that libertarians believe that the individuals can create and shape what the institution is.
For example, that’s why we have regular debates about SSM. If I suggested that two spouses have an open marriage and sleep with strangers, many libertarians would say that it’s their choice. I’d say it’s not a marriage. Libertarians would be arguing that the spouses decide what the marriage is, and I’d say that marriage isn’t open to individual definition. An institution isn’t at the command of the individual.
As you say, KC, we’re getting to a point where it’s a little difficult to explain what exactly distinguishes libertarians from other sorts of conservatives. Social conservatives (I mean virtue conservatives) do in most instances want smaller government, and libertarians (at least some of them) say they care about virtue. So it can’t be as simple as “SoCons are unapologetic statists” or “libertarians are soulless hedonists”.
If you haven’t yet, you should read Peter Lawler’s piece from yesterday on “the libertarian moment”, as well as James Poulos’ series on the pink police state. Fascinating stuff, and for me, what emerges from it all is the extent to which the question we’re really debating now is not “do we wish to be free?” but “for what do we wish to be free?” Libertarians have their own ideas of which freedoms they would trade for which securities, and I think they reveal exactly what you suggest: that for the libertarian, individual autonomy tends to be primary, even though the more sophisticated among them of course acknowledge that human goods properly matter to us.
Here are links to those pieces: http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/the-libertarian-moment-is-really-an-individualist-moment/
http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/01/in-the-pink-police-state-we-are-all-bridget-jones-now/
http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/13/what-comes-after-the-pink-police-state/
Rachel, why do you so much like to classify? It seems to divide sometimes, rather than merely define.
Why add adjectives to the conservative label? I thought one of your hopes was for a more inclusive-seeming party.
As I said in my first comment on this thread, I’d say the difference is that SoCons generally believe the state has an important role to play in supporting and protecting public social goods, while (conservative) libertarians generally believe that the state does more harm than good when it tries to help those institutions.
I don’t really have any problem with the term ‘Virtue Conservatives’. I tend to describe my own ilk as ‘Reasonable Libertarians’.
BTW, I do think SoCons are correct to be frustrated with the seemingly protean nature of libertarianism (“But I’m not that kind of libertarian!”).
This probably warrants its own post, but I think it’s partly because libertarianism is encompasses a very wide spectrum of views: classical liberals, libertarian Christians, anarcho-capitalists, Randians, and the more socially-permissive “libertine” types are significantly different from each other, even if they (largely) agree that the state should be radically smaller.
I answer to the “Devastatingly Handsome Libertarian” label.
I appreciate the links. I have been following the “Libertarian Moment” on The Federalist and elsewhere, and have seen some interesting commentary that’s based on what each writer thinks libertarianism is. Naturally I’ve read your pieces as well, and it’s no coincidence that when we (social/virtue conservatives) start thinking about what libertarianism is, we’d naturally start trying to define what conservatism is. And we fall into the same Tower of Babel (as Genferei noted) as the libertarians do.
Just as long as those of us on The Right keep in mind that no matter what the ideological nuances, we share a common desire: to stop the rise of government. As I said earlier, politics and government want to dominate, suppressing and smothering any rival, including other social institutions. That must be stopped.
(Side note, along those same lines … the media is(are) also an institution. How long will it be before government turns on the media? The media are only putting on their sneakers to outrace the government crocodile, but it ain’t gonna work.)
I refuse to argue against the straw men living in your head.
If your repeated discussions with the likes of Tom, Sal or myself haven’t convinced you nothing will. You simply have a villainous archetype in your head that you find convenient to argue against rather than engage with the actual things libertarians are saying.
Ah, the Delusional Libertarian. ;)