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
Ahh. What about those of a slightly different ilk? Unreasonable Libertarians?
So, you can’t explain it. Thank you for sharing.
I’m not trying to evict libertarians from the party. But classification does help sometimes to clarify what we’re talking about, where we differ and where we agree. How can we make the party better if we can’t figure those things out?
I think the discussion we’ve been having, on The Federalist and elsewhere, is really probing some deep and critically important questions about the state of our society and what we really value. It’s not just about libertarianism. But writing for The Federalist does put a new kind of pressure on me (mostly self-applied, I’m not suggesting that anyone over there has been harassing me about it) to position myself vis-a-vis libertarianism, since their staff and top writers mostly do self-identify as libertarian and I have never done so. Anyhow, it’s as good an entry point as any for discussing what freedom really means to us, and why we want it.
Are those claims mutually exclusive, exactly? It seems to me like the state clearly has an important role in protecting the good, and is also doing a lot more harm than good in its efforts to achieve that end.
Anyway, libertarians definitely aren’t alone in opposing statism. But I think their opposition is more grounded in principle than that of most virtue conservatives; they’re more inclined to see neutrality about the good (of some sort) as the correct and just stance for the state, whereas for virtue conservatives that’s more contingent on times and circumstances. Meanwhile, libertarians tend to be much more suspicious about claims of their being a real human good (or of our ability to know it). Virtue or social conservatives think it’s critical for any functional society to embrace, on some level, a realistic understanding of human good complete with a corresponding moral code.
Actually I have explained it. Repeatedly. So has Tom. And Sal. Here’s a good one. In thread, after thread, after thread. You repeatedly refuse to either read what we write, take it at face value or just ignore it afterwards. Then you throw up the “Libertarians are Hedonistic Randian Galts Gulchers” straw man and proceed to argue against that. Every. Single. Time.
Well yes, that’s the implication. :)
Freedom requires virtue: as Catholics, we should agree on that. And we followers of Christ also have an obligation to teach by word and example what this means in everyday life. Simple observation can show us that many of our fellow citizens do not believe as we do. That is our challenge: how can we bring the light of Christ to the world around us? The solution is not more help from the government or making people good. I don’t know what the solution is, but I am suspicious, as I said before, of your seeming desire to take us in hand and make us sensible Toads.
And if we aren’t all Catholics? Some of us non-Catholics (*gasp* Atheists!!!) believe that too.
KC, earlier you said that the libertarian/Ayn Rand thing was just a side issue, tee hee, let’s move past it. Fine and good.
Now, when your demands for your silly stereotypes to be refuted (again) are not met, you get snippy. Consistent?
I’m guessing the Toads are already pretty sensible, and in any case submit to an authority much higher than me. But the same can’t be said of everyone, and yes, I think we need to embrace and “enforce” (through social approval and disapprobation etc) moral standards. But that’s not a strange idea for conservatives, is it? So what are you reacting against?
I use John Brown Republican, myself.
Jamie, since I don’t know you, I’d not make an assumption about what you thinnk or believe.
Since Rachel and I are botth Catholic, I know that we agree that
“1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.”
“Virtue conservative.”
I still prefer just “conservative.”
Whoa there, Mama. Snippy is in the eye of the beholder. When I suggested that libertarians, unlike social conservatives, base social institutions in individual choice, I was called either ignorant or mendacious.
So, rather than calling my question silly, let’s see if you can answer it.
Not quite mutually exclusive, but I’d say libertarians think the overlap is narrower — particularly on social issues such as marriage, drug use, etc. — than do SoCons.
Of the state’s ability to know and enforce it. As to whether they’re knowable otherwise, that depends on the kind of libertarian you’re talking to.
Curious: how many SoCons here have read Hayek? Specifically, The Fatal Conceit?
I’m not going to twist your arm if you don’t want to adopt a label. But when there are real philosophical differences between people, and they want to discuss them, it’s convenient to adopt terms so we can do that in ways that are clear and not unnecessarily wordy. This isn’t just boosterism; the concepts being discussed under these labels are important and genuinely divisive within conservatism right now. We won’t resolve those differences just by agreeing not to name them.
One thing I’ve noticed through all this elbow-rubbing with libertarians is that many of them actually seem to think that they are the ones with a philosophically respectable foundation for their position, and that social conservatives are just religious people with a bunch of ad hoc prejudices on moral questions, which they assert in a sort of random and disconnected way. I don’t think that’s the case, and I’d like everyone to recognize that it isn’t. But it’s true that the term “libertarianism” is more obviously connected to particular political theorists, and also has the advantage of including in the name the thing the group most claims to value. I suggest “virtue conservatism” because virtue (unlike the nebulous word “social”) is a meaty philosophical term, identified with real philosophers, which points towards the thing that I think this group most values.
This I agree with completely. It simply takes too long to have to re-explain all of your beliefs when discussing them. The short hand of “I’m a libertarian” is far easier, even if not wholly accurate.
It’s also easy to modify “I’m a libertarian who believes in a robust foreign policy.” to get at specific parts of departure you have with the overall term.
I called your comment snippy, not silly. It is your stereotype of libertarians that is silly (“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.”) and your subsequent surreal invocation of the name of Rand as well.
And I already answered here where I said, “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.'”
Social conservatives have a wider concern than just government. When SoCons start talking about morality, we’re talking about the need for morality as a discipline of everyday life … the state doesn’t enter into that equation. As for government, we want it to do what it was designed to do, but nothing else.
So when the suggestion arises that social conservatives want to use government power to coerce people into morality … that’s wrong; that’s not what SoCons want. When virtue conservatives urge people to pursue virtue, that doesn’t come with any implicit threat of using government power to force anyone to do so.
When social conservatives debate politics, it’s almost always a disagreement that started when a Court used civil power to dictate a morally debatable issue. Government usurped the power to set the standards of morality.
Social conservatives don’t say much about trade policy, or tax codes. But we start speaking frequently and loudly when politicians and judges usurp the power to define morality. So I’d say that Rachel’s re-branding suggestion makes sense to me.
I don’t particularly call myself libertarian, but I certainly consider myself conservative. I don’t read a lot of political philosophy or consider myself a devotee of any branch or sect, nor do I have a smug superiority about my philosophical underpinnings. Mostly, I agree with George Bush about philosophy, I’m not a big joiner or academic thinker.
You did start this post, titling it as a suggestion that we might want to get behind. I don’t want to, and I doubt I’ll ever use it unless it gains more traction as a useful shorthand, like socon or neocon or whatever. But as a means for gaining voters, I think it will not work.
I like you, Rachel, but don’t want you or anyone else deciding morality for me and mine. The state cannot enforce or coerce virtue. Right now the state is destroying virtue along with freedom. This is wrong. Freedom. Virtue. Can’t have one without the other.
Of course. The reason I focused on government’s role in social institutions because that’s where libertarians and SoCons agree. As I think this thread has demonstrated there are lots of libertarians who care about and advocate for the same values as many SoCons.
If we’re talking about SSM, then I also agree with you here. If you’re talking about drugs — which is more the kind of thing I had in mind — then I don’t think this is an apt description of normative SoCon thinking.
You’re free to describe it as silly … but then you go on to describe libertarians with the exact same foundation as I did – the one you call silly.
Tell me what the cognitive difference is. In both formulations, libertarians want the right to define social institutions according to their own definitions.
For the last time. So. Do. Libertarians.
Sorry, bad editing on my part. Your original comment about libertarianism did not strike me as silly, but wrong. So I offered a correction. Your subsequent reflection on Ayn Rand was silly, condescending, tangential, and offered little helpful to the conversation. Hope that’s clearer.
This is a very different way to phrase your question than your original comment.
“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.”
1) You stated libertarians “just don’t’ like social institutions” which is patently not true as demonstrated repeatedly by almost every single libertarian on this site. I stand by my accusations of ignorance or mendacity on this point.
2) No libertarian, outside of radical anarcho-capitalists, argues that social institutions should be “replaced by individual choices wherever possible”. This is a straw man. One you repeatedly use. Once again I will lay it out for you: Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to choose what social institutions they wish to belong to. Social institutions are important and powerful pieces of our society and should be free from government interference.
No debate here.
Well, this may be a good illustration of the differences.
A social conservative is worried about virtue in everyday life. Government is concerned with legality. Something can be immoral but not illegal … gluttony, for instance. Conversely, something can be illegal but not immoral … Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child, to mention a classic.
Social conservatives recognize that in current society, however, what’s legal dictates what’s moral. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. When the Supreme Court declared SSM legal, it dramatically changed the way people viewed it morally. That’s why we fight there.
The root problem, I’d argue, is the assumption that government commands all other social institutions.
Also, KC, you edited yourself to leave out your bald claim: “Libertarians just don’t like social institutions in the first place.” Are you backing away from that statement, or do you still hold it to be so?
Here’ s question: If social institutions aren’t formed by like minded individuals freely choosing to come together and form a group, how are they formed? Top down authoritarianism? Even the first churches were just groups of individuals freely choosing to believe in something together.