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.
What Do SoCons Want?
There’s all this conflict between SoCons and libertarians on Ricochet, but, as far as I can tell, the arguments are usually around SSM and drug legalization. Ok, but traditional marriage and keeping drugs illegal are known quantities and not terribly controversial positions. So what else do SoCons want? I assume more restrictions on abortion, which the way things are going, would also not be very controversial.
Anything else? What do you want the government to do to protect the culture, and especially children? What is the government’s role? There must be concrete issues besides those that I mentioned. I think it’s the unarticulated “other” that libertarians are most concerned about.
Published in General
it is kind of funny, though… I pray at home, but I’m not one of those guys who bows my head over pizza when I’m eating out. It just doesn’t seem to serve much purpose except to make an outward display. These outward displays are important, say, in a tyrannical regime where prayer is outlawed – it is civil disobedience and support of fellow-believers. In the US, it seems little more than a crass self-righteousness. That said, we live in a country where seeing someone pray isn’t going to turn your kids into a Christian any more than seeing someone panhandle is going to turn them into a bum. What people get their panties in a bundle over is, essentially, seeing something they don’t like. Which is demagoguery. But that’s ok, provided it isn’t religious in nature.
Mmm… Still not getting it.
Sobriety is a Christian virtue, at least if the inebriation isn’t caused by mystical communion with God. But valuing sobriety does not by itself tell you the best way to promote sobriety. In particular you can agree that sobriety is a good thing (and even compensate for a natural lack of sobriety by consuming certain drugs like caffeine, which is how coffee hour became a Lutheran sacrament), but still doubt that a particular sobriety-enforcement policy is worth the cost.
Is it not possible that lowering barriers to employment and decreasing welfare might give people more effective motivation to sober up than drug busts do? And be cheaper, too?
That is a big key there. We’ve been wedded to the modern Progressive Welfare State that has done more to keep people poor and miserable in the name of relieving poverty and misery.
No, you’re agreeing with me. :)
I’m saying that libertarians often get somewhat zealous in their opposition, and instead of focusing on exactly what you’ve done, above, they argue morality (which places them in the wrong camp, usually).
Exactly. I hope Tom (and others) will respond to this point.
Nope. I’m pointing out that (a) what was said and (b) what you’re telling people what was said are two very different things. And advising you to keep quiet on something you don’t seem to understand very well. I still think it’s great advice!
Silly me–I thought we were here on Ricochet to say things from different perspectives that generate discussion. In other words, no matter how ignorant we think people are, we are here to use our arguments to refute what people say instead of telling them to shut up.
… perhaps Mark’s advice is somewhat crassly stated. I see no reason to keep quiet when talking about things where you know little. Think of how quiet I’d bee if I followed such advice! On the contrary, those are the things you should discuss the most, so as to become better informed. He might encourage you, however, to ask more questions and make fewer assertions (if he wants to make the same point in a much more productive way).
The nice thing about Ricochet (generally) is that people are far more receptive than they are elsewhere. So what’s the purpose of telling someone to keep quiet, when you could just correct what you think to be an error? Maybe that person will come back with something you didn’t think of. Liberals tell people to shut up. Conservatives embrace discussion and are happy to explain.
Good point.
Don’t you think it’s a tad bit arrogant to presume that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant of the facts?
I’m sure that someone as steeped in history as yourself will also be aware that for most of human history education was a luxury, that only children of nobility and candidates for the priesthood received formal schooling. The vast bulk of peasants spent their (short) lives toiling in the fields.
I’m not aware of a society where all children received a K-12 education in exclusively private schools. Of course such a system is conceivable, and may even be possible, but it would be an innovation, something new, rather than a return to the status quo ante.
That’s not correct. Most who favor ending drug prohibition do so recognizing that most illegal drugs are a bad idea in anything more than experimental quantities. That doesn’t mean that if you try them once, you’re going to be damned, as the folks advocating prohibition suggest. That also doesn’t mean that you should do them.
This is not theoretical knowledge, btw.
But the best advertisement for non-use of harmful drugs is seeing what use of harmful drugs looks like. That is what ended the crack epidemic, not the fact that crack was illegal, or the fact that we ran educational campaigns.
It was seeing what a crackhead looked like.
I don’t presume. I observe what people say and compare that to what one can read in the history books.
Here’s one fine example of a peasant: “In school, the young Edison’s mind often wandered, and his teacher, the Reverend Engle, was overheard calling him “addled”. This ended Edison’s three months of official schooling.”
You come across this a lot when reading about the people who created the modern world. What’s the old saying? School polishes pebbles and dims diamonds.
When some future civilization looks back on the fall of the West, they’ll note how we educated our children. Much like we look back on the Greeks.
“Greek sophistes came to mean “one who gives intellectual instruction for pay,” and at Athens, contrasted with “philosopher,” it became a term of contempt.”
Horrors that anyone should do that!
There are a lot more pebbles in the world than diamonds.
We’re called on to pray unceasingly. It’s true that we can do that silently, but physical muscle memory means that a physical component is tremendously helpful in reminding one to do that. I know that I started praying a lot more when I started crossing myself physically.
When in company, outward displays are helpful in reminding people to pray. They also help to destigmatize prayer. I moderately frequently find people offended by my crossing myself, and believe each instance that this happens to be useful in reducing the barriers to faith of others who practice openly.
Repeal of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the elimination of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Repeal of most anti-discrimination and affirmative action laws.
Elimination of all public funding for abortion (Obamacare/Medicaid/etc). Outlawing of late-term (past 16 weeks) abortion except to protect the life of the mother.
I’d like laws that allow Christian communities to have their own forms of marriage that prohibt divorce except for Biblical reasons.
I’d like us to double the number of states so government is more local. I’d like to see Congress double in size so representatives are more representative.
Some SoCons here apparently do want to subsidize married families.
This is what has been a bit disappointing about this thread. There are social conservatives who support affirmative state action in support of their views, but they have not engaged in this discussion. It’s kind of like Rachel’s call to “virtue conservativism” without explaining what that means in policy terms. I took Mike’s post to be an invitation to talk policy, not principles.
I was hoping for policy too.
Yes, but you can’t turn pebbles into diamonds. And that’s not the point of school.
Would this cheer you up?
Continuing America’s current success in expanding school choice with an emphasis on home schooling.
” ” ” ” ” ” Americans’ bias in favor of life.
” ” ” ” ” ” bringing the Constitution back to its conservative roots.
” ” ” ” ” ” reducing crime.
” ” ” ” ” ” reducing the number of Americans destroyed by drugs.
Continue what was, until this year, America’s success in reducing illegal immigration.
Encourage integration through English immersion (some tension with the first point).
Protect, perhaps restore, marriage.
Reduce voter fraud.
Build on Constitutional successes with religious liberty by overturning Obamacare and crafting broader protections against discrimination claims.
Enact prison reform to reduce rape and abuse.
Improve access to adoption.
Reduce the burdens on the disabled.
Support Israel and American greatness.
You took it correctly. I really want to know if SoCons had a lock on the government, what would be their dream? James just made a good effort, but I don’t know what laws would accomplish some of those things. They seem more like goals rather than means. I’m all for dismantling the parts of government that would make SoCon’s goals easier through civic society. Like I’ve said before, the marriage thing isn’t that big of a deal to libertarians, so I’d be able to tolerate keeping only regular marriage or creating a separate entity for gays, the status quo isn’t that oppressive. I’m weird about immigration so I would like to reduce illegal immigration by making legal immigration infinitely easier. (I can’t imagine James opposing that vigorously.) Like most of our problems, I think the assimilation thing could be mostly handled by simply demolishing the welfare state. Doing that one thing (and generally reducing the government portion of the economy) would seem to give both Socons and Libertarians 80% of what they want.
Which did you feel weren’t implicitly attached to specific Republican legislation, or the nomination of judges?
Specifically, I would like to see how you would reduce crime or reduce the number of Americans destroyed by drugs.
Through a variety of means, but in general I would say that SoCons, while not being great fans of Giuliani in general, were happy with his effective policing of NYC.
The war on drugs seems to have worked pretty well lately, although I’m not sure how easy it is to attribute any particular success to any particular program.
You want policy? It’s not complicated.
Retain marriage as what is has always been–between a male and a female. Or at least don’t let the courts force genderless marriage on states that don’t want it.
Quit undermining the first amendment. In fact, vigorous support for it–that means agencies like HHS are not allowed to undermine it.
No to drug legalization, but de-criminalizing milder drugs would be OK–local control on this.
Mike, I’d be with you on enforcing immigration but making legal immigration easier, and yes to guest workers.
I think there should be a safety net, but locally administered and hard to get. Churches, families and other private forms of welfare should step up to do all they can without government interference. Government welfare should be a last resort and temporary.
Local government should be allowed to deal with most issues so that communities can set their own standards. Make government local as much as possible.
Those are my main things. Like I say, not complicated.
Right, but unsurprisingly, the magic cure remains magic, ’cause it ain’t gonna happen. That makes it more important to look at second best solutions.
Define “infinitely”. I think I’d oppose a much more than 100% increase without a considerable adjustment period. Since we’re not going to abolish the welfare state, integration remains a real concern. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that abolishing the welfare state would reduce ethnic community’s internal cohesion. Mutual dependence can be very bonding.
I’m of the belief that people would be unwilling to spend more on welfare for immigrants. I think expanded immigration could hinder support for welfare. People don’t want them foreigners getting their money. ;)
I’m not personally afraid of ethnic enclaves if they are non-violent and aren’t supported by the state.
Have you looked at Europe lately? How long do you think those particular conditions will persist?
Bryan Caplan keeps going on about this like it is obviously good and a stable situation. This is the United States of America, the melting pot, among the richest and most generous nations of the world. I don’t care that the poem on the Statue of Liberty is Socialist hooey, the American People believe it, and they will not stand for the creation of a helot class. Slavery and Jim Crow were only allowed to persist because of tradition, distance, and the difficulty of rooting them out. We’re not recreating the Alien and Sedition Acts, nor creating red cards, and if immigration does breakdown support for the welfare state, the flying accusations of racism will tear the country apart long before DC feels a thing.
I was under the impression that their welfare state had a lot to do with those particular enclaves.
Perhaps, but there’s already not enough money. I can’t imagine the American people being willing to spend extra on non-natives.
I’m obviously less pessimistic, but I agree America isn’t anywhere close to willing to do what I think is right.