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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 215 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    Salvatore Padula:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    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.

    There have been several comments with specific policy proposals or endorsements.  See #47 and #61 for example.  Neither one received any response; or does it have to come from Merina or JoE to count?

    -E

    • #211
  2. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    CandE:

    Salvatore Padula:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    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.

    There have been several comments with specific policy proposals or endorsements. See #47 and #61 for example. Neither one received any response; or does it have to come from Merina or JoE to count?

    -E

     You’re right that you provided substantive policy answers and I apologize for overlooking them.

    • #212
  3. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    James Of England: bringing the Constitution back to its conservative roots.

     bringing the Constitution back to its libertarian roots.

    Fixed that for you.  Unless you’re suggesting conservatives are in favor of monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings; although the Constitution doesn’t promote those goals.

    • #213
  4. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    James Of England: would say that SoCons, while not being great fans of Giuliani in general, were happy with his effective policing of NYC.

     That’s funny, because as someone who lived through the Giuliani administration in NYC, I always thought that he proved that NYC needed a fascist in charge.

    • #214
  5. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Tuck:

    James Of England: bringing the Constitution back to its conservative roots.

    bringing the Constitution back to its libertarian roots.

    Fixed that for you. Unless you’re suggesting conservatives are in favor of monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings; although the Constitution doesn’t promote those goals.

     No, I’m suggesting that they were bringing the Constitution back to its conservative, Burkean, roots. The word conservative arises to describe Burke’s followers, and neither they, nor their successors in the movement, were particularly big on the divine right of kings. Indeed, Burke’s reverence for the Glorious Revolution, which put the final nail in the coffin of that concept, can hardly be overstated. 

    The Constitution in the 18th century outlawed the establishment of an official federal denomination. Conservatives would like to return the establishment clause to that meaning. Perhaps you feel that the state level official churches were libertarian, in which case I’d be delighted to have you on board. It allowed for the death penalty, and had dramatically weaker procedural protections for criminals (the incorporation doctrine invented most of those, as a practical matter). 

    It gave Washington and his successors a pretty free hand in foreign policy, that being its purpose.

    • #215
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.