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 Makes a SoCon?
A few days ago, several Ricochetti on the member side were kicking around an idea for a podcast featuring social conservatives. (Want to read those in-house conversations? You need to be a member.) It was a good discussion and one that’s been mirrored behind the scenes at the site (we take your suggestions seriously).
It brought an interesting question to mind, however. What makes someone a SoCon? I’ve never used the label in reference to myself because I’m generally fine with gay marriage as a policy matter (though I’m totally opposed to the means by which it’s been gaining ground) and I know that’s usually a litmus test. That said, I’m also pro-life, firmly in favor of the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, anti-assisted suicide, totally opposed to the contraception mandate, deeply troubled by the pervasive breakdown of the family, and generally convinced that both the law and the culture are developing an ominously antagonistic posture towards people of faith. So wouldn’t it be sort of weird to say I’m not a social conservative?
You tell me. I’m genuinely curious as to what our readers think the term means, and what the essentials of the SoCon creed are.
Oh, one other thing — if this turns into a 350-comment thread arguing SSM, you will all be sent to your rooms. No dessert.
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
Ah, so SoCons are people who don’t own giraffe-print pajamas.
This is a little glib, but one way I’ve put it is that a SoCon sees the Sexual Revolution as the defining horror of the 1960s, while the libertarian points to the Great Society.
Obviously, one can maintain that both were harmful, but I think asking one to choose between them is a good heuristic.
That’s quite insightful Tom.
I think the definition of a social conservative is one who believes that human institutions are fragile, that attempts to change them are dangerous, and that, as Chesterton said,
A SoCon also usually believes that “The Naked Public Square” as described by Neuhaus is a modern innovation, is inconsistent with the nation’s founding principles, and threatens our future. As Mary Ann Glendon describes Neuhaus’s original thesis:
This has nothing to do with legislating a particular religious point of view, and everything to do with allowing equal time and equal voice to those with religious points of view, instead of giving preference to the purely secular.
Hmm. And so if you can’t choose, you’re neither? They’re really of a piece, aren’t they? The sexual revolution in its most extreme form, the breakdown of the family, arises because the Great Society subsidizes unwed parenting.
The way you phrase it makes it sound like the Great Society wins the horrible race by a nose.
Social Conservative is such a sham label. You either are for our system of government and the ideal that the chaotic organization of society through the freedom of People is the best form of government for a species that is not perfect or you don’t. The things you have listed are nothing more than the expectation that government should encourage the flourishing of life and not destroy the positive aspects of society passed to us by our ancestors. Any changes to society should be slow and prudent, done with much thought and deliberation and not done out of impetuousness for the purposes of causing upheaval to be taken advantage of by opportunistic politicians. That is called being Lockean or Burkean. It is called being an American.
A SoCon (or VirtueCon) is one who believes limited government is the best form of government, but that it is possible only when people are individually (and individually compelled to be) virtuous enough to govern themselves. Government cannot (and should not even try) to enforce the required virtues or morality but rather should act as a bulwark for individual liberty and the social (not governmental) institutions in which individuals can learn morality and virtue. We believe each individual inherently capable (even those thugs in Baltimore) of virtue and morality, but we do not believe them to inherently possess these character traits. They are learned/discovered in families, faith traditions, social associations, and the myriad little platoons of individuals within the society.
What if you don’t know whether you’re a SoCon or not?
Robert: “It is called being an American.”
And here I’ve been thinking I was an American. Well, you learn something new every day.
I like that attempt but I think that is still lacking depth. How could one not be related to the other? Would the Great Society lasted as long as it had if there had not been the idea that people can have sex whenever, wherever and with whom ever? Is the notion that government can care for you to the point where you never have to work not a factor in people having more time on their hands to fill with wanton sex? This is why Libertarians AND So Cons are sham labels and ways of thinking. Each leaves out the utter complexity of how Leftist ideologies take over and control a society.
Ah don’t take that the wrong way. Trust me I think there are far more Americans here on Ricochet than not.
Tom, arguing that the government shouldn’t license or incentivize marriage is like arguing for a national sales tax to replace the national income tax. Even if it’s a good idea, I expect you will understand if many people believe that is extremely unlikely to get politically approved and so they focus on milder changes from the current status quo.
It’s complicated, as is libertarianism. As is progressivism, once we get down to it.
I’d say some charactreistics of socons are positive (I’m for x) and others are negative (I’m against y). Here are some thoughts:
Neo-Con, So-Con, Emoti-Con?
If you think you might be, I suspect by the standards of Ricochet that you are.
Okay, SoCons. We have heard the What. Let’s hear the How.
How do you get people to stay married?
To not use drugs/alcohol?
To not use pornography?
To not be slutty?
To not abort their children?
To not cheat in their wives?
To not be profligate?
What role should the State play in these issues ?
Not to mention that an IRS will still be necessary to administer the sales tax system. In other words, this is a necessary and legitimate tool of society.
DocJay, what happened to your comment? I wanted to come back and answer it, but it’s gone.
I think you were standing up for your statement that a SoCon thinks Morality>Liberty or however you put it. I wanted to reply that you really can’t have morality without liberty. Morality has to be freely chosen to be moral.
It isn’t that straightforward, Jason. However, I recognize that “the state” sometimes can play a role. I’d think most of us favor that role being played locally where it’s most subject to the natural limits of government: faction, competition, ease of amendment, proximity to the issue, ease of voting with the feet, ease of armed resistance (if it ever legitimately comes down to it).
We’re not in disagreement on that. I could imagine circumstances where I would push for the abolition of state-sponsored civil marriage, but it’s a low priority and a dozen big things would have to happen first.
I have no problem claiming that I want to legislate morality. Everyone does. Most of our laws are based on moral judgements and we put the force of law behind those judgements to make sure they are respected. Laws against murder, fraud, theft, assault, respect of private property, laws that protect the helpless particularly child protection laws – these are all based on traditional morality, and I could list many, many others. We legislate morality all the time. To pretend we don’t is incredibly obtuse.
Do away with no fault, easy divorce.
Won’t happen.
Won’t happen.
Put the repercussions of sex back into play.
Make it illegal and enforce the law when broken.
Not going to happen. (Also so wives not cheat on their husbands?)
Too general a question. People are going to be profligate, otherwise we wouldn’t need a government. If men were angels, you know.
Agreed, BT. Nearly all government actions beyond basic defense and infrastructure at least depend on, if not enact, ethical priorities. Government is inherently representative of one or more dominant worldviews (religions).
Yet another false premise, legislating morality. The Left does it, Libertarians do it, though from a different perspective (to them the absence of legislated morality is itself moral), and Conservatives do it. The question is which ideal of morality works best for society. I think on some level Libertarians and Conservatives have it about right. There is nothing redeemable about Leftist thinking.
Bingo.
Robert McReynolds
“Do away with no fault, easy divorce.
Won’t happen.
Won’t happen.
Put the repercussions of sex back into play.
Make it illegal and enforce the law when broken.
Not going to happen. (Also so wives not cheat on their husbands?)
Too general a question. People are going to be profligate, otherwise we wouldn’t need a government. If men were angels, you know.”
You’re 80% libertarian.