Social conservatives

Another four-year cycle, another American election gone to the left because the right is disunified.

Popular sentiment blames the social conservatives for this. After all, they are the lone group refusing to come to the table, compromise, and join the system of government where economics and popularity determines what is “real.” People power, individualism and democracy, you know.

Social conservatives have a different ideal. Not all of them are religious, but all of them believe something should come first before our material calculations: God, transcendent reverence for nature, morality, heritage, tradition or at the very least time-honored methods of survival.

This doesn’t sit well with the rest of the Republicans because they want to join the left. Both neoconservative right and all parts of the left wing short of Communism can speak the same language, which is a big government leading itself by economics and popularity. It’s universal, to those groups.

Social conservatives point out that this puts the cart before the horse. God, like nature, is an order that encompasses all that we see. Yet the order itself is invisible. We either work in harmony with it, or spread destruction as we walk. Even if that destruction may take centuries to manifest.

When we pander to the crowd, or to the dollars of the crowd, we are reversing this healthy process. We replace looking at the world, trying to figure it out and adapting with a different human spectrum of behaviors, which is projection, transference, cognitive dissonance and denial.

We can talk all day long about conservative values but the real conservative notion is not disunified. It has a center. That center is that reality, God and nature come first before human desires, opinions and ideologies.

The social conservatives are going to take more flak this election. The neocons want them to buckle under and fold, and the left of course wants that, not only because it means only leftists are running, but because it discredits the Republicans by making them into a more difficult flavor of leftist.

Despite what is popular to think, reality is as it has always been. Social conservatives focus on a transcendent ideal instead of the crowd composes of individuals who want to believe in what they desire, not what they see. As a result, they posit the only sane position in this whole campaign.

23 Comments

  1. crow says:

    A passenger on a bus may see something interesting, outside the window, and want to stop for a closer look. But there is no stop, for several miles.
    He may accept that whatever it was, that was interesting, is lost to him, now, and keep sitting on the bus. Or he may rip the door off the bus, and leap out into space. Or, if he is sane, decide to get off at the next stop, and walk back. He may decide, too, to never take the bus, again.
    Life is full of interesting things, to see and do.
    But all too often, the machine sweeps us along, and all we get is a fleeting glimpse, through a window, of what might have been.
    Machines have their uses. The wise man discovers what these uses are, and refrains from using the machine to live his life, for him.

    1. Don’t trust the machine, in other words. I don’t trust democracy, because if the Bell Curve is true, most people fall on the side of “smart enough to think they’re smart, but not smart enough to figure out solutions more than two steps ahead in chess.”

      I’d like the Social Conservatives more if they stopped going postal on issues like abortion, prayer in schools, teaching creationism and hating homosexuals. I understand that they want sexual morality rolled back to 1532 and I probably do as well, but they’re going about it all wrong. Prayer in schools is just stupid because you pray at home or at church but not in school, although I sympathize with their view that if our nation had one religion, we would be better unified.

      Teaching creationism is an issue where the social conservatives really put their foot in it by appearing to demand ignorance. The only workable solution is to task it be taught as a competing theory, but that’s not enough for them. Of course, their liberal opponents think that taking five minutes out of twelve grades of science schooling to mention creationism as an “alternate theory” is somehow blasphemy, so it’s not just the Social Conservatives where are off the chain here.

  2. Sun says:

    Interesting; however, don’t agree with a lot of it.

    The NeoCon to me is a bi polar child. It doesn’t know what to believe and has disenfranchised views all over the place. It wants to please everyone and has no direction. It ultimately looses. It lack of intelligence makes it a mockery, even to that of the left.

    1. Esotericist says:

      I can agree with “It wants to please everyone and has no direction.” That’s because of what the article said, which is that neo-conservatives are like neo-liberals, basically liberals. They just have a conservative frosting.

      1. Sun says:

        Well most believe Neo-Liberalism, from a historical standpoint, is primarily 1960s onward vs. Classical Liberalism which is everything before (but even this concept is flawed).

        Since Conservatism lost, or more correctly is losing, it borrows elements from Liberalism, giving off this hybrid. At the same time, it hyper polarizes on certain issues giving us the “Religious Right (primarily Evangelist of Christian orthodoxy).”

        Maybe I’m wrong…

      2. Both of you are confused. Social Conservatives are not neocons. Before there were neocons, there were paleocons like Barry Goldwater and H.L. Mencken, but most of those were more extreme. They got beaten back in the 1960s and only came back with Buckley and Reagan in a softened form. That is why it is harder to spot the true conservatives today. They disguise themselves as neocons but they are not.

  3. Jim says:

    Morality has no meaning if immoral and selfish behavior is not only subsidized, but encouraged for the sake of enlarging the government apparatus in the quest for stats. People are just the tools or should I say fools yet they never ask what will be demanded of them once the tentacles of that apparatus is fully entrenched.

    1. People understand morality only in a defensive sense.

      As in “Why doesn’t this guy accept what I’m doing? I’m just trying to have a normal life.”

      Like all good hypocrites, they love exceptions to that rule, which are right now drugs, kiddy porn and racism.

      The opposite side of the coin is that morality must be intolerant. You have to actually go out and find the pedophiles and bring them back and disable them somehow. You can’t just tolerate everything “except” pedophilia where you find it, or you get overrun with pedophiles.

  4. Meow Mix says:

    The election race has been disgusting to say the least. Just when it seemed that the Republicans were poised to dominate, they shot themselves in the foot. First, we get a slew of uneducated clowns, from Bachmann to Cain, then we get a mediocre lineup of Romney, Santorum, Paul, and Romney. After they violate the 11th Commandment and destroy eachother’s credibility, they turn to social topics. Just when the Right was going to win by addressing the central issue of the election year, ECONOMICS, they instead launch a crusade against….birth control? WTF! Santorum is right, Obama deserves to win, if only it will make the Right get their house in order.

    1. crow says:

      All election races are disgusting.
      I don’t remember ever seeing one that had a single scrap of dignity to it. Not that I pay much attention, usually, exactly because of that.
      The usual stated goal of those running is to “get power”, whatever that means. It’s a curious kind of power to get, but it’s one that is coveted, at any cost.

      1. “We took this group of people that were attending a carnival, football game or sale at Wal-Mart, and we’re going to let the consensus here determine who gets the nuclear weapons.” When you say it that way Democracy sounds batshit insane because it is.

    2. Esotericist says:

      Elections are popularity contests. This means they are inherently dishonest.

      People seem to have no problem with this, at least most of them. This worries me. We know we’re voting on an illusion but we trust it anyway.

      Then for the next four years, many complaints, and nothing is ever done…

      1. Mihai says:

        “I don’t remember ever seeing one that had a single scrap of dignity to it.”

        Which is why I find myself wondering why Amerika.org would want anything to do with this sort of thing.
        I think it is time we abandon the false hope of a real and profound change happening in a non-violent, “mainstream” way.
        Any possible change happening like this will only be a passing, exterior wrapping.

        1. I don’t agree. I think it will be an exercise in incrementalism. Sudden change means that we’re changing 10,000 factors at once instead of, say, 7. That means a lot more can go wrong.

          Do I ultimately distrust all populist democracy? Yes, it encourages terrible thinking; aristocracy is a much superior way of handling things, but an intermediate would be an aristocracy balancing out democracy and a vote restricted to landowners over 30, etc.

          Radicalism also changes our thinking and can make us miss the good things in life, and become violent and unhinged because our thinking itself has two states: the radical result I desire, and everything else (which must be smitten for the former to occur).

          That’s my fear with those sorts of things anyway.

          1. crow says:

            It’s bound to be an unpopular idea, Brett, because one of very things that would allow such an approach to work, is missing, which is patience.
            The human race would have to start thinking, and planning, in really long timespans. Which would probably be a very good thing, anyway. Meanwhile, the bulk of humans, at least in the West, have the attention spans of gnats.
            Hmmm…
            A gnat probably has a longer attention span.

            Taking away anybody’s vote, after having granted one, gets you a violent revolution, and not for the good.

            1. I used to think we should plan for the 500 year mark.

              Now I think it’s more like 500,000 years.

              We are a new species; we have to plan for our future survival.

              If we don’t think we suck (well, not all of us do!) we should plan for ultimate survival.

              No guarantees, of course. But why not? It’s pleasurable to think of dominion for millennia and conquest of deepest space.

        2. Nicholas Marville says:

          I agree with Mihai, for the reason I’ve described in many of my articles; humans are only prepared to accept drastic changes when put under pressure. As long as there is no pressure, they will postpone. Only a few unique individuals exist who are always driven to plan forward and act appropriately; it is because they possess intrinsic motivation. Only in times of crisis and turmoil can such people rise (Caesar, William III, Einstein) because in other times everyone is geared towards enjoying their affluence in peace and the status quo pushes creative ideas away, considering them as threatening. All of this is the Truth and it will always be the Truth.

          On a sidenote, Brett, when is my next article scheduled? Since you were very positive about it per email.

  5. EvilBuzzard says:

    Pope Benedict xplains the perspective of a brilliant social Conservative in a piece he wrote about economic ethics during the mid 1980’s.
    http://www.acton.org/global/article/market-economy-and-ethics

    The following paragraph, written before the current economic debaucle, rates as better prophacy than anything that came fromt he Delphic Oracle.

    It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse. An economic policy that is ordered not only to the good of the group – indeed, not only to the common good of a determinate state – but to the common good of the family of man demands a maximum of ethical discipline and thus a maximum of religious strength.

    You just can’t shake hands and do business if the guy at the other end would pretty much have sex with a snake if his buddies held it stiff for him. Ethics and morality undergird any value-based system of commerce.

  6. Meow Mix says:

    I’m still on board with Brett’s idea of having the entire Right join in coalition with the Republican Party. Right now the party is testing the waters of public appeal and the naysayers continually blast them: “not courting the Hispanic vote will cost you!” “focus on religion is alienating your secular followers” “capitalism is on the way out didn’t you know that?” “the tea party is crazy old white folks who are driving everyone away”- yet the very fact that the Republicans are taking a firm stand on these issues are what ensures they continue to have voters at all- the Republicans are at a fork in the road, they can either compromise and just become another wing of the People’s Democratic Party or they can take a turn further to the Right. By drawing the battlelines the conflict becomes clearier.

    What is needed now is a big umbrella coalition of the Right and, most importantly, the Right needs to come up with a bare minimum that a reasonable candidate can abide by with some breathing room, that will prevent petty in-fighting over ideological purity.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      Pretty much. Prior to a general election, the media and the rest of the activist left will generally form a tacit coalition witht he leftmost viable Republican running. Once they nominate this so-called RINO (Republican in Name Only), they turn on him and eat his liver.

  7. Betty Owens says:

    Maybe Trayvon was a drug dealer and attacked Zimmerman, but he deserved it for the years of white oppression that has kept balck people from learning how to read, write, and do arithmetic.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      So Zimmerman, who was 1/2 Hispanic, deserved it because of things that happened 50, 100, or 150 years before he was even born?

  8. [...] you can help me out.We now return to your regularly scheduled linkage.Brett Stevens – “Social Conservatives“, “Conservadysfunctionalism“, “Blight Wing“, “Interview with [...]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.440 seconds