Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
In the past few years, the most vigorous defense of pornography, drug use, and allowing sleaze on the airwaves has come from Libertarians. Not even Democrats in the 1970's heyday would defend these things as much now. Libertarians also seem to have a much higher level of atheism and hostility to faith in their ranks than they once did.
Libertarianism ain't what it used to be.
Libertarianism was based on the assumption that the individual could be responsible for himself. That he had the discipline and self restraint to rule himself.
NOW days what Libertarians want is to be free of ANY restraint of any kind. That is not liberty, that is license.
bump
conservatives should stop when every liberal is long gone. Until then, it ain’t over.
They also, like Moslems, hate women.
“licentiousinism”, “licentioustinarians”
NOW days what Libertarians want is to be free of ANY restraint of any kind. That is not liberty, that is license.
:::::
There is a happy ground between radical opporessive socialism (the American left) and libertarianism (virtually no government, or purely consensual government). That happy ground I call a “Constitutional Republic” where RESPONSIBLE government and law prevail. We true American conservatives continue to fight to maintain that middle ground. :-)
Please explain...
Conservatives should embrace the values of limited government. This should include limiting the intrusion of government into personal behavior, which is to say the libertarian value.
If progress is to be made in the moral sphere, it will be made through persuasion and development of morals-friendly social institutions, such as churches or groups of concerned citizens. But the first impulse of these institutions must not be to legislate morality, because then we are right back where we started.
It seems puzzling to me that conservatives rightly believe that government cannot achieve anything in the commercial sector and have a healthy skepticism about the power of regulation, but somehow suppose the government will be effective in legislating morality.
This is just something the government is not very good at. If we fight on this battlefield, we will lose, over and over again. I suspect the people who want to fight these fights just want to build electoral coalitions. But that is not a sufficient reason.
Ummm.....
This thread should get interesting ...
PING!!!
That’s why I recoil today when offered the label of “libertarian”, and feel the need to hyphenate with a “conservative” in front. I don’t so much think it is a rift between libertarianism and conservatism as much as it is a rift between the two major strains of libertarianism (right vs left - as you say, liberty vs license...the third minor strain of libertarianism is the anarchist camp).
For example, a hotel having the ability to not serve gays is, IMO, entirely compatible with true liberty - while the government busting into private bedrooms to look for evidence of sodomy is not. To some, that is a subtle difference...which is a pity.
whatta bout contemporary racism by minorities
towards whites?
in socal everyday in public you can wait longer in line than the spanish-speaking,
or be dissed as a clerk in the local drugstore for not speaking spanish.
Wrong. It's 'conservatism' that's been bastardized completely beyond recognition by the Republican Party. The new unofficial credo of the Pubs is now "Us too, just not so fast!"
Real conservatives and real libertarians should be natural allies. The damned shame of it is that there are no more than half a dozen real conservatives left in the National GOP, and not one of them is in a leadership position.
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
L
I see it also. Thanks for posting this article.
I’ve read post years back by some boasting of voting Democrat or against the Republican who had a chance to win out over the Democrat.
I think Libertarians from my readings of them at times have displayed a level of anarchism in their views.
I sure can’t believe the group that posts here like a pot worshiping drug cult as one-note Johnnys.
I have gone to read what stupidity DU folks write for a half hour about twice a year and there is a duplicate pot/drug worshiping one-note Johnny crowd there that repeats verbatim what some of our zealous drug promoting folks do.
I don’t know, I for one can see electing a Libertarian dog catcher, but I kind of at this point consider them more anarchist who are a bit radical from what I have read.
You can take things too far and I consider Libertarians at times as being extreme.
Just think of their past open border stances, drug stances, nearly NO government and basically no war stances that have been posted here.
Yeah, war isn’t pretty. War isn’t wanted or cherished as a goal, but sometimes various generations are required to put it out there for the sake of future generations and the right to continue to post on wonderful forums such as Free Republic.
Just my opinion, nothing set in stone here, I always read and may change my opinion somewhat later.
Well said. Conservatism is definitely not embracing limited government at this time. If you want to improve someones morals better to convert them to Christianity than to expect the government to do the job.
I am a registered to vote as a Conservative. I would be a registered Constitutionalist if New York State ‘recognized’ them. A party has to garner a certain percentage of votes to be officially recognized.
Actually I think the breakdown is because it never truly was a ‘natural’ alliance. It was more a convenience.
BTW, this is my first post. I just signed on today. I am just finishing Richard Poe’s “Hillary’s Secret War” and was inspired to come here. I also post at another Conservative forum.
Nice to meet you. : )
A lot of truth in your statements too. Morality can only be achieved by the citizen on an individual basis. A nation of immoral people is doomed; using the government to try to enforce morality only delays the inevitable.
While I agree that many libertarians don't care about anything other than smoking pot, what exactly have conservatives accomplished?
Behavioral consequences are largely theoretical to a person who has thus far been spared the necessity of having to deal with them. It is only with the cumulative experience of maintaining mature relationships, employment, raising children, and managing a household budget that the big light bulb tends to go on, illuminating truths hidden to many, if not most younger people.
Isn't that the definition of anarchy? My understanding of a a true Libertarian has always been: "you do whatever you want as long as it does not impose on me and I'll do whatever I want as long as it does not impose on you."
Laws sort of get in their was as does government.
I agree with Jefferson’s statement; I suppose that makes me a libertarian, although I’ve always been more of a social conservative in thinking. I just don’t feel like that social conservatism, civil liberties, and fiscal conservatism need to be mutually exclusive.
What a moronic lumping. I consider myself to be ‘libertarian’, but I harbor no such dellusion that the culture war is over. There’s far too many suspects for the label ‘useful idiot’ for me to believe that.
I can’t believe that a so-called conservative repeats the lie that the Republican party is conservative. If you think libertarians are going to vote for a political party that insults them, think again. In fact, about all I can discern, as a limited government conservative-libertarian is your comments exploit divisions between us and help the RAT party.
The “restraint” should be the natural (bad) consequences for (bad) behaviors and choices. (Do something stupid and get hurt - spend the rest of your life having to live with the injury - without “disability”. Let your daughter run around unsupervised, you may have to take care of an unexpected grandchild for the next 18 years.)
When our society subsidizes and alleviates those bad consequences, that’s when you get the huge moral decline that you see.
The thing about libertarians is that many, if not most of them, go, or at least like to think they are going to go or have gone, through a (generally fairly brief) rather libertine phase where they experiment with behaviors that appall most (and especially religious) conservatives. Most libertarians, having tried it on a bit, settle into personal social conservative values, but they remain deeply attached to the notion that they have the right to be libertine if they so choose. It matters to them, but they regard their very freedom to choose how to behave as the bedrock of individual freedom.
In fact, many social conservatives, in their collegiate youth, experiment with licentious behavior as well, before they return to behavior consistent with their social conservative views. The difference is that social conservatives don't like to think about it or celebrate it publicly (just with their frat or sorority cronies?). For them, the conservative values are what pulled them away from their youthful libertinism, and they fear the absence of the social conventions will lead to a breakdown of society. Hence they are uncomfortable with the libertarian strain that emphasizes personal choice.
The ones to worry about are the liberals, who flout convention for the sheer fun of it and fall into a sort of Peter Pan-like stasis where they never grow out of behaving like a kid who wants his own way and won't deal with anything rationally.
Social conservatives aren’t doing themselves any favors when they drive away voters who agree with them for the most part. It comes down to they just cannot mind their own business.
There's a natural alliance between libertarians and political conservatives. There will be a natural alliance between them and the social conservatives as long as the latter remain political conservatives. When they turn to political opportunism and try to turn the federal government to the task of social engineering in pursuit of their own brand of "social justice" they part company.
And I would argue it's not only the libertarians that have changed. Sure there are some more liberal leaning libertarians but social conservatives did not always embrace the Progressive movement of the early 20th century. I am libertarian and I am socially conservative. However, unlike Progressives (Republican social conservatives), not all morality should be legislated at the national level.
Sure social conservatives will give excuses but if we were to embrace the policy that one size fits all across the nation, you further destroy federalism, the rights of the separate and sovereign states, and rather much most intents of the state legislatures. Yes, you'll start with abortion, marriage, etc. But give it a generation of that thinking and we'll have national smoking laws. Think I'm joking? 35 years ago who would have even suggested abortion was a national issue? Or marriage, unions, whatever you want to call it?
Kill the Great Society programs and repeal affirmative action, and we will start to improve our culture.
Republicans are not what they were even in 1994. I think the good thing about the recent illegal immigration issues with Washington politicians are that many are marked now for challenges in their reelection primaries with more conservative replacements.
I think Republicans lost power by being afraid to lose their power and listening too much to the press as to how a good politician votes.
Primaries are where you get more conservatives in to Republican races.
Libertarians can spoil if there is close vote with a half percent making a difference in a race, but they are against conservatism in their self righteousness. They vote for what ever Nimrod seems cool to them, but their lack of Republican vote in a tight race is really Democrat enabling and a vote for Democrats in power.
Republicans are not great at this moment, but they have had good moments.
For me, Libertarians are kind of anarchists and when I see them go at it I mostly wonder what medications they need for their condition.
Just my opinion, not saying it’s special or better than yours.
If you want to improve someones morals better to convert them to Christianity than to expect the government to do the job.
Of course. The problem comes when here are those who won’t exercise self control. Should society allow itself to become victim to these people or should society restrain those who refuse o restrain themselves?
Libertarianism never was what it used to be. It is a way station for intellectual young people to conservatism. You read “Atlas Shrugged” and for a few years you are a libertarian until you know a victim of the so called “victimless crimes” or try to figure out how to defend a nation within strict libertarian guidelines against a determined totalitarian enemy, and presto, a conservative is born.
A nation of immoral people is doomed; using the government to try to enforce morality only delays the inevitable.
I would assume that delaying the inevitable doom is preferable to being doomed now.
Currently, the left is using the government to ENFORCE IMMORALITY.
Simply put, whether by design or by unintended consequence,
the subsidizing of poor choices just leads to more of those choices.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is well established and all but proven in my mind. We see it over and over again. Speed restrictions on highways that increase accident rates, CAFE legislation that decreases fleet milage, public schools that prevent kids from learning, tax policy that stifles commercial activity and decreases revenues... and the list goes on and on. It has become a truism that whatever the government tries to do, they wind up doing the exact opposite by accident.
And yet "social consevatives" want to harness this power in order to enforce morality, and expect to get the results they desire. Instead, they wind up supplanting morals-friendly social networks and acheive the exact opposite of what they intended.
This should come as no surprise.
I'll bet you believe the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause that says Congress can regulate virtually anything as "interstate commerce".
Who gave us the election in ‘04? The Lindseys of the world apparently have very short memories.
Post of the decade.
The “restraint” should be the natural (bad) consequences for (bad) behaviors and choices. (Do something stupid and get hurt - spend the rest of your life having to live with the injury - without “disability”. Let your daughter run around unsupervised, you may have to take care of an unexpected grandchild for the next 18 years.)
When our society subsidizes and alleviates those bad consequences, that’s when you get the huge moral decline that you see.
*****************************************************************
Absolutely right, Mr. B!
What we have today are iatrogenic social disorders, caused by the very government progams supposedly designed to alleviate them.
“War is the health of the State” - the modern progressive state has nothing to war on but its own population.
Get the government out of the business of subsidizing those who won’t exercise self control and we will see some improvement. For instance, end all government welfare, and thereby quit subsidizing illegitimacy and we’ll see a huge reduction in it. Stop requiring that hospitals take all comers, regardless of ability to pay, etc. We don’t need more laws, in fact we need many fewer laws.
You see it over and over again. They go running to Washington thinking they're going to get federal laws imposed on everyone that reflect their "local values". Instead they end upu having local laws dictated to them that reflect the values of the beltway.
I reviewed this book for a Catholic News Service (forget the specific name of the group), and you are exactly right. Lindsey is quite hostile to religious people in this book, claiming they “set back” intellectual life in the 20th century. In several places, his theory is just off. He does seem to realize, however, that the very forms of social control needed to succeed in an entrepreneurial society-—self-discipline, faith, optimism, structure-—are those generally weakened by Libertarian practices, and he really doesn’t have an answer for that.
The difference is that social conservatives don’t like to think about it or celebrate it publicly (just with their frat or sorority cronies?). For them, the conservative values are what pulled them away from their youthful libertinism, and they fear the absence of the social conventions will lead to a breakdown of society.
____________________________________________________
If every sinner felt compelled to defend sin no one could speak out against it since we are all sinners. That is the trap within the idea (a Biblical one) that hypocrites are to be condemned. The reality is to repent of sin and then have the courage to speak out against it openly and without hypocrisy. In other words, it is not hypocritical at all to condemn a sin you have repented of. I think it is completely logical to believe that sin should not be outlawed, but should be condemned, and that this is consistent with libertarian thinking. Where I part ways is within the thinking that all sin should be legal no matter how destructive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.