Posted on 04/03/2015 1:55:56 PM PDT by annalex
A group of intellectuals known as reform conservatives or "reformocons" (in which I count myself) has pointed to the breakdown of the working class family as one of the most significant socioeconomic problems in America. It's a largely unseen but highly potent contributor to social stratification, growing inequality, social anomie, and just generally immense suffering for countless people riven by divorce or cohabitation, especially children who have to grow up without a mother and a father in the home.
Reformocons get a bad rap from both sides of the aisle. Many proponents of a more individualistic brand of conservatism are wary of the idea of a more pro-family agenda and believe everything will be cured by more supply-side tax cuts and deregulation. (Reformocons agree that these things are good — they just think they're not the answer to every problem in the world.)
But the oddest criticism of the reform conservative tendency comes from the left. The critique boils down to this: Yes, liberals grudgingly grant, the evidence that family breakdown has disastrous consequences is overwhelming, but reform conservatives should shut up because they don't have a policy agenda and instead offer nothing but "preaching" to working-class families to get their houses in order. If reform conservatives really cared about the family, these critics hint, they would opt for the kind of redistributive programs of the post-War era and European social democracies that give people the financial resources necessary to build strong and stable families.
(It's worth noting the parallels between the criticism from the left and from the right: In both cases, there's nothing that won't be fixed with a little cash. The two sides just disagree with how to get the cash into the working class's hands, whether through trickle-down economics or trickle-down government. In a better world, everyone would understand human nature enough to know how self-refuting this is.)
The progressive critique is doubly wrong.
First, the idea that reform conservatives don't have an agenda (beyond expanding the child tax credit, they sometimes grant) is, frankly, disconnected from reality. It should be remembered that the reform conservative movement got started, before it was known as such, by the 2008 book Grand New Party by Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, a policy-heavy tome with literally hundreds of pages of policy ideas focused on the working class in general and the working class family in particular, down to infrastructure policy (shortening that two-hour commute so parents can spend more time with their kids is a family value!). National Affairs, the dense policy journal of reform conservative ideas, is not exactly full of vacuous moral preaching. We live in a shallow world and so the zeitgeist has latched on to the child tax credit as "the" reformocon idea. While it's certainly a great idea, it is merely the most visible part of an agenda that, frankly, is deeper and better thought through than the platform of either major party.
But, secondly, the progressive idea that the only alternative to passing bills is "preaching" is wrong. The critics are right that reformocons don't believe that policy alone will fix things. That's because reformocons live in the real world, not the world of Vulgar Marxism.
It shouldn't have to be stated, but here we go: Cultural movements exist.
History is full of examples of society being changed not by passing bills, but by cultural movements and shifts in outlook. And in many cases, the passings of bills by legislatures were a consequence, not a result, of cultural change.
The paradox is that so many of these recent cultural movements have benefited the left. The same-sex marriage movement is a paradigmatic example of how it was a change in culture that wrought major policy and lifestyle changes. But there's also temperance; the societal turn against smoking (and towards pot); the rise of eugenics (a progressive victory) and its fall (a conservative victory); the rise of racism and its decline; and, of course, the Sexual Revolution itself.
These are just a few examples of movements that changed how people view the world and how people think and act and live (and, therefore, changed policy), that were and are fundamentally cultural in nature.
Cultural movements — how they arise, what causes them, how they work — are mysterious, but it does not mean they're impotent. In fact they might ultimately be the most powerful social force there is.
and instead offer nothing but "preaching" to working-class families
to get their houses in order.
Government shouldn't be in the job of taking from others to fix Stupid. "Those People"
will wake up and grind out a job like the rest of us if the Gov kicks them out of the basement.
No. It could be classified as a superstition though. Religion must be a system of thought that explains to man his relationship with God and teaches how to live a moral life based on that. Religion, moreover, must have a positive track record of improving lives and attracting followers.
A mere belief, even is shared by many is not yet religion.
The religions started by Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Common to them is monotheism and a moral code that is based on man’s responsibility before God.
I don't believe that's correct for Muslims; they believe that whatever happens or doesn't happen is "Allah's Will" - they have no control over it.
BfLR
Yeah, but still Islam insists on what is considers proper conduct, including the obligation, for example, to convert or subjugate non-muslims, pray and dress in a particular way, have fasts, and so on. You can’t ask that of a robot.
I do not accept any hyphenation of conservatism, because it usually means NOT-CONSERVATIVE
Islam is not an Abrahamic religion, that was a lie for legitimacy
For instance, all sentient people must choose a godless worldview, a god(s)-centered worldview, or one that does not know if a god(s) exists. All of it is based on belief and can not be proven and none of the three religious beliefs ( godless, god-centered, or agnostic) can be proven. None of the three religious belief systems is dependent on a specific religion.
Conservatism, like any major worldview, has people with different opinions on some topics. For example, there are conservative people that accept this fact and conservative people who don't.
Islam is not an Abrahamic religion
Well, yes. Leftism is a belief system; my point was, and is, that it is not a religion like any respectable religion I know.
Islam cannot be traced back to Abraham, it was made up centuries later.
I just go by the conventional term, accepted commonly.
As a matter of fact, too, Islam was not invented in entirety. The Koran, for example, has many chapters on Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist. It is, most likely, a Christian heretical sect, of which prophet Mohammed took control in 6c.
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.