The Case for Conservatism (vs. Libertarianism)

Politics Daily ^ | February 15, 2011 | Matt Lewis

[GOP_Party_Animal]

Two things:

One, the is no a-moral society, as governed. Not here now and never through history. Constitutions and laws are written with some notion of right and wrong. When you think of it, they are statements of that culture's morality. As for the US Constitution, it is constructed atop moral principals stated in the Declaration of Independence: there are inalienable rights to life and liberty, governments should operate according to the consent of the governed, all should be equal under the law, etc. These are all moral principles that take shape in Constitutional dictates such as representative government, civilian control of the military, the Bill of Rights, and so on. So when you claim that morality has no place in our government, sorry - it's written into the Constitution itself.

Second, I think you come from the position that conservative morality is a fickle thing (we certainly know that liberal "morality" can change with the wind). As the article argues, conservative morality is based on knowledge of human nature, not wishes for what a Utopian society might look like. As a Libertarian, you might claim that gays should be allowed to marry and conservatives are just being prudes in their opposition. Real morality says marriage should be between only a man and a woman because history and human nature demonstrate such unions produce the best families. Such families produce the best societies. And I want to live in the best society, so yeah, if I can, I will push that morality on you.

[PaleoBob]

The only way those pols took power through the ballot box was by first undermining the morality of the nation.

---

The American population was complicit. It slouched its way into confusion and immorality—and thus left the Constitution behind. The democratic process was an enabler rather than a line of defense.

[joe fonebone]

"And I want to live in the best society, so yeah, if I can, I will push that morality on you."
Funny thing is, I am a small L libertarian...and you had me in complete agreement with you, right up until this last sentence.....please re-read it, and tell me how this sentence is not the beginning of the roadway to totaltarianism ......with the best of intentions.....again, you must study your history in order not to repeat it... and, just for the record (and a whole nother discussion) civil rights and morality are 2 different things entirely. Every law written is based upon my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....

[GOP_Party_Animal]

...tell me how this sentence is not the beginning of the roadway to totaltarianism

Sure! We used to have much stricter morality laws than we do today: adultery laws, sodomy laws, laws about cursing in public, etc. Did we develop into a Puritanical totalitarian state? Nope. Neither did other Western nations that had such laws. Since these laws had a basis in human nature and historically well-structured society, they had real benefit. They weren't made simply to enhance governmental control.

Of course, now you have more freedom away from moral laws. The result? No-fault divorce has devastated the family unit. For "freedom's" sake, we ignore the moral right to life and abortion is used as birth control. We accept adultery and elect men of poor moral character to the nation's highest office resulting in poor governance. The slippery slope is not ever increasing moral totalitarianism but rather ever decreasing moral standards and a disintegrating society.

I still have to conclude that limited government (itself a moral concept based on Judeo-Christian principles) and good moral laws are not a paradox, but are complimentary to a prosperous society.