Posted on 09/12/2003 12:19:04 PM PDT by EllaMinnow
Social conservatism means a serious fidelity to those beliefs and traditions which keep us civilized and decent.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a social conservative, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Social conservatism means a serious fidelity to those beliefs and traditions which keep us civilized and decent without resort to laws, regulations and bureaucrats.
Social conservatism is a respect for tradition and for values which have withstood the test of time. Chinese family members who respect and support one another, even at the cost of personal wishes, are social conservatives whatever their metaphysical beliefs.
This definition of social conservatism as a matter of example rather than profession does not mean we agree on every detail of moral behavior. It means instead that we root ourselves in something permanent, dignified and civic. Even eccentricity can be socially conservative. British and American peoples are famous for producing men who, for want of a better term, are cranks. That is very much a part of the culture of these two nations.
At the heart of social conservatism is fidelity. Often men who are social conservatives are ideologically left of center. Jimmy Carter is a good example. By all appearances, Carter took his marital vows seriously and his religious faith seriously. He stopped serving hard liquor at White House dinners.
That did not prevent Carter from being a petty, spiteful and almost insufferable boor. And it certainly did not prevent Carter from being wrong on almost every issue. But it does mean that Jimmy Carter was a social conservative.
Joe Lieberman is also a social conservative, even if he supports terrible policies. Every indication is that Lieberman is a religiously serious Orthodox Jew. It is impossible to imagine Joe munching a bacon cheeseburger on Kol Nidre. Bill Bradley is another social conservative who loves his wife, gained his wealth and fame through guts and hard work, and sincerely believes in all the bad ideas he proposes.
The beauty of America, of course, is that social conservatism does not require being correct as much as being sincere. It does not require conformity to a particular catechism so much as it means conformity to some catechism. The bewildering variety of religions, sects, and societies in American life is a testament to Americans respecting in social life the same freedom to be wrong that we respect in our economic life. Indeed, social conservatism is another form of market choice which helps, through competition, to elevate cultures and traditions within America.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is made of the "right stuff. There is no odor of phoniness about him. He loves his wife and family. He worked his way to the top with sweat and diligence. He resembles a number of other social conservative Republicans around President Bush who are not generally recognized as social conservatives.
Who? How about Colin Powell? He turned down the Presidency itself in 1996 out of respect for his wife and family. Does anyone question that what Powell believes, he believes sincerely? How about Tom Ridge, who was too liberal to be the running mate in 2000, but who putters around his home for recreation and grew up in the Marine Corps.
Tony Blair and Rudy Giuliani are social conservatives who we seldom see as social conservatives. Both these heroic figures do what they do publicly and because they believe it is right. Thank goodness both are on our side now--social conservatives dig their heels in very deeply!--but even when Giuliani supports abortion or Powell supports affirmative action, they can do so looking you straight in the eye with a polygraph examiner unable to detect a hint of spin in their answers.
This type of social conservative--guys doing what they think is right because they think it is right--is precisely the sort of man that President Bush has shown incredible skill in using to make America better. Our Texan President, our proudly Cowboy President, does not demand that anyone agree with him on every issue. In fact, such silly boys can be skimmed off the corporate boards of a hundred big companies.
He wants people who are true to themselves. He wants, and we should want, real social conservatives. Rabbis who read Torah as if it were holy writ. Priests who take their vows seriously. Men who honor their parents and are faithful to their wives. Men like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan or John Wayne, who will fight for what they think is right.
When Governor Schwarzenegger takes office, President Bush will find honor more valuable than agreement and grit more important than obedience. It will be a winning team, perhaps a team that can transform America.
This is a joke and you are defending it! Arnold himself said he was a social liberal. Was he lying? Or is the author lying - a supporter of Arnold?
Then in #199 you said I that I said Arnold was lying:
It is a logical fallacy to make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying because of another person's opinion.
That is a lie I never made a make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying.
Now please retract and apologize.
???? Nooooooo... It's meant to state that every pole shows that Tom can't win and that by supporting a spoiler, you're effectively enabling the election of Bustamante or Davis. Even the CA chamber of commerce poll shows that if Arnold were to leave the race McClintock would still lose because he can't get enough support from the moderates.
Then in #199 you said I that I said Arnold was lying: It is a logical fallacy to make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying because of another person's opinion.
Where in that sentence did I ever say, "You are lying?" Please point it out to me.
That is a lie I never made a make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying.
I display a general garment and you claim its cut to your fit. How instructive.
Now please retract and apologize.
I have nothing to retract. Now buzz off.
So true I can see how it's corrupted once humble men into making frivolous power grabs. . .
Ahem.... I hope your not talking about little ole me.
You "suppose" too much.
One could respond that big government and the welfare state inevitably threaten traditional cultural values. But it's also been argued that globalization, commercialism, and corporate power likewise threaten social and cultural traditions.
The question of just what "social conservatism" is, has to be a live question, not a matter of partisan dogma. British debates over just how "socially conservative" Thatcher and Blair are reflect the complexities of the topic.
And a tolerant respect for those traditions that make it possible for us to work together and keep society going also has to be included in "social conservatism." The author has a laudable respect for institutional traditions and social concord that many who are more activist and determined in their political views neglect.
But being "social conservative" has to mean more than being a good mixer or a faithful spouse. Someone who is "personally opposed to abortion" but committed to a "woman's right to choose" isn't really a social conservative, as the word is understood in contemporary America. Someone who encourages or winks at immorality can't be a "social conservative" according to the established understanding either.
It's not necessary to persecute those whose practices deviate from the norm. I wouldn't regard that as a part of "social conservativism." But one does have to uphold moral standards in one's own life and recognize their importance in the public sphere.
There are personally decent and personally corrupt figures in public life. The former are preferable by far. But some of our recent social troubles can be attributed to personally moral people who failed to uphold public standards.
Our language ought to reflect the fact that in addition to the public morality of fiscal integrity and the purely private morality of one's own sexual conduct, there are social and familial mores that public figures ought to promote, encourage and defend. The author's language doesn't recognize this sphere.
Arnold may be a decent guy and a good family man, but calling him a "social conservative" tends to rob the expression of meaning. things a little, one can imagine John Kerry or Hillary Clinton qualifying as "social conservative" under the author's definition, and when you reach that point, there's no point in using the expression at all.
(straight line, let's see what happens...)
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.