Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Social Conservative
Intellectual Conservative ^ | September 12, 2003 | Bruce Walker

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.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 561-567 next last
To: redlipstick
Arnold is not a phony?! Neither is Bill Clinton
or Jesse Jackson I take it.

Arnold can't even take a position without it
being written out for him after lots of polling.

Arnold all about Hollywood and it fakeness.

By the way, you can live however you wish but
if you are pro-abortion, pro special rights for gays
etc... you are not a social conservative.
Being a social conservative is believing the right
thing and living it!

So neither Carter nor Arnold are social conservatives.

Even Arnold says he is a social liberal!


341 posted on 09/12/2003 3:29:04 PM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. As soon as one is aware of being "somebody," to be watched and listened to with extra interest, input ceases, and the performer goes blind and deaf in his over-animation. One can either see or be seen.


~ John Updike ~
342 posted on 09/12/2003 3:30:23 PM PDT by Afronaut (All Liberals are Evil: R or no R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
You keep posting things that imply that Tom supports illegal in their stay in America.

Is there some policy shift I am unaware of? Is Tom supporting Illegal immigration?
343 posted on 09/12/2003 3:30:58 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (SELECT * FROM liberals WHERE clue > 0 .............................................. 0 rows returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: strela
Can't be too much worse than here in the central valley, although you do have that darn humidity!
I like the Houston Texans though! :)
344 posted on 09/12/2003 3:31:18 PM PDT by shellylet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
Thank you for your kind words, my friend. I have a ton of respect for you as well.

But we will have to agree to disagree. I won't even go into the reasons why here and now. I've made my views abundantly clear, and I'm sure you've read them.

Perhaps it would behoove us all to pray a little harder for your state, for wisdom, and for all of our leaders--including the many who can be found here. The earnest prayers of the righteous avail much.

Regards,
EV
345 posted on 09/12/2003 3:33:16 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Come on Cowboy! Stay in your saddle there!
The implication is that if McClintock stays in, Boogermante wins!
346 posted on 09/12/2003 3:33:52 PM PDT by shellylet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
Wow. That is quite a quote. Never seen that before.
347 posted on 09/12/2003 3:34:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Very wise words, indeed!
348 posted on 09/12/2003 3:35:25 PM PDT by shellylet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: strela
I ask if Arnold or the author was lying in #181:

“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.

349 posted on 09/12/2003 3:35:39 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (SELECT * FROM liberals WHERE clue > 0 .............................................. 0 rows returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: strela
Jim R. has asked repeatedly that material from one thread not be dragged into another, and has asked that "cross-thread" flamewars not be engaged in.
290 -strela-



You seem to be FR's foremost authority. What is the reasoning behind asking that opinions expressed on one thread not be 'dragged' into another?
IE -- Should a gun grabbers stance on one thread be ignored when the poster pretends to be pro-gun on another?
311 -tpaine-




You might want to ask Jim R. that question. Its his rule, I only follow it.

"Don't jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread." -JR-
-strela-


Weird, -- I ask you about ~your~ interpretation of that rule, with an example.

-- And instead of an answer, you post JR's quote.
-- Which only proves that you made a big supposition, as per my example, -- which dealt with related thread matters [gungrabbing opinions].

Perhaps you aren't as big an authority on these matters as you suppose?

350 posted on 09/12/2003 3:36:16 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
"You keep posting things that imply that Tom supports illegal in their stay in America."

???? 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.

351 posted on 09/12/2003 3:36:58 PM PDT by Tempest (I've lost all hope for half of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
My premise was that the Chicks were left leaning and that they would support Arnold over Tom. I stand by that guess.

Please provide proof that Dixie Chicks, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and Alan Colmes have supported Tom.
352 posted on 09/12/2003 3:38:06 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (SELECT * FROM liberals WHERE clue > 0 .............................................. 0 rows returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
(CyberCowboy777) “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.”

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.

353 posted on 09/12/2003 3:39:32 PM PDT by strela (It is not true that Larry Flynt's biggest financial donor is Dicker and Dicker of Beverly Hills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
I see.

So not falling in line with whom certain republicans think I should support makes me a liberal supporter and Tom an illegal supporter?

That is sophomoric and sad.
354 posted on 09/12/2003 3:40:03 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (SELECT * FROM liberals WHERE clue > 0 .............................................. 0 rows returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
Celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. As soon as one is aware of being "somebody," to be watched and listened to with extra interest, input ceases, and the performer goes blind and deaf in his over-animation. One can either see or be seen.

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.

355 posted on 09/12/2003 3:40:51 PM PDT by Tempest (I've lost all hope for half of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Perhaps you aren't as big an authority on these matters as you suppose?

You "suppose" too much.

356 posted on 09/12/2003 3:41:01 PM PDT by strela (It is not true that Larry Flynt's biggest financial donor is Dicker and Dicker of Beverly Hills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Strela is very good at puting words in people's mouths. I would not waste any more of your time debating her.
357 posted on 09/12/2003 3:41:06 PM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
Yes and no. It's possible to be a social or cultural conservative without being a determined free marketeer. There have been Democrats who were social conservatives, particularly in the rank and file.

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.

358 posted on 09/12/2003 3:41:09 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
LOL! Hey...why am I in a diaper...and what's this commie beeyotch doing on my arm?!? (Not directed at strela, btw)

(straight line, let's see what happens...)

359 posted on 09/12/2003 3:41:22 PM PDT by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
It is considered the act of a coward to make a post referring to somebody but not ping them to the post.
360 posted on 09/12/2003 3:42:26 PM PDT by strela (It is not true that Larry Flynt's biggest financial donor is Dicker and Dicker of Beverly Hills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 561-567 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson