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 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 561-567 next last
To: ElkGroveDan
Oh come on, not Larry Flynt! You messed up your entire good point adding that pervert!
481 posted on 09/12/2003 5:28:48 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TightyRighty
Damn McClintock's HOT!!!

Dang, y'all stop! That picture is just too cruel. How did you doctor it to make him look so goofy?

482 posted on 09/12/2003 5:29:20 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Well, I stand corrected, at least in that I read the first 50 again and this has been laughed off the board from the get go. I remember the Groupies came in later, who know what they said because they will excuse positively anything. What I find troubling is that I only saw one (R)nold supporter disagree with the premise of this positively ridiculous article (14) in the first 50, which I noticed when I started to get replies from the Usual Suspects later.

So, rather than spliting hairs, what say you about this article?
483 posted on 09/12/2003 5:29:42 PM PDT by PeoplesRep_of_LA ((R)nold called me a "Right wing crazy" because I have a problem with his position on Prop 54)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick
Hey, do they make absestos underwear in pink and with lace?

I have them on myself! LOL

Seriously, I agree with you, the point is to get rid of Davis, and I too, am waiting to see who can do that! Then I will choose.

484 posted on 09/12/2003 5:32:21 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Hehe...those things must be darn uncomfortable...
485 posted on 09/12/2003 5:33:13 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; redlipstick
It was obvious from the beginning that the original poster agreed with the article, and was seriously trying to push it.

I know redlipstick and I know she posted it just for discussion, so I just searched her name (I still am plodding through reading replies in another window and checking "New Posts" to me in yet another), and here is what she says:

#373

To: x

A reasonable argument! Thank you.

I think the point that the writer is trying to make is that sometimes those who do not share beliefs with social conservatives, i.e. Giuliani, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell, or who have skeletons in their personal lives, can still have traits of character that serve traditional social conservatives well.

David Bonior is pro-life, as was Dennis Kucinich until 5 minutes ago. I am so glad that we have Powell as Secretary of State now instead of either one of them. Just as I am relieved that Giuliani was mayor of New York two years ago instead of a weaker individual who might have been more "conservative."

I certainly don't agree with the writer on every point, but I did think that the article was thought-provoking and worth discussion.

373 posted on 09/12/2003 3:53 PM PDT by redlipstick (#213 of the 537.)

486 posted on 09/12/2003 5:36:41 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Davis and Cruz are both screaming liberals on EVERY issue, and then there is the little problem of Cruz being a racist. But whatever, do your thing, when one of these lefties leads California, don't complain okay?

At least think about the consequences of the dems maintaining control. I will wait and see what the polls say before I decide between Tom and Arnie. Half a loaf is better than none.
487 posted on 09/12/2003 5:42:45 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
How much longer until the next Flurry? I need to get some Coffee.
488 posted on 09/12/2003 5:43:36 PM PDT by Afronaut (All Liberals are Evil: R or no R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
1st of anything that qualifies for referendum should qualify for initiative.

No offense, but you know less about CA Law than your guy does. You voters are dangerous. Alright class;
A referendum is to repeal an existing law.
An initiative, as in taking of the, is to create a law.

Now do you understand? Greaaaaat. They are wholey and completely seperate, like (R)nold and Conservatism.

2nd show me your source where you claim he will not support referendum. Considering he's already stated he will repeal SB60 anyways.

"A Schwarzenegger spokesman said the actor will not support the referendum campaign but will seek other ways to repeal the legislation." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/09/DRIVERS.TMP

Now what?

489 posted on 09/12/2003 5:44:39 PM PDT by PeoplesRep_of_LA ((R)nold called me a "Right wing crazy" because I have a problem with his position on Prop 54)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
So, rather than spliting hairs, what say you about this article?

My first post on the thread was #72

Where I took issue with his Carter and Lieberman references.

I have a problem myself with redefining terms. This kind of reminds me of the discussions of being a "classical liberal" versus "liberal" in the modern day sense. I think the labels are useful only so far and I dispute their application in certain ways, as do others, though we may disagree with how they are applied!

490 posted on 09/12/2003 5:44:42 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I thought that it was a good start for reasonable argument - obviously you don't. If OUI magazine is considered worthy of quoting, then why not Intellectual Conservative? I have checked out the writer's credentials, and found that several articles from the site, and I believe a couple of the writer's as well, have been posted on FR - meaning that I wasn't posting from a liberal rag like The Nation or your favorite polling institute, the LA Times.


Nor was I posting from my own fevered brain, like the freeper who started a thread telling everyone how God wants them to vote.

I am pro-life, I have always been pro-life, but I can respect a pro-abort man like Rudy Giuliani far more than I can respect a pro-life man like David Bonior.

It is not ALWAYS the ONLY thing that matters.
491 posted on 09/12/2003 5:45:05 PM PDT by EllaMinnow (#213 of the 537.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Principle, particularly moral principal, can never be a weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency. Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true.

~ Edward R. Lyman ~
492 posted on 09/12/2003 5:45:33 PM PDT by Afronaut (All Liberals are Evil: R or no R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
I think you can drink up. It seems to be unanimous that Arnold IS what he says he is, and not what this writer said he is. ;-)

Cheers!
493 posted on 09/12/2003 5:45:46 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
Good one!
494 posted on 09/12/2003 5:46:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Thank you, its a good start, but be honest, that is nothing considering how they bastardize the definition to be without any reference to policy, simply married and "love" their wife. Most Liberal Democrates, to the left of Lieberman/Carter, apply by this preposterous article's litmus.
495 posted on 09/12/2003 5:47:01 PM PDT by PeoplesRep_of_LA ((R)nold called me a "Right wing crazy" because I have a problem with his position on Prop 54)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
... The Author says Arnold is a Social Conservative and Arnold says he is a Social Liberal – So I ask – Who is lying.

Why does either have to be lying? They are individuals with unique perspectives.

496 posted on 09/12/2003 5:47:13 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
So are Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Larry Flynt since they all hold similar views as Arnold on social issues

LOLOL!!! GREAT POST ElkGroveDan !!! Arnold is no more a Social conservative that HILLARY AND BILL!!!!!

497 posted on 09/12/2003 5:47:15 PM PDT by pollywog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
Past 90 days a referendum can no longer be applied hence an initiative must be enacted to change that law.

Get that??? Greeeeeaaaattttt.
498 posted on 09/12/2003 5:48:31 PM PDT by Tempest (I've lost all hope for half of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Past 90 days a referendum can no longer be applied hence an initiative must be enacted to change that law.

Wow, are you trying to make my point for me? Thanks, that is true, which is why we have to get Tom's referendum qualified before Jan.

After that, no matter how cocky a Gov (R)nold is, he wouldn't be able to "remove" the law-assuming that is his intention and he's not simply lying right now in order to play both sides of the fence.

499 posted on 09/12/2003 5:52:18 PM PDT by PeoplesRep_of_LA ((R)nold called me a "Right wing crazy" because I have a problem with his position on Prop 54)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
It is never the ONLY thing that matters.

But for me it is the first test; because my experience is that those who compromise here cannot be trusted. I have no respect for any pro-abortion politician. (I have no respect for David Bonior either--he's a socialist hater of America.)

After all, this country was founded on the twin tenets of God-given life and liberty; and without life, the word liberty is meaningless.

If I've beeen too rough and tumble here and offended you, I'm sorry for that. But these are extremely serious debates that are going to affect the course of our country.

You have asked me to be reasonable, and I'm trying to be. But you also need to recognize the multitude of good points that were made here against the premise of this article. Notwithstanding the intensity and the combative nature of the debate, the vast majority of those opposing AS here are men and women of great principle and good will.
500 posted on 09/12/2003 5:55:39 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 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