Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
A lot of truth in your statements too. Morality can only be achieved by the citizen on an individual basis. A nation of immoral people is doomed; using the government to try to enforce morality only delays the inevitable.
While I agree that many libertarians don't care about anything other than smoking pot, what exactly have conservatives accomplished?
Behavioral consequences are largely theoretical to a person who has thus far been spared the necessity of having to deal with them. It is only with the cumulative experience of maintaining mature relationships, employment, raising children, and managing a household budget that the big light bulb tends to go on, illuminating truths hidden to many, if not most younger people.
Isn't that the definition of anarchy? My understanding of a a true Libertarian has always been: "you do whatever you want as long as it does not impose on me and I'll do whatever I want as long as it does not impose on you."
Laws sort of get in their was as does government.
I agree with Jefferson’s statement; I suppose that makes me a libertarian, although I’ve always been more of a social conservative in thinking. I just don’t feel like that social conservatism, civil liberties, and fiscal conservatism need to be mutually exclusive.
What a moronic lumping. I consider myself to be ‘libertarian’, but I harbor no such dellusion that the culture war is over. There’s far too many suspects for the label ‘useful idiot’ for me to believe that.
I can’t believe that a so-called conservative repeats the lie that the Republican party is conservative. If you think libertarians are going to vote for a political party that insults them, think again. In fact, about all I can discern, as a limited government conservative-libertarian is your comments exploit divisions between us and help the RAT party.
The “restraint” should be the natural (bad) consequences for (bad) behaviors and choices. (Do something stupid and get hurt - spend the rest of your life having to live with the injury - without “disability”. Let your daughter run around unsupervised, you may have to take care of an unexpected grandchild for the next 18 years.)
When our society subsidizes and alleviates those bad consequences, that’s when you get the huge moral decline that you see.
The thing about libertarians is that many, if not most of them, go, or at least like to think they are going to go or have gone, through a (generally fairly brief) rather libertine phase where they experiment with behaviors that appall most (and especially religious) conservatives. Most libertarians, having tried it on a bit, settle into personal social conservative values, but they remain deeply attached to the notion that they have the right to be libertine if they so choose. It matters to them, but they regard their very freedom to choose how to behave as the bedrock of individual freedom.
In fact, many social conservatives, in their collegiate youth, experiment with licentious behavior as well, before they return to behavior consistent with their social conservative views. The difference is that social conservatives don't like to think about it or celebrate it publicly (just with their frat or sorority cronies?). For them, the conservative values are what pulled them away from their youthful libertinism, and they fear the absence of the social conventions will lead to a breakdown of society. Hence they are uncomfortable with the libertarian strain that emphasizes personal choice.
The ones to worry about are the liberals, who flout convention for the sheer fun of it and fall into a sort of Peter Pan-like stasis where they never grow out of behaving like a kid who wants his own way and won't deal with anything rationally.
Social conservatives aren’t doing themselves any favors when they drive away voters who agree with them for the most part. It comes down to they just cannot mind their own business.
There's a natural alliance between libertarians and political conservatives. There will be a natural alliance between them and the social conservatives as long as the latter remain political conservatives. When they turn to political opportunism and try to turn the federal government to the task of social engineering in pursuit of their own brand of "social justice" they part company.
And I would argue it's not only the libertarians that have changed. Sure there are some more liberal leaning libertarians but social conservatives did not always embrace the Progressive movement of the early 20th century. I am libertarian and I am socially conservative. However, unlike Progressives (Republican social conservatives), not all morality should be legislated at the national level.
Sure social conservatives will give excuses but if we were to embrace the policy that one size fits all across the nation, you further destroy federalism, the rights of the separate and sovereign states, and rather much most intents of the state legislatures. Yes, you'll start with abortion, marriage, etc. But give it a generation of that thinking and we'll have national smoking laws. Think I'm joking? 35 years ago who would have even suggested abortion was a national issue? Or marriage, unions, whatever you want to call it?
Kill the Great Society programs and repeal affirmative action, and we will start to improve our culture.
Republicans are not what they were even in 1994. I think the good thing about the recent illegal immigration issues with Washington politicians are that many are marked now for challenges in their reelection primaries with more conservative replacements.
I think Republicans lost power by being afraid to lose their power and listening too much to the press as to how a good politician votes.
Primaries are where you get more conservatives in to Republican races.
Libertarians can spoil if there is close vote with a half percent making a difference in a race, but they are against conservatism in their self righteousness. They vote for what ever Nimrod seems cool to them, but their lack of Republican vote in a tight race is really Democrat enabling and a vote for Democrats in power.
Republicans are not great at this moment, but they have had good moments.
For me, Libertarians are kind of anarchists and when I see them go at it I mostly wonder what medications they need for their condition.
Just my opinion, not saying it’s special or better than yours.
If you want to improve someones morals better to convert them to Christianity than to expect the government to do the job.
Of course. The problem comes when here are those who won’t exercise self control. Should society allow itself to become victim to these people or should society restrain those who refuse o restrain themselves?
Libertarianism never was what it used to be. It is a way station for intellectual young people to conservatism. You read “Atlas Shrugged” and for a few years you are a libertarian until you know a victim of the so called “victimless crimes” or try to figure out how to defend a nation within strict libertarian guidelines against a determined totalitarian enemy, and presto, a conservative is born.
A nation of immoral people is doomed; using the government to try to enforce morality only delays the inevitable.
I would assume that delaying the inevitable doom is preferable to being doomed now.
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.