Social Conservatism

8/1/06 Neoperspectives.com In principle, Conservatives and Libertarians see eye to eye in regards to economic freedom. They believe that individual Americans will collectively spend their own money much more efficiently and benefit society more than government spending. They believe burdensome regulations limit prosperity and harms business. They understand the harmfulness of socialized health care and retirement schemes.

However, there seem to be differences in scope between the two ideologies. Conservatives don't seem to have the same degree of, for lack of a better word, anti-governmentism. They don't seem to realize the degree which government spending and social programs routinely, if not always, accomplish the opposite of their intentions.

Thus, it is somewhat natural Social Conservativism should exist. Social Conservatives generally believe government is just focused on the wrong things; they believe government intervention itself is not the problem, but rather a liberal, pun intended, use of government is desirable and necessary to maintain order and increase morality in society. Incidentally, and as we might expect, Social Conservatives also tend to be the weakest along the spectrum of economic Conservatism and may also oppose free trade and immigration etc...

It goes without saying, the intentions of Social Conservatives are just as pure and good as the intentions of liberals with their collectivism and social programs. However, IMHO, the fact is that, just like liberals, Social Conservatives actually work against their own ideals; their bills and legislations accomplish the opposite of their intentions. Instead of government acting as a moral beacon, as they had hoped, it instead injects a dose of immorality into society, which varies directly with the degree of activism by the Social Conservatives. Thus, ironically, the more powerful Social Conservatives become, the further they will drive society from their goals. Of course, this is somewhat difficult to quantify as their actions may be statistically obscured by positive economic Conservatism and the resulting economic freedom. Indeed, economic freedom, for example freedom from welfarism, plays a vastly greater role in the making of a prosperous moral society, which is why Libertarians generally side with Conservatives on most issues. Still, the priorities and actions of Social Conservatives are harmful, if occasionally practically tolerable, and need to be examined and elucidated, which is the point of this piece. :)

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

Notice Justice Brown did not make the distinction of 'how' government moves in; she does not distinguish between economic and social interventions:

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, initiated by Congress in 1998, has spent more than $2 billion in taxpayers' money and matching funds producing and airing anti-marijuana advertisements, including several alleging that the use of cannabis funds international terrorist activities.

The funny thing, if you find it humorous, is that cannabis funds, and drug money in general, is tied to terrorism, as well as increases in violence and general societal destruction; but, this is not because of 'drugs' or marijuana, it is because government has made drugs and marijuana illegal! It is the very illegality of these substances that breeds the terrorism and violence! Again, government can blame only itself. Now, let's look at the results of these ads and spending:

Investigators found that viewers expressed significantly fewer negative attitudes toward marijuana after viewing the ads. No such "boomerang effect" was noted among those who viewed anti-tobacco advertising.

""It appears that ... anti-marijuana public statement announcements used in national anti-drug campaigns in the US produce immediate effects [that are the] opposite [of those] intended by the creators of this campaign," authors concluded."

The criminals and drug dealers who peddle drugs should thank the US government for advertising for them (after they thank them for the cheap labor and 'tax breaks'). The point is that this attempt by government, and Social Conservatives, whose support for this sort of action dates back to the failures of prohibition, again accomplished the opposite of their intention.

In actuality, those who have seen firsthand the scourge of drugs, who abhor drug use, who passionately care about the youth of today and the current drug problem, should be the most ardent proponents of legalization.

This sort of counterintuitiveness reminds me of the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal organization that vehemently opposed Welfare Reform in the name of 'the children', in effect working to hurt the very children they were trying to get funding and government intervention for. Their opponents were labeled as 'uncaring', 'greedy', and 'racist'.

Similarly, those opposing the Social Conservative agenda are sometimes labeled 'potheads' and 'porn lovers' and promoters of the 'homosexual agenda'. As with Welfare Reform, it becomes impossible to rationally debate a policy when your opponents are unwilling to recognize that you both share a hope for the same results and possess the same intentions.

The most unfortunate consequence of the Social Conservative movement, IMO, is that the apparent lack of understanding of how harmful the federal government is economically, has led Social Conservatives to place mistaken priority on their social agenda. This dilutes the pressure economic conservatives and libertarians can exert on politicians. It also leads to some of the silliest, ridiculous, acts of government one can imagine:

Every so often, in the hushed galleries of Congress, history unfolds in a manner that casts the momentous business of Capitol Hill in stark, even humbling relief. Then there are moments spent discussing the Whizzinator.

Onlookers stifle cackles and snickers, or try to. "People want to make this a skit on 'Saturday Night Live,' " says Rep. Joe Barton. But it's not funny, the Texas Republican says, not funny at all.

Athletes in the four major U.S. professional leagues would be subject to two-year bans for a first positive drug test under legislation proposed Tuesday that would put the sports' steroid policies under the White House drug czar.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams and most D.C. Council members say they want to ban the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors, linking the popular games to juvenile violence.

State Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether high school cheerleaders trying to flag down motorists for a car wash might run afoul of a broadly written ordinance targeting pushy Las Vegas-area prostitutes.

But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

The Senate passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schiavo's life while a federal court considers her case while House Republicans, stymied by Democrats, scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday.

GOP leaders planned a House vote just past midnight, hours after the Senate approved the bill by voice vote. President Bush rushed back from Texas for a chance to sign the measure. [which he did at 1:11am in the morning]

Can you believe it? The senior whitehouse staff, the president of the United States, and the Congress have to come back to Washington and are up all hours of the night over what was essentially a he said she said family dispute (Terri Schiavo case). This is what the Federal Government and our elected representatives consider an 'emergency'? This micromanaging and blatant intrusion of the Federal government into family matters should abhor, rather than excite Social Conservatives. What a disgrace, that this was a priority for elected officials, rather than battling the pervasive socialism that exists in the United States.

The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

1/11/2005 Washington Post (Florida 'Republican' controlled Legislature passes a law banning gay couples from adopting)

The Florida plaintiffs argued there is no reason to deny all gays the right to adopt at a time when the state lacks homes for 8,000 children.

But the state replied in its brief, "Petitioners never showed that the gay adoption provision has ever limited the number of adoptions in any statistically significant way."

This is perhaps the worst result of Social Conservative lawmaking. They seem to believe that kids are better off in a state home than with gay parents. Again, they don't understand the true enemy is the STATE! The worst place for kids to be raised is the state - by definition! This has been shown over and over again from the atrocities in Romanian and Chinese orphanages, where thousands of children grew up brain damaged, to the horrific state run orphanages here in the US. Yet, these lawmakers are somehow considered strong on 'family values' by Social Conservatives.

Speaking of 'family values', in 'Secondary Problems of Socialism', I address the issue of socialized marriage and some of the hurtful government interventions contained therin. It is the government intervention which has corrupted and harmed this sacred institution, more government intervention is not needed to fix it! The current defining and licensing of marriage by government, the pervasive tax incentives and disincentives for both marriage and single mothers, divorce laws encouraging 'gold digging', and other incentives to break apart marriage, all combine, along with welfare and other redistributionist type policies (again, economics play the greatest role), to lessen family values, to cheapen marriage, and to place it into the hands of government, rather than God.

Indeed, this is the strangest part of Social Conservatism, the religious and spiritual overtones, from which many of their beliefs and resulting legislative efforts are apparently derived. In describing the spiritual founding of the United States, I previously wrote:

Finally, they [the founders] wrote laws that removed the King and eliminated the artificial Middle-Man between the common man and God. Each man was the King of his own private property, including his physical body, and thereby only answerable to God, not government. What took place was a massive decentralization of power to the individual.

The idea that one answers to God and not government is quite a powerful one. By assuming that man can and should enforce God's will upon the people, Social Conservatives are operating on a number of faulty premises.

First, they are assuming they, and not the 'common man', are closest to God and understand His will best. This indirect condescension is analogous to the liberal intellectual who believes he can spend your money better than you. Moral currency, if you will, is best left for the common man to accumulate and spend.

Second, common sense dictates, and the scriptures of all religions pontificate, that morality is something that must be chosen, hence the apparent phenomena of free will. Forcing God, or their version of Him, on the populace, will not change hearts or minds. In fact, it may alienate investigation of many of the positive principles Social Conservatives profess. God/morality is found or chosen from within. Similarly, by forcibly confiscating money from the populace to invest in 'charity', liberals make the same mistake. In the words of Calvin Coolidge, Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Once we might have been inclined to give a quarter to a beggar. Now, however...we might tell him that the State has confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and that he might as well go to the State about it.

With government providing 'morality' for the society, what need is there for activist citizens to educate others and band together to voluntarily spread moral messages? What need is there to independently investigate right and wrong, if the government provides such 'information'? And, most importantly, who wants morality to be under political control? Heh heh... I wonder how Social Conservatives would feel if Republicans lost congress and the presidency after they decreed the Federal Government in charge of morality...

Thirdly, Social Conservatives believe that without government people are not 'good' enough or moral enough to live their lives and individually raise the level of morality in society. Liberals believe people would not donate or help those who 'need' such help if it weren't for government. Both lines of thinking are incorrect.

Fourthly, some Social Conservatives may concede most of society would be fine or even better without government coercion, yet, a small minority would 'fall through the cracks'. Thus, laws must exist to ensure the 'proper behavior' of the deviant few. Does this not sound similar to liberal rhetoric? In order to make us 'equal', in order to 'save the poorest of the poor', liberalism instead makes everyone equally miserable. Attempting to 'save' the weak by tearing down the strong ends up destroying everyone. Social Conservatives must be disciplined enough to respect the freedom and choices of the deviant few, with an understanding that pursuing cracks will bring the house down. It is how the world is and any action on the part of government will only increase this deviance.

Fifthly, this propensity to be 'outraged' and obsess about the behavior of others is symptomatic of a lack of appreciation for the wonderfulness of our society and culture, ie searching for cracks, insecurity from within, and excessive emotional attachment to cultural events (Schaivo). When liberals hear about a 'wrong' somewhere, the first thing they want to do is pass a law, confiscate some money, and get government involved.

Finally, and most controversially, as if this blend of politics and religion hasn't been controversial enough :), I need to touch on the similarities and differences between churches and governments. Let me start by stating that, although I don't belong or subscribe to any particular one (per se), I am a big fan of churches and religious organizations. From the beginning of history they have provided a needed balance and protection against the despotic power of government. From the Pope in the middle ages, to the Catholic Church in Poland and Cuba, to the, largely, protestant founders of the United States, as long as church and state remain separate (an unaddressed problem in many Muslim Countries), a church and/or religion(s) provides a powerful check and balance on runway political control.

With that said, there are similarities between governments and large organizations such as churches. A church, similar to a government, will take tithes for them, not you, to spend as they see fit. Churches have issued pronouncements of morality, which the members generally follow, relieving them of the trouble of arriving at their own conclusions, encouraging conformity, and limiting innovation. This is analogous to the government issued propaganda we are subject to in the media and public schools. Like government politicians, the leadership of churches and religious organizations may focus on numerical membership and their own positions of authority, and the importance of the message (spiritual teachings) becomes twisted to emphasize the messenger (the uniqueness of that church or preacher). There is often a certain communalism present, which manifest as both a strength and a weakness.

It cannot be stressed enough that, although comparable, these actions are vastly inferior in scale to those of governments, the main reason being that people are generally free to come and go within religions and churches. However, sometimes families, peers, and culture, act as conforming pressures to retain membership in religious organizations one may not entirely agree with. It is somewhat ironic to hear our friends on the left point out the atrocities, stagnations, doublethinks, etc... committed by churches and religious organizations, as these pale juxtaposed to the historical crimes and grievances committed by expansive government. In fact, many of these so-called crimes were the actions of church and state combined.

In any event, the aggregate effect of some of the negative connotations in churches/religious organizations may be responsible for aspects of the Social Conservative movement. This is not to say all or even most Churches or religious organizations possess the described characteristics to any significant degree. I also concede church membership can be as diverse and varied in their viewpoints and beliefs as anywhere else. Even in Churches and religious organizations penetrated by pervasive corrupting influences, it may be the case that their benefit to society and to individuals still overshadow the negatives.

In conclusion, the degrees of separation between the similarities found in Churches and religious organizations and governments are reflected in the exponential differences in erroneousness of liberalism vs Social Conservativism, whose followers generally have some vestige of the more important concept of economic freedom.

    I recently read a post by Travis about how social conservatives differ from his brand of libertarians.  I agree with much of what he wrote.  Travis proclaims to not be a member of any organized religion, which is fine with me, but as a practicing Catholic, I want to add a few of my thoughts on the subject.
    Sadly, most social conservatives do not realize that by using the powers of government to enact God’s will they themselves commit a sin on their own terms.  As most social conservatives are Christian, a quote from the bible is certainly appropriate:
    Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, "I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me." Jesus said to him in reply, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.'"  Luke 4:5-8
    Where many looked for a Messiah to conquer and achieve temporal power, Jesus specifically rejected that option and equated it with worshiping false gods.  A government, even a Christian government, cannot achieve good.  Only individuals can achieve good when they freely choose to do so.  The best we can hope for from government is to provide order and security so that individuals are free to choose good or choose evil.
    At that point, it is up to the faithful to try to convince others to choose good, with the understanding that as humans many will in fact choose evil.  The emphasis must be on individual choice.  Without the opportunity to choose evil there can be no opportunity to truly respond to God’s grace.
    For this reason, I think that Travis correctly differentiated between the nature of religious organizations and governments.  Religious organizations call people to choose to worship God in response to his grace.

Governments offer no such choice. Governments will enforce their laws, forcibly if necessary. This contrast between choice and power is why the separation of church and state is necessary not only to provide individuals a choice of religions, but even more importantly to avoid the corruption of the religion that happens to be ascendant.
Andrew Sullivan has been popularizing the term Christianist to describe social conservatives who hope to use government power to achieve Christian ends. This mingling of faith and government can only end up hurting both.

We currently have a wide variety of regulations that declare people to be criminals for doing things that were undertaken with absolutely no criminal intent or objectively discernibly criminality.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829

Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

Again, you're being extremely vague. Give an example. Are you referring to something akin to forgetting to file your taxes, or something like that? If so, than I might agree with your statement. But on the issue of drugs and drug dealers you know as well as I do, unfortunately traviskicks doesn't, that the government did not create them or the illicit behavior.

You just made my point. The federal government regulates interstate commerce for the reason that it keeps importing states(i.e. states that were on the coast) from levying taxes that non-importing states would eventually have to pay through the increase in price. Basically the importing state benefits while the non-importing state essentially pays the tax.

But on the issue of drugs and drug dealers you know as well as I do, unfortunately traviskicks doesn't, that the government did not create them or the illicit behavior.

I'm afraid I don't see it as being that simple. Yes, people used and sold drugs before the goverment controlled them. I don't believe that someone buying opiates, for example, to treat their own pain before it was regulated was necessarily a criminal, nor was the person selling them provided he wasn't misrepresenting what he was selling. That same transaction, post-regulation would be considered criminal, yet involves no more criminal intent than it did originally.

To say that the government only codifies what is already objectively criminal and doesn't create any "collateral damage" in the process is not realistic.

How much of the current regulation we live under by bureaucracies authorized under the Commerce Clause - the DEA, EPA, OSHA, and others can be said to be in pursuit of that objective - keeping one state from unfairly benefiting from taxes and levies at the expense of another?

I think that that was made as an example (one of possibly many) that validated the federal government's responsiblity in interstate commerce.

I think you're making some unsupportable assumptions. Read Madison's letter again. In all of the historical record of the debates and discussion during the process of drafting and ratifying the Constitution, preventing the States from using taxes, levies or other contrivances to give themselves a trade advantage over other states is the only purpose for granting the power to regulate commerce among the several states that is discussed or expressed. For the first 150 years, this is how it was used. Our current "substantial effects" doctrine is the product of FDR and the New Deal courts - explicitly derived from a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution.

I am not disagreeing that that is the only reason he stated in his letter. I am simply saying that there "may have been", and still are, more reasons for such regulation. If the feds regulate interstate commerce, than conflicts in trade between states is obviously minimized. Also, since any legislation on that level would have to be passed by representatives of the States, than it makes it not only efficient but a valid form of regulation.

Also, since any legislation on that level would have to be passed by representatives of the States, than it makes it not only efficient but a valid form of regulation.

What was "intended" be damned. I rest my case.

"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas

Pay attention, or kiss the Republic goodbye.

Well, in light of this citation I have to agree with you. There may be many circumstances where the states should retain authority in interstate commerce. And policing that commerce. This statement makes very good sense, thank you for presenting it.

Sorry if I sounded harsh earlier, but the "substantial effects" doctrine has allowed Congress to continually expand the power and authority of the federal government into areas it was not origially intended to regulate.

I will agree that as things change there may be some areas where it is appropriate to grant Congress that power but it isn't supposed to be convenient or easy. The process of amendment is there to modify the balance of power between the States and the general government. It isn't supposed to be "efficient", and it is that way on purpose and for good reasons. The idea that simply because a majority of Congress voted for it and the President signed off on it is sufficient to make it a valid exercise of the ommerce power is an abject subversion of that intent.

I thought Constitutional amendments had to be ratified by the states. In any case I agree with your assessment. I too think the Feds have WAY too much power, especially in Law Enforcement and Education. Oh, and now Commerce. Thanks for the enlightenment.

You're welcome. And yes, a Constitutional amemdment does have to be ratified by the States.

The States created the federal government, and transferred to it a limited set of powers in order for it to accomplish specific objectives. Those powers were fixed at the time the Constitution was ratified, as they were understood and intended by those who wrote and ratified the empowering document. They can only be legitimately modified by the States, since they are the source of the original grant of power and all powers not transferred remain with the States.

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.