Beware the Conservatives of the Soul

Jim Peron

[Sir Gawain]

-

[William McKinley]

I think this article is going to end up causing me to generate one of my own, out of some thoughts that have been brewing for a while now. I believe the author here truly does not understand the essence of conservatism, which is not meant as a major slam by me because I think it is a common error and one which 'conservatives' have done a horrible job at preventing and correcting.

I'll save the rest for that article.

[inquest]

Interesting how the article claims that true "liberalism" disdains laws regarding morality, but provides no example of classical liberals wanting to overturn laws against adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc. Makes me wonder if the author really has a point, or is just trying to make it sound like he has one.

[William McKinley]

By the way, it is right near the start where the author makes the mistake.

The conservative concentrates on man's moral well-being

This is not true. This is not the focus of conservative thought, and is not the essence of conservatism. It is the view many have of conservatives, however, which is a problem for conservatives and is one of the reasons that conservatives find their views so easily demagogued by political opponents.

[mvpel]

That quote from Basiat is perfect for the socialists I debate with on grex.cyberspace.org. Just classic.

[KDD]

bump...for later.

[KDD]

bump...for later.

[babyface00]

There is a huge issue here with semantics. I can't think of a single person who calls themself a conservative who wants to impose their moral view on others.

Conservatives only desire is to not have to subsidize behavior which offends them. That's more than a subtle difference, and its complicated by the situation in which we are now in - the government has its fingers meddling in every aspect of our lives.

The characteristics the author attributes to Liberalism couldn't be further from what a modern "liberal" is today.

Since the disparity always seems to be to our disadvantage, perhaps its time we came up with some solid definitions, or some catchy alternatives...

[manna]

Bump.

[KC Burke]

I believe the author here truly does not understand the essence of conservatism, which is not meant as a major slam by me because I think it is a common error and one which 'conservatives' have done a horrible job at preventing and correcting.

I disagree that the author doesn't know the twisting of history he is involved in in promoting his own view. Anyone who has throughly read the appendix of The Constitution of Liberty entitled Why I am Not a Conservative understands that Hayek is not saying he is a Libertarian, but instead aligning himself, in the tradition of Burke, with Old Whig tradition (Classical Liberalism) and against Toryism, but even more so against Rationalism.

Conservatism, in the american sense, is not Toryism and has had, since the term was introduced, a component of active Reform and alignment with Whggish Principles that give it a different cast than continental conservatism.

[babyface00]

Stop giving free medical care to drug users, alcoholics and smokers
Stop giving lenient sentences to substance abusers
Shift more resources to violent crime enforcement

I can't think of a single conservative that wouldn't support the items 1 and, especially #3. I don't know where you came up with #2, its inconsistent with the other two.

And you have conservatives to thank in part for that

I strongly disagree. You have Republicans to thank in part for that. Conservatism does not necessarily equal Republicanism.

[bassmaner]

Stop giving lenient sentences to substance abusers

A "socialist of the soul" position if there ever was one.

This article exposes the ugly truth about "social conservatives": they're really just another kind of socialist. True American conservatives (i.e. those who wish to "conserve" the values of America's Founding Fathers) are actually classical liberals, not sanctimonious Puritans who wish to stamp out any kind of individual pleasure. Live it, learn it, love it.

[bassmaner]

how is forcing substance abusers to stand trial equally with those who are at sober at the time of the crime not consistent with those two?

Oops, I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were referring to the consensual "crime" of drug possession, not malicious activity committed under the influence. In the latter case, you are absolutely correct - my bad.

[babyface00]

how is forcing substance abusers to stand trial equally with those who are at sober at the time of the crime not consistent with those two

Stop giving free medical care to drug users, alcoholics and smokers

"Free" medical care is only free to the receiver. The cost is paid by others. Those others may or may not approve of paying for healthcare for anyone, much less those who engage in acts which are self-destructive. Making abusers responsible for the results of their behavior is consistent with conservatism.

Shift more resources to violent crime enforcement

Violent crime, by definition, is a crime that infringes on the rights of another. It is wholly consistent with conservatism to enforce laws against violent criminals

Stop giving lenient sentences to substance abusers

Why should the mere act of hurting yourself be subject to any punishment at all from the state? If an individual is responsible for themself, then the government has no business interfering with them until they infringe on the rights of others. Of course, when you start giving them free health care, then their behavior does infringe on the rights of others (those who have to pay for it). That doesn't mean abusers should be punished, it just means that others shouldn't have to provide health care for them.

[Consort]

Lately, there's been a lot of obfuscation going on about political labels and ideologies.