Can “social” be separate from “state”?

M. Simon’s post has generated an interesting discussion about the conflict between libertarianism and social conservatism, and I am reminded of what I said when I praised Christine O’Donnell.

What makes this so potentially important is that it might indicate a bold and positive new trend among social conservatives away from statism.
As most readers know, I have a serious problem with statist social conservatism. (I think Newt “death penalty for victimless crimes” Gingrich typifies the breed.) As to why so many social conservatives are statists, I don’t know, but I think it renders their conservatism suspect, for the simple reason that statism is not conservatism.
That O’Donnell is a personal social conservative is obvious. But if it turns out she is not a statist social conservative, that would be a wonderful development. As I told Simon, if she opposes masturbation, porn, or homosexuality, it doesn’t concern me unless she wants laws passed reflecting her views. Nor am I threatened by the religious belief that is wrong to break the Sabbath or make graven images; it’s when they want such religious law enacted by the state that freedom is threatened.

Again, I do not have a problem with social conservatives unless they are statist social conservatives. Being sexually monogamous, observing the Sabbath, being opposed to pornography, homosexuality, or even masturbation — these and more could be called socially conservative things. But demanding that people conform to such rules at gunpoint (which is what laws do by their nature) is the essence of statism.
Anyway, my hangup with labels — and terminology — sometimes gets the better of me, and this morning I wondered whether it is wishful thinking to say that people who want the state out of their lives can be socially conservative. Might that be a contradiction?
What is social conservatism?
Is social conservatism without statism, possible? Or does positing such a thing gut the term of any real meaning?
For, if we are we talking about personal conservatism (or religious conservatism), take the example of someone who opposes sexual hedonism, porn, gay sex, and dutifully observes the Sabbath, yet who does not believe the government should enforce these views. Isn’t that person already something other than a social conservative, at least according to the conventional view?
So, my question is a simple one. Is the term “non-statist social conservative” an oxymoron? Was I wrong to apply it to Christine O’Donnell?
It’s a simple question, really. If the “social” inherently implies statism, then isn’t calling someone a “non-statist social conservative” a bit like calling for “non-statist social security,” or even calling someone a “non-statist statist”?
Or can “non-statist social conservative” also mean advocacy of social conservatism without resort to the heavy hand of government intervention? I hope so.
But damn, these labels torment me.
Perhaps we ought to ditch the word “social“:

The adjective “social” is also used often in political discourse, although its meaning in viveks a context depends heavily on who is using it. In left-wing circles it is often used to imply a positive characteristic, while in right-wing circles it is generally used to imply a negative characteristic. It should also be noted that, overall, this adjective is used much more often by those on the political left than by those on the political right. For these reasons, those seeking to avoid association with the left-right political debates often seek to label their work with phrases that do not include the word “social”. An example is quasi-empiricism in mathematics which is sometimes labelled social constructivism by those who see it as an unwarranted intrusion of social considerations in mathematical practice,

A lot of that makes sense, but I am a bit troubled by the phrase “in viveks.” I suspect they meant “invokes,” but that’s a pretty wild typo.
But what the hell, I can’t even define the word “conservative,” so I probably shouldn’t spend too much time worrying over what it in viveks.
I’m almost tempted to say that people who use these terms know what they mean, except I don’t think they always do. Much time spent arguing could be saved if people agreed over the meaning of the terms they toss about, but who am I to talk? I just spent a post arguing with myself!
But as I’m feeling so very social, I thought I would end with a San Francisco flashback:

I’m dumbfounded whenever I try to come up with a definition, but I will never forget as long as I live seeing an elderly Chinese man interviewed on a local San Francisco “man in the street” television program. He was asked his opinion about a controversial left-wing proposal to do some damn thing I’ve long forgotten, and he flatly refused to say what he thought. This didn’t satisfy the questioner, who kept pressing him, and finally asked him outright why he was so reluctant to speak.
“Because I might get in trouble with people!” the man said.
This only led to further questioning, and at that point the reporter really wanted to know why he’d be in trouble, and with what people.
Finally, the old man allowed a slight twinkle in his eyes, and said,
“You know…. The social people!”
I do know. It’s the social people. They are everywhere, and you really don’t want to get in trouble with them.

Almost makes me wanna become an antisocial conservative.
MORE: Acting on a shady bit of advice from Veeshir, I decided to shorten the last link, which became http://5z8.info/bomb-plans_k6x1y_cockfights.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

6 responses to “Can “social” be separate from “state”?”

  1. TallDave Avatar

    I propose the following formulation:
    “A true conservative believes his values will prevail on their own merit — a conservative who uses the state to impose his values by force is just a different kind of leftist.”

  2. Veeshir Avatar

    I hate to quibble with someone probably taller than me, but I was going to say,
    I don’t care how socially liberal or conservative someone is so long as they don’t use the gov’t to make me act the way that want.
    The govt’s job is to keep people from killing me, hurting me or taking my stuff.
    Anything beyond that is not its job and anybody, conservative, liberal or moderate, who thinks otherwise is not on my side.
    Unfortunately, very few people are on my side.
    And before you say, “Libertarians are”.
    No, they’re not.
    Privatizing the police doesn’t work, just look at the cases Murphy v Chisum and Cobb v Paden.
    Private police forces don’t work.
    I’m not saying gov’t police are perfect, I’m saying they’re necessary.
    Also, furriners want to kill me, not because America messes with their country, because the one thing that human beings do better than anything else (even better than rationalization) is try to kill each other.
    So we need a strong military. Otherwise, the world explodes the next day and we’re fighting wars in Canada and Mexico in short order.
    At least the tea partiers are the close. There’s no consensus on where to draw the line of size of gov’t, but everybody knows that line has been crossed, spindled and mutilated.

  3. M. Simon Avatar

    Eric,
    Thanks for the link. And as often is the case I did not read this before posting my latest.

  4. Laura Louzader Avatar

    If Christine O’Donnell were not a statist, she would not have even have introduced personal sexual behaviors into the political debate. Why even bring up “solo sex” and homosexuality if you aren’t trying to involve the state in these matters?
    In addition to being a Statist Social Conservative, the woman simply has a small, petty, vulgar mind and would rather harp on her strictly personal values than address the serious issues of state control and destruction of our economy, and the state-driven funneling of our citizens’ remaining wealth to the Bankster Mafia. Or, perhaps the growth of an immense private fundamentalist paramilitary force, known as Blackwater, fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts granted by both the Bush and Obama administrations.
    We are confronting extremely serious threats to our essential liberties, and what somebody does with his own hands under his own bed covers in a private room is not one of those threats.
    How dumb has this country become that someone like O’Donnell is taken seriously?

  5. M. Simon Avatar

    Laura,
    Taking into consideration this is a partisan site:
    http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/09/christine-odonnell-taking-on-top-gopers.html
    And my attitude is “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” – WC
    Obama first. Then we can sort out the differences.

  6. pouncer Avatar
    pouncer

    Congress shall make no law …abridging …the right of the people peaceably to assemble …
    Isn’t it sad that “socialism” has come to mean the sort of society that compels coerces and demands the people “assemble”? The Women’s Christian Temperance League, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, The United Commerical Travelers, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, social organizations assembled for a common cause are part and parcel of the society as a whole and are enshrined in the US constitution. But those who insist that voluntary participation in their utopian schemes have stolen the word. “Society” in this usage means “Us, holding the guns — join or die.”
    Come to that, the John Birch Society starts looking almost rational