While perusing a link provided by Eric in his post Did the homos crash the economy? I came across this comment by our very own Tall Dave which echoes something I have been saying for a long time. And Dave. Forgive me if you were planning to post this but I just couldn’t resist.
Since Libertarians occupy the fiscal conservatism circle, they’re getting more attention and validation than they’ve had in years.
Well, there’s also that whole failed War on Drugs, soaring approval for medical marijuana and gay marriage, globalization of free trace… really the last 70 years have been one long empirical validation of libertarian principles.
I don’t think most social conservatives understand that their movement is actually an offshoot of Progressivism — in the heyday of the 19th century classical liberal the government just didn’t enter into people’s lives much. It wasn’t until groups like the WCTU got behind the levers of power that government started punishing us for our own good.
My sentiments exactly, Dave.
Comments
21 responses to “Political Social Conservatism Is An Offshoot Of Progressivism”
Okay, let’s specify something — it’s fine for people to believe whatever they believe. Yes, it’s also fine for people to hate irrationally. Most humans do hate something or other irrationally and (no, sorry, Simon) it’s not Andromeda.
If we start demanding purity of heart, we’re a religion not a political philosophy. In my Real Life experience, the number of social conservatives who are crass and annoying is about fifty percent (same for libertarians, sorry.) The number of them who really, really, really want to legislate morality is about 2% tops — probably the number of “libertarians” who want to see people swing from lamp posts. If we push them, though, they will ALL cohalesce behind that 2% because all of a sudden we start looking like what the enemies of freedom told them we were — a battering ram to take down their precious beliefs. And if they push us, they start to look to us like those armed fundamentalists Heinlein expected. (BTW IMHO he failed to see how they morphed into another type of moralists.)
Step back. Take a deep breath. Stop taking the bait. Again, I hate to believe this because I disdain conspiracy theories, but does everyone remember the comments leading up to 08? The number, the coordination? Sometimes you’re not paranoid, they REALLY are out to get you. And in this case the “they” aren’t socons (except for that vocal 2%)
This is a false flag operation.
Sarah,
I am personally acquainted with Diogenes Lamp. He is no false flag operation.
The “Conservatives” pulling out of CPAC was no false flag operation.
Support for the Drug Prohibition by social conservatives is no false flag operation.
The union between social conservatives and progressives is what gave us both drug and alcohol prohibition. And the public school system. Look up the genesis of the Catholic School System in America for details.
I wish it was a false flag operation.
Still I’m pretty much allied with the social conservatives for the time being. Hitler first then Stalin.
BTW have a look at this:
Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush
Social conservatives and their supporters represent about 30% of the voting population in nominally liberal Illinois. That is a lot larger than 2%.
Years back I’d pointed out to some born-again pagans who were Christian-bashing that most of their pet, leftist causes (these were fluffy, new-age wiccans) originally became causes because of devout christians.
Stop embarrassing libertarians.
Social conservatism as a movement doesn’t have any “roots” in progressivism at all.
In fact that statement is so ahistorical and temporally confused that it is like claiming the American Revolution had its “roots” in abolitionism.
Progressivism, as a matter of fact and history, as well as, unsuprisingly, demographics and the politics that followed in the Northeast, arose from the same font of 19th-century protestant moralism as Abolitionism.
Perhaps your confusion is caused by the 5th-grade level historical fact that Abolitionism launched the Republican party, and, coincidentally, over a century and some later, Social conservatism made its home in the Republican party.
What should cue you in that they are not remotely parent-child is the geographic (and demographic) base shift the parties took in the meantime.
Social conservatism just plain didn’t exist as a political force 100 years ago, or at any time prior (meanwhile Progressivism was well-defined by then). It wasn’t a force because it wasn’t needed — both parties were, comparitively, socially conservative until the every late 60s.
Once the Democratic party fully embraced Progressivism (and its attendant proclivity for libertinism) between 68-72, social conservatism arose as a correcting force. Yes, as a reaction to the Culture Wars.
And yes, libertinism is linked far closer with Progressivism /socialism than with classical liberalism.
A cursory review of the social policies of the eastern bloc versus the free world in the mid-century should be fairly good evidence, discomfiting as it might be to the notion that liberal social policies are somehow in conflict with totalitarianism anywhere outside of a sharia state.
Social conservatism as a movement doesn’t have any “roots” in progressivism at all.
You might want to study the genesis of Alcohol Prohibition. Ever hear of a minister called Billy Sunday?
I know you would like the past to be different. It isn’t. Well not yet anyway.
I was going to refute your theory, but others have beat me to it and done quite the good job of it.
I will only add that every time you mention “Billy Sunday” you always leave out the part about the Prohibitionist movement being virtually identical to the Women’s Suffrage movement, a group who’s advocacy you agree with presumably.
It’s always a question of Who’s morality gets imposed, not whether.
Women were also in the forefront of alcohol legalization: too many kids coming to school drunk. Evidently the women of the time were quick studies.
===
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Great%20Men%20of%20God/billy_sunday.htm
Billy Sunday hated booze because of what is does to families. I also hate alcohol. Read “The Hellishness of Beer” article which I have written. Read “Gambling is a Sin.” Also visit Hellivision and Movies.” And while were on the subject, God Against Drunk Drivers. Billy Sunday was a true man of God and cared enough about people to speak the truth. As a matter of fact, it was Billy Sunday’s preaching that greatly helped bring about the prohibition years. One man can do much for God.
===
Did I mention that for the last 30 years government surveys show that it is easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer?
We’re so much better people now. /s
A cursory review of the social policies of the eastern bloc versus the free world in the mid-century should be fairly good evidence, discomfiting as it might be to the notion that liberal social policies are somehow in conflict with totalitarianism anywhere outside of a sharia state.
The Communists under Stalin made homosexuality a crime in the Soviet bloc, and the law was not repealed until 1993:
http://www.ecoi.net/190001::russian-federation/328797.324833.9412…mr/sexual-orientation.htm
***QUOTE***
“In April 1993, Article 121 of the Criminal Code was amended, thus decriminalising sexual relationships between males in Russia. Male homosexuality had been a criminal offence in the Soviet Union since 1933, soon after which all the republics followed suit.
***END QUOTE***
Abortion was made a crime in 1936.
Castro and Mao also made homosexuality a crime in their “libertine” countries, and offenders were sent to “reeducation” camps. I haven’t checked out Enver Hoxha’s Albania or Khmer Rouge Cambodia, but I seriously doubt the gay bars were hopping in either place.
Libertarians are rightly proud to be on the right side of the drug war, gay rights, abortion rights, warrantless spying, etc.
The history of the Left in the U.S. is more than Billy Sunday. Social conservatives were aghast at, for example, early feminists’ hostility to traditional patriarchy and their demands for reproductive rights. Indeed, women who sent birth control information through the mail were jailed on obscenity charges. Early socialists like Eugene Debs supported the feminist, civil-libertarian position.
No discussion like this would be complete without a mention of Progressivism’s leading social conservative fusionist, William Jennings Bryan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_jennings_bryan
***QUOTE***
William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was an American politician in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. He was a dominant force in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, standing three times as its candidate for President of the United States (1896, 1900 and 1908). He served in the United States Congress briefly as a Representative from Nebraska and was the 41st United States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1916. Bryan was a devout Presbyterian, a supporter of popular democracy, an enemy of gold, banks and railroads, a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s, a peace advocate, a prohibitionist, and an opponent of Darwinism on religious grounds. With his deep, commanding voice and wide travels, he was one of the best known orators and lecturers of the era. Because of his faith in the goodness and rightness of the common people, he was called “The Great Commoner.”
***END QUOTE***
Bryan was “the chief proponent of the Harrison Narcotics Act” which makes him the founding father of the War On Drugs:
http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Harrison+Narcotics+Tax+Act
Sorry I can’t track down his exact position on sodomy.
in the heyday of the 19th century classical liberal the government just didn’t enter into people’s lives much.
There’s your problem – libertarians just don’t know anything about history!
in the heyday of 19th century classical liberal the (British Liberal) government put Oscar Wilde on trial for being a homosexual. He was convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years hard labor.
The reality is that in the heyday of the 19th century classical liberal, 19th century classical liberals were far more socially conservative than even todays so-called “social conservatives”. Never mind todays so-called “classical liberals”.
I know you would like the past to be different.
That would be you, Mr “Former Communist”.
in the heyday of the 19th century classical liberal the government just didn’t enter into people’s lives much.
Ahh, the good old days of the 19th century, when slavery was still legal. Before those darn meddling Christianists went and interfered with peoples lives.
Like Ishmael I lived to tell the tale.
BTW flenser I can see why this history makes you uncomfortable. My condolences.
BTW flenser I can see why this history makes you uncomfortable. My condolences.
Does this sort of incoherent gibberish seem intelligent to you at the instant you write it? Just go back to reading Rand (or Marx )and don’t presume to know anything about history.
Yes, Christianity did take the lead in outlawing slavery in the West. One has to wonder why it took them 1700 years to notice that the Golden Rule applied to slavery (morality is hard I guess). And don’t forget that there were Christians arguing in favor of slavery during the 18th and 19th centuries, using religious arguments to thwart the reformers.
Another thing we can thank Christianity for is the item in the BOR that prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If Christians hadn’t been the sadistic torturers they were for all those centuries with regards to punishing sinners and heretics and so forth, that amendment would likely not have been considered.
If only I’d spelled “trade” right, or noticed that Nick made the same point more intelligibly later in his piece.
Great article though.
flenser,
I know you would like the past to be different.
That would be you, Mr “Former Communist”.
I see your religion has no place for redeemed sinners. What would Jesus say? Christians have real love in their hearts. And flenser is a prime example.
Which is why I’m sort of a fan of the J. man and no fan of Christians.
The Puritans were socialists.
http://goodnewstucson.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/mayflower-compact-the-puritans-experiment-with-socialism/
Well, also to their detrimnet they didn’t instantly invent liberal democracy, microwaves,or color TV either, but maybe we should judge them for their age.
You have to keep in mind, there is slavery and slavery, and cruelty and cruelty. The Romans crucified thousands of slaves at once along the road to Gaul; Christians were generally much kinder than their predecessors. And torture was, in pre-Christian days, not the moral taboo it is today.
Interestingly, if you read A Renegade History of the United States one of the amusing ironies of the 18th and 19th century is that blacks actually enjoyed considerably greater cultural freedom than whites in many regards, and whites were generally whipped more in childhood than the average slave was over his lifetime — in fact one of the abolitionists’ arguments was that slaves didn’t work hard enough, if you can believe that, and it was probably accurate. And they almost certainly lived longer, better lives here than they would have wherever they were enslaved.
Of course, even 19th century slavery was certainly immoral and wrong and a Very Bad Thing, but as is often the case things were somewhat more complicated than we might see them today.