Are 'socially conservative' and 'politically conservative' mutually exclusvie?

[Dominic Harr]

For the purposes of this discussion:

1) by "social conservatism" I mean, "traditionalist" or "culture war".
2) by "political conservatism" I mean limited govt/individual responsibility.

Many folks believe that 'social conservatism' is, by definition, politically liberal. Do you agree?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

For the purposes of this discussion:

1) by "social conservatism" I mean, "traditionalist" or "culture war".
2) by "political conservatism" I mean limited govt/individual responsibility.

Many folks believe that 'social conservatism' is, by definition, politically liberal. Do you agree?

I guess it would depend on if you believe your "social conservative" values should be imposed on the rest of society via government coercion or not.

To answer your question though, no I don't think they are mutually exclusive, I know many self described "social conservatives" who believe strongly in limited government and individual responsibility.

 

[Dominic Harr]

I guess it would depend on if you believe your "social conservative" values should be imposed on the rest of society via government coercion or not.

To answer your question though, no I don't think they are mutually exclusive, I know many self described "social conservatives" who believe strongly in limited government and individual responsibility.

Hi:

Well the question comes up because it seems to me that even tho the social Cs claim to be for limited govt, they still seem to want govt involved in marriage and vice and the like. Which seems to me, by definition, to be a 'liberal' application of govt.

I'm wondering if this is why once in office, the social Cs always seem to spend like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors . . . )

Both the 'culture warriors' and the 'Progressives' seem to want a nanny state. They just want more govt involvement in different things.

I'm wondering if this is the explanation for the current state of the R party.

I consider myself, "socially liberal, politically conservative". The R party seems to be populated by the "socially conservative, politically liberal". The Ds, of course, seem to be "socially liberal, politically liberal".

No where in politics is there a 'politically conservative' group -- plenty of folks from both sides *promise* to be politically conservative, but once in power pretty much all of them end up realizing exactly why it is a good idea for them to use their power and govt money to reward/favor themselves and their supporters!

 

[Ravi]

I think if you change it to Politically Progressive I'd agree with you. It isn't Liberals that want a nanny state...

So yes, social conservatives are politically Progressive and want the government to shield them from outrage.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Hi:

Well the question comes up because it seems to me that even tho the social Cs claim to be for limited govt, they still seem to want govt involved in marriage and vice and the like. Which seems to me, by definition, to be a 'liberal' application of govt.

I'm sure you know as well as I do, claiming to be for limited government (to get votes) and actually believing in limited government (but not willing to make the sacrifices to do anything about it), then actually taking action to limit government are all very different things in our current political climate.

I'm wondering if this is why once in office, the social Cs always seem to spend like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors . . . )

Because the ones that get elected are just socially conservative statists that buy votes by promising voters a piece of the legalized plunder pie once they get into office.

Both the 'culture warriors' and the 'Progressives' seem to want a nanny state. They just want more govt involvement in different things.

Yep, each just wants a nanny state where their particular operators are in control.

I'm wondering if this is the explanation for the current state of the R party.

I consider myself, "socially liberal, politically conservative". The R party seems to be populated by the "socially conservative, politically liberal". The Ds, of course, seem to be "socially liberal, politically liberal".

No where in politics is there a 'politically conservative' group -- plenty of folks from both sides *promise* to be politically conservative, but once in power pretty much all of them end up realizing exactly why it is a good idea for them to use their power and govt money to reward/favor themselves and their supporters!

The bottom line is that the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same party with the same goal, which is to gather and maintain power at all costs. The only thing they differ on is their rhetoric, this isn't going to change until voters demand change by voting for other alternatives in large numbers (3rd party candidates and independents). In the meantime both major parties will continue to do nothing but alter their rhetoric to play to whatever blocks of voters they happen to be targeting at the time, then do the same exact things once they get elected.

 

[Oddball]

Are 'socially conservative' and 'politically conservative' mutually exclusvie?

Absolutely.

So-called "social conservatives" are every bit the moralizing authoritarian collectivist nannies that welfare state socialist liberals are.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

So-called "social conservatives" are every bit the moralizing authoritarian collectivist nannies that welfare state socialist liberals are.

Completely untrue, I happen to personally know quite a few socially conservative libertarians, they just don't believe in forcing their social conservative values on others using government coercion or unwelcome prostelytizing.

for example:
* you can be against abortion but believe that society does not have the right to take away a womans right to choose.
* you can be against gay marriage but believe that society doesn't have the right to forbid it

 

[Oddball]

Completely untrue, I happen to personally know quite a few socially conservative libertarians, they just don't believe in forcing their social conservative values on others using government coercion or unwelcome prostelytizing.

for example:
* you can be against abortion but believe that society does not have the right to take away a womans right to choose.
* you can be against gay marriage but believe that society doesn't have the right to forbid it

Problem being that virtually all the so-called social "conservatives" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) seek to codify their moral beliefs into law.

OTOH, the truly conservative person can be anti-abortion, while recognizing that if there were a federal law against it, men would eventually be having abortions....Likewise, a REAL conservative would recognize that state meddling in the institution of marriage in any case is beyond the scope of a de jure government.

 

[AllieBaba]

Politically conservative people may choose to live a socially conservative life...but they certainly don't believe in imposing that life on others. Unlike the political liberals, who think their way of life should be law, and forced upon the citizenry whether they agree with them or not (think Bobo and his insistence that when 1/3 of the nation should be able to compel the rest of the nation).

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Problem being that virtually all the so-called social "conservatives" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) seek to codify their moral beliefs into law.

Many social conservatives take that tact, however many hold onto their traditional "socially conservative" values with a live and let live attitude.... (ya know kinda like "The Dude Abides..." ) ... as far as how some religious fundamentalists stole the "conservative" moniker, no idea, perhaps the same way that the various mutations of collectivism stole the "liberal" moniker.

OTOH, the truly conservative person can be anti-abortion, while recognizing that if there were a federal law against it, men would eventually be having abortions....Likewise, a REAL conservative would recognize that state meddling in the institution of marriage in any case is beyond the scope of a de jure government.

Agreed and the same could be said for a truly liberal person.

 

[Oddball]

Politically conservative people may choose to live a socially conservative life...but they certainly don't believe in imposing that life on others. Unlike the political liberals, who think their way of life should be law, and forced upon the citizenry whether they agree with them or not (think Bobo and his insistence that when 1/3 of the nation should be able to compel the rest of the nation).

True as that may be of many, the holy roller prig "social conservatives" pursue the same authoritarian policies as do leftist authoritarians....And thye're the ones who often end up being pandered to with GOP policy.

 

[AllieBaba]

Which is why ultra-conservatives have a huge problem with the state trying to interfere with marriage in the case of gay marriage. Currently churches can choose who they marry and don't marry. As soon as the state determines it's discrimination to refuse to marry couples, or determines that portions of the bible constitute "hate speech", the state is interfering with the church.

 

[Oddball]

Which is why ultra-conservatives have a huge problem with the state trying to interfere with marriage in the case of gay marriage. Currently churches can choose who they marry and don't marry. As soon as the state determines it's discrimination to refuse to marry couples, or determines that portions of the bible constitute "hate speech", the state is interfering with the church.

I many states, it's been made illegal for an "approved" church to perform the marriage ceremony in absence of the state-issued license.

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. And this is why politically conservative people object to a liberal agenda. The government has no place telling churches what to do, or discriminating against people because of their religion.

 

[Oddball]

But it's also the so-called "conservatives" (whatever that's supposed to mean anymore) who are not only mute on ending state licensing of marriages, but are bucking for laws that demand an abhorrence to de jure law be molded and formed to fit their subjective moral criteria.

Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice.

 

[garyd]

As both a social conservative and a small government conservative, it is my view that the feds have no business trying to tell the various states let alone the majority of people in virtually every state in the union what a marriage constitutes whether or not Abortion should be legal or any of a host of other issues.