Author Topic: Are social conservatives always wrong?  (Read 25157 times)

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2019, 10:02:15 AM »



This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.

Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.



If you're interested in looking into  America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.

The title is taken  verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded   opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes


« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 01:00:06 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2019, 10:07:55 AM »
I could go on and on, and I don't want to debate any particular issues, but this phrasing, from one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, struck me:

To me at the moment they kinda appear to be (in no particular order):
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-sex ed
- Anti-theory of evolution
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-religion (other religions than what the social conservative believes)
- Pro-religion (but only the personal interpretation of the religion or a small tight knit group of religions that the social conservative believes are acceptable)
- Anti-transgender
- Anti-racial equality

Liberals have largely created  caricature of conservatives that are an extreme minority of conservatives.  I do not pretend that the professors and students who took over Evergreen State University represent liberals as a whole, and I just wish liberals would acknowledge the same about conservatives.

Most conservatives I know are not "anti" everything stated, but merely object to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being the one to control individual behavior.  The "anti-sex ed" is the easiest one -- most conservatives are not anti-sex ed, but instead believe that the family unit should be the entity informing youth about sex and its implications, not the state.

I could go on with each of these issues, but they all carry largely the same message -- a FEDERAL government is not the answer to these issues.

So what is the conservative answer?  I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it, but how would a conservative in Kentucky address the issue of parents in Alabama failing to give their children important information (whether through ignorance or neglect) that the lack of could very well cause them harm in the future?

Honestly, if conservatives would offer more local solutions I would probably be for them.  But without offering better solutions it just seems like conservatives want people to ignore the problem because they don't like the solution.  I understand the value of federalism, I don't understand letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2019, 10:16:28 AM »
So what is the conservative answer?  I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it

I call bullshit.  Conservative absolutely DO want the federal government to handle it, as long as they handle it in the way they support.  Conservatives love the idea of states rights until a state legalizes gay marriage or passes a transgender bathroom bill, then suddenly they DEMAND federal intervention in the states legislative authority.

At this point I think we can all stop pretending that conservatives in general and the "conservative" political party in particular care anything at all about their ideals.  It's just about whipping voters to maintain political power, and they'll do whatever it takes to get there.  Mitch McConnell made the case that Obama shouldn't be able to nominate supreme court justices in his last year in office, then last week laughed and said OF COURSE Trump should be able to nominate supreme court justices in his last year in office.  There is no coherent philosophy or ideals here, just political expediency.

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1793
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2019, 10:36:18 AM »
@sol, there are many sincere conservatives who care strongly about their ideals. If you think they don't exist, you lack knowledge. Don't malign millions of people because your personal infobase is lacking. If you can't be bothered to meet any of them, at least take a peek at the nice TED talk linked in post 19, where the nice liberal discusses actual data on the subject.

(Hint: across multiple continents and cultures, conservatives sincerely hold 5 ideals; liberals consistently focus on 2 ideals; everybody agrees that the 2 liberal ideals are good; liberals and conservatives disagree about whether conservatives' other 3 ideals are good. But conservatives hold them sincerely.)

Painting "conservatives in general" as "pretending" about their ideals is the kind of broad brush dehumanizing that, as you have probably noticed, many politicians and manipulative political activists on the conservative side do about liberals. Please stop defaming all conservatives unjustly for the sins of some.

I'll grant you that the conservative movement politically these days has plenty of hypocrisy. But joining the slanderfest that is one of the common tactics on both sides these days isn't the way to break our current routine of being divided and frustrated. Let's be a little more accurate and fair.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 10:59:46 AM by BicycleB »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2019, 11:31:19 AM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.





« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 11:34:58 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

Malkynn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1993
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2019, 11:39:35 AM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.

Wow...um...okay...

That's just...wow...

Anyone else wanna take this?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4589
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2019, 11:40:35 AM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.

Wow...um...okay...

That's just...wow...

Anyone else wanna take this?

Nope.

I had the same reaction as you.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6027
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #57 on: June 12, 2019, 11:43:27 AM »
So they established a federalism whereby the local government would be the most important, state governments next, and then a limited federal government.

As an aside @ReadySetMillionaire I think we can empirically establish that this is not in fact what Republicans / conservatives / people who call themselves federalists are actually for. I agree that that would be a logically consistent approach of federalism though, and has a lot to say for it.

In my state (NC) the same people who make a lot of "Federalism / State's Rights" noise also turn around and squash the autonomy of the more local governments at the same time. Ashville can't raise their minimum wage, Holly Springs can't turn on their community fiber they've already laid, coastal communities can't build wind turbines, Chapel Hill is not free to remove confederate statues, etc. The list never ends.

The observable actions of people who call themselves Federalists takes all the wind out of the sails of theoretical Federalism. It's obviously not about principles or a theory of good governance, it's obviously about consolidating power at the state level - and only the state level - because that's where conservatives think they can win. Those "liberal cities" get no power, their vote is gerrymandered away, and the rural conservatives pat themselves on the back for saving the country through "Federalism".

I live in NC and can testify that this analysis is spot on.   

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #58 on: June 12, 2019, 11:45:05 AM »
Painting "conservatives in general" as "pretending" about their ideals is the kind of broad brush dehumanizing that, as you have probably noticed, many politicians and manipulative political activists on the conservative side do about liberals. Please stop defaming all conservatives unjustly for the sins of some.

I'll grant you that the conservative movement politically these days has plenty of hypocrisy. But joining the slanderfest that is one of the common tactics on both sides these days isn't the way to break our current routine of being divided and frustrated. Let's be a little more accurate and fair.

I wasn't slandering conservatives in general, I was slandering specific politicians who enjoy the support of conservatives in general.  Like old Mitch, the worst kind of partisan hypocrite imaginable.  I concede that there are individual conservatives amongst the citizenry who hold sincere beliefs, but as long as they continue to vote for opportunistic and deceitful politicians I have zero empathy for their perspective.  Don Trump is an affront to everything conservatives believe in, and yet they flocked to him in the 2016 election and thus lost all claim to moral consistency.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #59 on: June 12, 2019, 12:04:42 PM »
So they established a federalism whereby the local government would be the most important, state governments next, and then a limited federal government.

As an aside @ReadySetMillionaire I think we can empirically establish that this is not in fact what Republicans / conservatives / people who call themselves federalists are actually for. I agree that that would be a logically consistent approach of federalism though, and has a lot to say for it.

In my state (NC) the same people who make a lot of "Federalism / State's Rights" noise also turn around and squash the autonomy of the more local governments at the same time. Ashville can't raise their minimum wage, Holly Springs can't turn on their community fiber they've already laid, coastal communities can't build wind turbines, Chapel Hill is not free to remove confederate statues, etc. The list never ends.

The observable actions of people who call themselves Federalists takes all the wind out of the sails of theoretical Federalism. It's obviously not about principles or a theory of good governance, it's obviously about consolidating power at the state level - and only the state level - because that's where conservatives think they can win. Those "liberal cities" get no power, their vote is gerrymandered away, and the rural conservatives pat themselves on the back for saving the country through "Federalism".

I also think this type of preemptive power is bullshit, and I don't think it was the way the federalism was intended to work. The more local the better. NYC should be able to ban large popcorns and San Francisco should be able to control rents (or whatever they want to do).

To me, the more local the better, and that is how I believe it was originally intended to work.

***

So what is the conservative answer?  I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it, but how would a conservative in Kentucky address the issue of parents in Alabama failing to give their children important information (whether through ignorance or neglect) that the lack of could very well cause them harm in the future?

Honestly, if conservatives would offer more local solutions I would probably be for them.  But without offering better solutions it just seems like conservatives want people to ignore the problem because they don't like the solution.  I understand the value of federalism, I don't understand letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think this goes to the great difference in empathy that conservatives and liberals have (there's a great NPR podcast on this).  I can't speak for a conservative in Kentucky, but I imagine their response would be something like, "Let them figure it out, it's not my responsibility."

***

You seem to want to define "social conservatives" as specifically being people who hold a certain collection of social values.

If that's your definition, then yes, they are always wrong.
Your definition is just tremendously narrow.

You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.

Thank you, Malkynn, for saying what I was trying to say in far less words.

My point to @GuitarStv and @sol -- I think it's an incredible intellectual dodge to read my post and reply with, "meh, that's fiscal liberalism." The bloating of the federal government reflected society and was driven by the progressive movement. It has now led to a structure that has federalized *social* issues that were never meant to be *federal* issues.

I am talking structure and process, not outcomes. And those structures and processes cannot logically, legally, or reasonably be divorced from the issues themselves.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #60 on: June 12, 2019, 12:11:07 PM »
Do you believe that support of LGBTQ is socially conservative?

Because if I'm reading you right, it sounds like what you're saying is that you identify as socially conservative, but don't follow social conservatism on the issue of LGBTQ rights.  Which is fine (and good for you) . . . but your example is notable because it's an exception and an area where you break with social conservatism.

It's more nuanced than simply being pro this or anti that. I support LGBTQ rights even though I submit to a different ethic because a core tenet of my faith is that *all* people are made in the image of the divine, and our highest calling is to love others in action. (I'll be the first to admit that many, though not all, American churches have failed to understand or live up to this, nor am I perfect in this respect - such is the process of living out one's faith). Therefore I have zero interest in anyone being denied human rights because I live differently, and want all people to be treated with dignity and in love. Is this a break with social conservatism? It depends how one draws the boundaries. If we choose to draw it around the most extreme elements then it's clearly a break. But the most extreme elements are, IMO, the minority opinion within a diverse set of beliefs, which could also be said for groups on the Left. So again, I come to the point of questioning the usefulness of painting in such broad strokes.

Right.  What you're doing sounds like a very reasonable way to discuss sex and sex education.  But again, I have to ask . . . would you describe that as being socially conservative?  Because I grew up in a pretty socially liberal household and that's how sex was always approached in our family.

In my view the core of social conservatism vs liberalism is a question of values, not methodology. Sure, on the extreme far-right you'll find anti-intellectuals and those who are essentially anti-sex or opposed to even talking about it. Our methodology is to engage with our kids and teach them as much as we can, but doing so within a conservative value. Of course it's up to them to decide how they live as they mature into adulthood, and we will love them unconditionally no matter their choices (as we like to tell them, there's nothing they can do to either increase or decrease our love for them), but we want to give them a framework for thinking about sexuality before they are thrown into a culture that is pervasive in its objectification of people.

So I have to ask a question...I suppose in a way turning your question back to you: Are you reluctant to admit you may have points of agreement with at least some social conservatives such that you're appropriating the overlap into your own sense of social identity?

If your scriptures say that the Earth was created in a few thousand years, they are empirically factually wrong.  If your scriptures say that God created each animal and no animal has changed since then, that's empirically wrong.  That's not cultural imperialism, it's proven fact.

That said, it doesn't mean that there is no value in the scriptures - the story telling and deciphering parables will obviously still hold tremendous value for answering moral questions or determining the best way to live your life.  But literal interpretation is obviously foolish.  Which makes sense . . . these books were written by fallible humans thousands of years ago, with the knowledge and understanding of fallible humans thousands of years ago.  Of course they will contain mistakes.  That doesn't mean that they're without value, but it does mean that you must interpret them with an understanding of the time that they were written.  Literal interpretation will make you look like a fool when you butt up against conflicting reality.

Yes, agree with the bold above. 3500 years in the future, assuming we haven't destroyed the earth, people will look back on our science and say "wow, they got it really wrong in so many ways" and they will be right to say we were empirically wrong. But I hope they are willing to grant us the understanding that we did the best with the information available instead of casting us off as irrelevant. It's the failure of many moderns (though not you specifically) to grant this grace to the ancients that is cultural imperialism. Yes, their science was wrong, in terms of their understanding of the cosmos and biology and geology and such. But that was not the purpose of their texts. They did not have the technological sophistication we have, but they were not dumb and were as intelligent as us moderns. A lower percentage of the ancient world was literate, but of those who were many were literary geniuses. They did not have TV or video games or other distractions, so they spent most of their time reading and writing. They authored, compiled, and edited writings over 1000+ years, expertly weaving together narrative, poetry, symbolism, design patterns, literary allusion, and culture references (Hebrew and the neighboring cultures). Its a collection of anthologies designed for a lifetime of meditation and reflection. I think part of the problem we modern's have with ancient texts is that we've lost our literary imagination so we approach subtle and complex multi-layered texts with a modern concrete brutalism that does great violence to the text. And so we say "bah, this is bullshit!" because we don't get the simple answers we expect from a people we wrongly assume were simpletons. I should add that believers and non-believers are both guilty of this, as I have been in the past and will continue to doing even as I peel back the layers of my own anachronistic projections.

So I read the creation accounts "literally" in the sense that these are a very specific genre of literature, namely ancient near east cosmology, which requires traveling to a different time and culture (including neighboring cultures) to interpret and understand the deeper truths within.

I agree that prohibition was a disaster, but so too was the blasé attitude about drugs in the 60-70s. While I have zero interest in prohibiting alcohol, I do support policies to reduce binge drinking and to limit the commercialism and advertising that encourages a lot of destructive behavior. It's not an either/or issue, and as a society we need to have discussions about the interleaving details.

This is a perfectly valid and reasonable stance to hold.  (And one that I hold myself.)  But social conservatism does appear to have largely given up on drinking right now . . . and is currently waging a war against drugs.  Particularly in the case of marijuana usage, I don't understand why social conservatives want to continue supporting the failed criminalization rules for this drug.

Nor do I see the point in trying to criminalize it. But before you suggest that I'm breaking with social conservatism :) I should add that I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I worry about the extremely high levels of THC in modern breeds of cannabis and what the long term effects are on the brain and, in the case of smoking, the lungs. So this is where I see the kernel of truth in conservatism on this issue, not their desire to criminalize it, but instead a push back on our headlong rush to promote a drug as harmless or even healthy (to be clear, there are probably some health benefits, but these things are never completely unambiguous). IMO, it would be prudent to legislate THC levels, maybe not back to 1980s levels, but maybe like 15% or even less.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 01:06:09 PM by FINate »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #61 on: June 12, 2019, 12:49:37 PM »
So what is the conservative answer?  I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it, but how would a conservative in Kentucky address the issue of parents in Alabama failing to give their children important information (whether through ignorance or neglect) that the lack of could very well cause them harm in the future?

Honestly, if conservatives would offer more local solutions I would probably be for them.  But without offering better solutions it just seems like conservatives want people to ignore the problem because they don't like the solution.  I understand the value of federalism, I don't understand letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think this goes to the great difference in empathy that conservatives and liberals have (there's a great NPR podcast on this).  I can't speak for a conservative in Kentucky, but I imagine their response would be something like, "Let them figure it out, it's not my responsibility."

That's pretty much the answer I expected and it's extremely disappointing to me every time I get it.  I want to think the best of my fellow Americans of all political persuasions, but I kind of think that not caring about the suffering of others is pretty much the one thing that makes a person a 'bad' person in my eyes.  I think that a lack of caring for others leads to negative effects for everyone on the individual and societal level.  I also think that calling that kind of behavior 'bad' or 'wrong' is a legitimate method of changing said behavior through social pressure.

Also, I know it's not my responsibility to care for others, I choose to care because it makes the world a better place.  It's also not my responsibility to care for others in Kentucky, others in my local community or even my own family but presumably a Kentucky conservative would still care about all of those people.

ETA:  More on point, I think this is where the caricature that you were speaking of comes from and is why I have a hard time arguing against it.  Because to liberals (and in actual effect), not caring about sex-ed (for the majority of Americans) is pretty much the same as anti-sex ed particularly when they are fighting against solutions (even if for a different reason).
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 03:00:13 PM by shenlong55 »

EricL

  • Guest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #62 on: June 12, 2019, 12:51:04 PM »
Yes. Lol

This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.

Yes, this isn't the best place to discuss these things.  I come here to discuss early retirement.

It is the place “Off Topic” is just that.  Sports, TV, politics, everything.  Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info. 

Social conservatives aren’t always wrong.  The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society.  Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting.  But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy.  Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show.  Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War.  Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”

If alcohol and tobacco were well worth resisting, why is that no longer the case?  They are no longer the target of the social conservative movement, so clearly something must have changed.

I also echo Psychstache 's comments and would like to know why you believe that allowing slavery in America to continue would have been better for society.

Jesus!  I can practically hear the outrage getting charged like a pump action shotgun. My  sympathies lie entirely with the slaves and the Union. If the US had more or less spontaneously freed all the slaves in, say 1855-60, it would’ve had no plan to deal with several million uneducated people hitting the bricks to go god knows where and doing god knows what to survive.  Many thousands would’ve starved. Some thousands would resort to crime. Some would be the victims of crime.  A few would’ve made it back to Africa and a lot would’ve been forced to utterly unprepared.  It would’ve been a disaster.  Many would be hired back onto plantations but at wages only marginally better than slavery and conditions that would mimic it.  Or gone up north to nearly as deplorable industrial jobs competing with European immigrant labor. The Irish fresh off the boat weren’t that racist but they were desperate.  A hard core racist protecting his privileges is bad enough.  But a marginal racist protecting their livelihood is Satanic.  It would’ve been a disaster.  But a manageable disaster.  Things would eventually have worked out by 1900 or so. We might have had a civil rights movement by 1930 or so. 

Instead social conservatives bogged the whole process so we got almost all of that plus the largest bloodiest war in US history. A shit show. 

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #63 on: June 12, 2019, 01:40:01 PM »

It is the place “Off Topic” is just that.  Sports, TV, politics, everything.  Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info. 

Social conservatives aren’t always wrong.  The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society.  Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting.  But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy.  Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show.  Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War.  Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”

If alcohol and tobacco were well worth resisting, why is that no longer the case?  They are no longer the target of the social conservative movement, so clearly something must have changed.

I also echo Psychstache 's comments and would like to know why you believe that allowing slavery in America to continue would have been better for society.

Jesus!  I can practically hear the outrage getting charged like a pump action shotgun. My  sympathies lie entirely with the slaves and the Union. If the US had more or less spontaneously freed all the slaves in, say 1855-60, it would’ve had no plan to deal with several million uneducated people hitting the bricks to go god knows where and doing god knows what to survive.  Many thousands would’ve starved. Some thousands would resort to crime. Some would be the victims of crime.  A few would’ve made it back to Africa and a lot would’ve been forced to utterly unprepared.  It would’ve been a disaster.  Many would be hired back onto plantations but at wages only marginally better than slavery and conditions that would mimic it.  Or gone up north to nearly as deplorable industrial jobs competing with European immigrant labor. The Irish fresh off the boat weren’t that racist but they were desperate.  A hard core racist protecting his privileges is bad enough.  But a marginal racist protecting their livelihood is Satanic.  It would’ve been a disaster.  But a manageable disaster.  Things would eventually have worked out by 1900 or so. We might have had a civil rights movement by 1930 or so. 

Instead social conservatives bogged the whole process so we got almost all of that plus the largest bloodiest war in US history. A shit show.

Wow, okay. I assumed misunderstanding on my part, but this comment certainly clarifies it.

I feel like I could right a book of a response, but I sense that we would just go round and round on this, so I'll simply leave it with, being both a passionate student of history and having the life experience of someone who has grown up and lived in the South their whole life, there is nothing that would leave me to believe that the bolded above is true.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 01:41:53 PM by Psychstache »

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2019, 01:53:49 PM »
@sol, there are many sincere conservatives who care strongly about their ideals. If you think they don't exist, you lack knowledge. Don't malign millions of people because your personal infobase is lacking. If you can't be bothered to meet any of them, at least take a peek at the nice TED talk linked in post 19, where the nice liberal discusses actual data on the subject.

(Hint: across multiple continents and cultures, conservatives sincerely hold 5 ideals; liberals consistently focus on 2 ideals; everybody agrees that the 2 liberal ideals are good; liberals and conservatives disagree about whether conservatives' other 3 ideals are good. But conservatives hold them sincerely.)

Painting "conservatives in general" as "pretending" about their ideals is the kind of broad brush dehumanizing that, as you have probably noticed, many politicians and manipulative political activists on the conservative side do about liberals. Please stop defaming all conservatives unjustly for the sins of some.

I'll grant you that the conservative movement politically these days has plenty of hypocrisy. But joining the slanderfest that is one of the common tactics on both sides these days isn't the way to break our current routine of being divided and frustrated. Let's be a little more accurate and fair.

I think the doubt comes from the widespread absences of the holders of these ideals when it comes to chosen representatives.

In my neck of the woods, I often focus on and participate in Republican primaries, because the reality is that in many parts of my hood, R primaries are essentially the general elections. Democrats either don't run a candidate or they are given no support and it is a fool's errand.

I sometimes see candidates that who, at least at a glance, seem to be like the more nuanced, thoughtful conservatives that you mention. You know what happens? They get obliterated on election day by a primary opponent who goes on and on about bathroom bills, welfare queens, and Roe v Wade. When given the choice, the conservatives in my area seem to prefer and promote the champions of bigotry to be their representative.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1032
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #65 on: June 12, 2019, 02:51:16 PM »



This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.

Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.



If you're interested in looking into  America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.

The title is taken  verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded   opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United states.
 

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes

Minnesota's own Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic (and presumably, a social conservative) was the lone dissenter. From wikipedia:

"Holmes believed that Butler's religion influenced his thinking in Buck, remarking that "Butler knows this is good law, I wonder whether he will have the courage to vote with us in spite of his religion."





EricL

  • Guest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #66 on: June 12, 2019, 02:58:58 PM »

It is the place “Off Topic” is just that.  Sports, TV, politics, everything.  Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info. 

Social conservatives aren’t always wrong.  The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society.  Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting.  But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy.  Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show.  Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War.  Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”

If alcohol and tobacco were well worth resisting, why is that no longer the case?  They are no longer the target of the social conservative movement, so clearly something must have changed.

I also echo Psychstache 's comments and would like to know why you believe that allowing slavery in America to continue would have been better for society.

Jesus!  I can practically hear the outrage getting charged like a pump action shotgun. My  sympathies lie entirely with the slaves and the Union. If the US had more or less spontaneously freed all the slaves in, say 1855-60, it would’ve had no plan to deal with several million uneducated people hitting the bricks to go god knows where and doing god knows what to survive.  Many thousands would’ve starved. Some thousands would resort to crime. Some would be the victims of crime.  A few would’ve made it back to Africa and a lot would’ve been forced to utterly unprepared.  It would’ve been a disaster.  Many would be hired back onto plantations but at wages only marginally better than slavery and conditions that would mimic it.  Or gone up north to nearly as deplorable industrial jobs competing with European immigrant labor. The Irish fresh off the boat weren’t that racist but they were desperate.  A hard core racist protecting his privileges is bad enough.  But a marginal racist protecting their livelihood is Satanic.  It would’ve been a disaster.  But a manageable disaster.  Things would eventually have worked out by 1900 or so. We might have had a civil rights movement by 1930 or so. 

Instead social conservatives bogged the whole process so we got almost all of that plus the largest bloodiest war in US history. A shit show.

Wow, okay. I assumed misunderstanding on my part, but this comment certainly clarifies it.

I feel like I could right a book of a response, but I sense that we would just go round and round on this, so I'll simply leave it with, being both a passionate student of history and having the life experience of someone who has grown up and lived in the South their whole life, there is nothing that would leave me to believe that the bolded above is true.

Conjectural history is conjectural.  I believe it may be possible but if there was any way to make it play out I wouldn’t bet money on it.  I’ve lived in the South too. 

I will say that civil rights in America isn’t as straightforward as people think.  There have been significant leaps forward but significant regression too over the years.  Abolition saw a lot of advances for black people that only to lapse once it ended.  From 1870 to 1887, 17 years, there were 15 black representatives elected to the federal government.  All from Southern states.  From 1889 to 1953, 44 years, there were 10.  None from Southern states. Most people would even say we’re in a regressive phase now.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #67 on: June 12, 2019, 06:33:38 PM »
Do you believe that support of LGBTQ is socially conservative?

Because if I'm reading you right, it sounds like what you're saying is that you identify as socially conservative, but don't follow social conservatism on the issue of LGBTQ rights.  Which is fine (and good for you) . . . but your example is notable because it's an exception and an area where you break with social conservatism.

It's more nuanced than simply being pro this or anti that. I support LGBTQ rights even though I submit to a different ethic because a core tenet of my faith is that *all* people are made in the image of the divine, and our highest calling is to love others in action. (I'll be the first to admit that many, though not all, American churches have failed to understand or live up to this, nor am I perfect in this respect - such is the process of living out one's faith). Therefore I have zero interest in anyone being denied human rights because I live differently, and want all people to be treated with dignity and in love. Is this a break with social conservatism? It depends how one draws the boundaries. If we choose to draw it around the most extreme elements then it's clearly a break. But the most extreme elements are, IMO, the minority opinion within a diverse set of beliefs, which could also be said for groups on the Left. So again, I come to the point of questioning the usefulness of painting in such broad strokes.

I'm not entirely following you on the nuance of this situation, so you draw the boundaries for me.

LGBTQ rights is a social issue.  Is support of LGBTQ rights a social conservative norm?  If so, how does social conservatism differ from social liberalism in your view?



Right.  What you're doing sounds like a very reasonable way to discuss sex and sex education.  But again, I have to ask . . . would you describe that as being socially conservative?  Because I grew up in a pretty socially liberal household and that's how sex was always approached in our family.

In my view the core of social conservatism vs liberalism is a question of values, not methodology. Sure, on the extreme far-right you'll find anti-intellectuals and those who are essentially anti-sex or opposed to even talking about it. Our methodology is to engage with our kids and teach them as much as we can, but doing so within a conservative value. Of course it's up to them to decide how they live as they mature into adulthood, and we will love them unconditionally no matter their choices (as we like to tell them, there's nothing they can do to either increase or decrease our love for them), but we want to give them a framework for thinking about sexuality before they are thrown into a culture that is pervasive in its objectification of people.

So I have to ask a question...I suppose in a way turning your question back to you: Are you reluctant to admit you may have points of agreement with at least some social conservatives such that you're appropriating the overlap into your own sense of social identity?

See, what you're saying all sounds very reasonable to me.  It all seems to be grounded in social liberalism as well.

Is your argument that teaching children sex ed and contraceptive use is a socially conservative thing to do?  If so, I have to ask again then . . . how does social conservatism differ from social liberalism in your view?



I agree that prohibition was a disaster, but so too was the blasé attitude about drugs in the 60-70s. While I have zero interest in prohibiting alcohol, I do support policies to reduce binge drinking and to limit the commercialism and advertising that encourages a lot of destructive behavior. It's not an either/or issue, and as a society we need to have discussions about the interleaving details.

This is a perfectly valid and reasonable stance to hold.  (And one that I hold myself.)  But social conservatism does appear to have largely given up on drinking right now . . . and is currently waging a war against drugs.  Particularly in the case of marijuana usage, I don't understand why social conservatives want to continue supporting the failed criminalization rules for this drug.

Nor do I see the point in trying to criminalize it. But before you suggest that I'm breaking with social conservatism :) I should add that I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I worry about the extremely high levels of THC in modern breeds of cannabis and what the long term effects are on the brain and, in the case of smoking, the lungs. So this is where I see the kernel of truth in conservatism on this issue, not their desire to criminalize it, but instead a push back on our headlong rush to promote a drug as harmless or even healthy (to be clear, there are probably some health benefits, but these things are never completely unambiguous). IMO, it would be prudent to legislate THC levels, maybe not back to 1980s levels, but maybe like 15% or even less.[/quote]

As a social conservative you believe that pot should be legal but under heavy government regulation?  Sounds reasonable.  But again . . . how does the social conservatism you follow differ from social liberalism?

The things you're advocating are all issues supported by social liberals.  So . . . I guess I'm asking . . . why do you believe that you're socially conservative?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #68 on: June 12, 2019, 06:48:23 PM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.

The problem you appear to be identifying is providing support to unwed mothers . . . by saying that unwed mothers tend to have impoverished households.

You're arguing that providing this minimal support costs more than it saves society.  Could you elaborate exactly how you came to this conclusion?  The chart provided seems unrelated.

Given the conclusion that you've made, can you explain what you believe the solution to the problem should be?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #69 on: June 13, 2019, 07:31:36 AM »
That's pretty much the answer I expected and it's extremely disappointing to me every time I get it.  I want to think the best of my fellow Americans of all political persuasions, but I kind of think that not caring about the suffering of others is pretty much the one thing that makes a person a 'bad' person in my eyes.  I think that a lack of caring for others leads to negative effects for everyone on the individual and societal level.  I also think that calling that kind of behavior 'bad' or 'wrong' is a legitimate method of changing said behavior through social pressure.

Also, I know it's not my responsibility to care for others, I choose to care because it makes the world a better place.  It's also not my responsibility to care for others in Kentucky, others in my local community or even my own family but presumably a Kentucky conservative would still care about all of those people.

ETA:  More on point, I think this is where the caricature that you were speaking of comes from and is why I have a hard time arguing against it.  Because to liberals (and in actual effect), not caring about sex-ed (for the majority of Americans) is pretty much the same as anti-sex ed particularly when they are fighting against solutions (even if for a different reason).

This is the podcast I was talking about and it's worth a listen: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654127241/nature-nurture-and-your-politics

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #70 on: June 13, 2019, 07:55:44 AM »



This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.

Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.



If you're interested in looking into  America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.

The title is taken  verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded   opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United states.
 

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes

I've done a fair amount of reading into this case (ending up kinda concerned that it still stands today in the US and has not been overturned).  I think that it's a valid demonstration of a time in the past that social conservatives were in the right.  Justice Holms was a socially liberal judge.  The concept of using eugenics to control human breeding was a social change that was (and still is) clearly evil.

I'd be happier if I could find a case where social conservatives were in the right in the past 50 - 60 years though, but that is clearly moving the goalposts.  :P

LaineyAZ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #71 on: June 13, 2019, 09:14:10 AM »
What's wearisome to me with social conservatism is the casual dismissal of facts vs. their own "beliefs."

Years ago I had a conversation with a co-worker who was very upset about gays being allowed to be Scout masters.  He was sure they were all pedophiles, and my pointing out that gay does not equal pedophile did nothing to change his mind.  Statistics, facts, anecdotes to the contrary meant nothing, and he was an educated, well-traveled, urbane man.

So my question:  if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy going forward? 

Related to this, Van Jones said that one of the reasons for the Dem's loss in 2016 is that the liberals and moderates dry, almost robotic recitation of facts instead of acknowledging the feelings of those who felt they were not being heard.  I disagreed somewhat with this as the cause (I mean, am I required to acknowledge someone's sexism as a valid feeling?) but I do admit that my left-brained mind gets fed up with voters who can't be bothered to educate themselves and just follow their unexamined ideas.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #72 on: June 13, 2019, 09:39:44 AM »
Years ago I had a conversation with a co-worker who was very upset about gays being allowed to be Scout masters.

The BSA finally lifted their ban on homosexual adults serving in leadership positions in 2015, but only in the face of an onslaught of lawsuits.  It wasn't a voluntary decision, and individual charter organizations that host troops can (and do) still prohibit homosexual adults from participating.  It's just not a national ban anymore.

Personally, I think the BSA's policies are still seriously fucked up in all kinds of ways.  For example, now that the program is co-ed (as of this February) units with female scouts are required to have at least one female adult at all functions but there is no such rule for units with male scouts.  Yet we've decided that it's totally fine for female adults to go into the woods with male scouts, but it's not okay for a male adults to go into the woods with female scouts.  I'm sensing a little women's privilege.

And don't even get me started on their position on agnostics and atheists, which is basically "fuck you".  BSA actively discriminates against people who refuse to accept magical fairy tales in favor the known scientific truth about the history of our planet.  They are a religious organization that receives direct federal funding, in violation of the establishment clause, but no one cares because atheists are one of those minorities it is still okay to hate.

And just in case anyone was unsure about how social conservativism plays a role in these backwards policy positions, I will point out that the Boy Scouts of America officially supported racially segregated units until 1974.  That's literally decades after Brown.

I'm an Eagle Scout.  I'm an adult leader in the scouting program, at multiple levels, because I believe in the benefits of the program for individual youths.  But their history and their national policy positions are all kinds of fucked up, and I totally understand why so many people hate them.  Change has to come from within, though, and they're never going to come around if everyone who disagrees with them just walks away and lets them do their own bigoted thing.  People inside have to stand up and object.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #73 on: June 13, 2019, 12:42:49 PM »
That's pretty much the answer I expected and it's extremely disappointing to me every time I get it.  I want to think the best of my fellow Americans of all political persuasions, but I kind of think that not caring about the suffering of others is pretty much the one thing that makes a person a 'bad' person in my eyes.  I think that a lack of caring for others leads to negative effects for everyone on the individual and societal level.  I also think that calling that kind of behavior 'bad' or 'wrong' is a legitimate method of changing said behavior through social pressure.

Also, I know it's not my responsibility to care for others, I choose to care because it makes the world a better place.  It's also not my responsibility to care for others in Kentucky, others in my local community or even my own family but presumably a Kentucky conservative would still care about all of those people.

ETA:  More on point, I think this is where the caricature that you were speaking of comes from and is why I have a hard time arguing against it.  Because to liberals (and in actual effect), not caring about sex-ed (for the majority of Americans) is pretty much the same as anti-sex ed particularly when they are fighting against solutions (even if for a different reason).

This is the podcast I was talking about and it's worth a listen: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654127241/nature-nurture-and-your-politics

That was an interesting podcast, but I don't think I can say it gave me any new information.  I understand that peoples worldviews are shaped by their genetics as well as their upbringing, but I aslo understand that even our most closely held ideas are ultimately change-able.  Hell, genetics is really just another word for "your ancestors upbringing".

I did notice that the person presenting the information seems to be biased.  Saying things like "liberals just don't get it" in reference to the Wayne LaPierre sound bite.  I mean, I can't speak for all liberals, but I get it.  I get that conservatives are more concerned about threats and I value their viewpoint for insights into how to protect against those threats.  But their proposed solutions often don't solve the problem that they are trying to solve and also come with significant negative side-effects that they seem to ignore.  They also seem to want to ignore the effects their words have on the world around them.  I get that Trump is afraid of ("bad") immigrants, but speaking about it in the way that he does perpetuates a negative stereotype that leads to negative life experiences for immigrants and citizens alike.  Ultimately, I'm all for addressing any real threats that conservatives are concerned about and maybe even some of their imagined threats so long as we can do so without harming others.  But the current incarnation of conservatism seems to be concerned mostly with imagined threats and only interested in solutions that are harmful to others.

Speaking of empathy, I also disagree with his assessment that a conservative having lower levels of activity in the S2 region of the brain when shown pictures of others in pain does not mean they are "hard-hearted".  I would venture a guess that that is actually the physical manifestation of what we would call empathy.  And I'll say again, I think a lack of empathy may be the one characteristic of human beings that I think is worthy of the labels "bad" or "wrong", especially when paired with actions that prevent others from expressing their empathy.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #74 on: June 13, 2019, 12:46:37 PM »



This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.

Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.



If you're interested in looking into  America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.

The title is taken  verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded   opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United states.
 

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes

I've done a fair amount of reading into this case (ending up kinda concerned that it still stands today in the US and has not been overturned).  I think that it's a valid demonstration of a time in the past that social conservatives were in the right.  Justice Holms was a socially liberal judge.  The concept of using eugenics to control human breeding was a social change that was (and still is) clearly evil.

I'd be happier if I could find a case where social conservatives were in the right in the past 50 - 60 years though, but that is clearly moving the goalposts.  :P

In Skinner v. Oklahoma(1942) the Supreme Court struck  down Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act.

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty." Justice Douglas

Post-Skinner, a constellation of   Supreme Court precedents resolved issues of the unalienable, individual liberties of  family matters such as marriage, procreation, contraception, and abortion. These post-Skinner precedents are undergirded by the rationale that fundamental liberties of family formation are exercised in a zone of autonomous privacy beyond the reach of the state. Let these precedents that reinforce the "basic liberty" of Skinner assuage your concern that Buck has not been explicitly overruled.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 01:04:26 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7024
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #75 on: June 13, 2019, 02:40:57 PM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.

Wow...um...okay...

That's just...wow...

Anyone else wanna take this?

Nope.

I had the same reaction as you.
not with a 10 foot pole

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #76 on: June 13, 2019, 03:27:35 PM »
I think the following gets to the meat of the matter, so I'll focus my response here...

The things you're advocating are all issues supported by social liberals.  So . . . I guess I'm asking . . . why do you believe that you're socially conservative?

I'm certainly not an orthodox social conservative nor am I an orthodox social liberal, which is one of the reasons I'm unaffiliated. But I live in an area that is very left-of-Left in its politics and praxis. So in my way of life, personal values, dress and faith, I stand out like a sore thumb. That's why I've always assumed that I'm socially conservative.

But this thread and your thoughtful responses have me thinking more about this. More specifically, what exactly is a social conservative? This is what Wikipedia has (which we all know is the final arbiter of Truth, LOL):

Quote
Social conservatism is the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.[1] This can include moral issues.[2] Social conservatism is generally skeptical of social change, and believes in maintaining the status quo concerning social issues such as family life, sexual relations, and patriotism.

If this is a reasonable definition for social conservative then it raises way more questions for me than answers. By this definition it seems largely a matter of how values are derived.

This would mean the left-of-Left community where I live is technically socially conservative even though its foundational values are quite different than would typically be thought of as "conservative."  I know this sounds strange, but it makes a certain sense to me. Whereas one group traces much of it's identity to post-war white nationalism, the other traces their roots mostly to the culture-wars of the 60s. Where I live the counter-culture has been the dominant force for at least 40 years now...it is the status quo and has been for a long time. So oddly, I see a lot of conservatism around here. The sacred symbols, institutions, patriotism, and values are different, but there's very much a sense of a need to uphold, or conserve, the culture. My guess is that this feeds into the NIMBYism here that has prioritized aesthetic concerns over the health and well being of people, which is counter to "traditional progressive" values.

I'm wondering again how useful these categories are in an increasingly polarized society where what I suspect is really being debated, though not openly, is the definition of things like 'harm' and 'liberty' and such.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 09:08:19 PM by FINate »

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #77 on: June 13, 2019, 05:45:36 PM »
all the things that they've opposed . . . immigration

Ignoring all the rest of the post, I'm not sure that social conservatives have always opposed immigration in North America. Immigration was wide open at the start of the US and largely unrestricted until after 1920.

Even today some religious and economic conservatives ague fervently in support of immigration. At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #78 on: June 13, 2019, 05:53:26 PM »
At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?

Fox News, apparently.

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #79 on: June 13, 2019, 05:55:20 PM »
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

There is a preponderance of evidence that living in a household with wedded parents is good for kids. It does not follow that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save. Specifically, the safety net programs do not exist for the parents. The safety net programs exists to keep their kids out of prison. For example WIC exists to make sure that their infant brain can get enough fat so that they aren't permanently mentally disabled. Other nutrition programs exists to make sure that malnourishment doesn't keep them for developing properly. This has obvious national security benefits on top of humanitarian ones.

To speak from my own personal experience, I received just enough social assistance in my unwed household to graduate from high school without ending up in prison. It costs ~$31k per year to house an inmate in the US. That's way more expensive than some school lunches, a little bit of pre-K education, and maybe some food stamps.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #80 on: June 14, 2019, 05:32:47 AM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.

The problem you appear to be identifying is providing support to unwed mothers . . . by saying that unwed mothers tend to have impoverished households.

You're arguing that providing this minimal support costs more than it saves society.  Could you elaborate exactly how you came to this conclusion?  The chart provided seems unrelated.

Given the conclusion that you've made, can you explain what you believe the solution to the problem should be?


Wording accompanying the graph says  "but two-thirds would escape poverty, research shows, if they were married to the fathers of their children."

Another analysis of the unwed mother-poverty nexus  puts the percentage of unwed mothers who are poor at ~70%.

I'm mindful that bias against  "the welfare state" may influence how data is selected and analyzed which is why I am not cemented  to the position that  safety-net subsidization of unwed mothers costs more than it saves.

Among convicted males, being reared  in single-parent households is common. Incarceration, the final phase of the criminal justice system is costly, another fact that inclines me to believe the safety-net policy  at issue may cost more than it saves.

Also, the percentage of unwed mothers that graduate from college is abysmally low.

As to a solution, the governmental provision of long-acting reversible contraception such as an IUD is proven to be markedly effective at preventing unplanned pregnancies among women who fail to assiduously practice birth control.

However, this solution is problematic because it will be opposed by many "social conservatives," an opposition that exactly supports your contention that they are usually wrong on social issues.

I am educable; I am a  willing pupil here.

All elucidation is welcome including that  affixed to the end of a ten-foot pole.










« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 04:38:04 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #81 on: June 15, 2019, 12:46:58 AM »
I am quite socially progressive.

I would advocate subsidising all abortions to the point where they are free. I figure if a woman does not want a child, it's better and more utilitarian all around to give her the easiest choice possible.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11719
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #82 on: June 15, 2019, 06:45:33 AM »
I am quite socially progressive.

I would advocate subsidising all abortions to the point where they are free. I figure if a woman does not want a child, it's better and more utilitarian all around to give her the easiest choice possible.

Basically they are (almost) free if you live in a country with universal healthcare.  Morning-after pill may be a separate cost.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #83 on: June 15, 2019, 06:58:02 AM »
I live in a country with universal healthcare and they still cost a few hundred bucks even after rebates.

We should make them entirely free, and we should give all women pamphlets and information about how to access abortions.

If you want to reduce your country's welfare bill and increase the welfare of your mothers, the best thing to do is to remove all political, financial and social obstacles to abortions.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3400
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #84 on: June 15, 2019, 10:36:06 AM »
I live in a country with universal healthcare and they still cost a few hundred bucks even after rebates.

We should make them entirely free, and we should give all women pamphlets and information about how to access abortions.

If you want to reduce your country's welfare bill and increase the welfare of your mothers, the best thing to do is to remove all political, financial and social obstacles to abortions.

Not really, although certainly some truth for some people sometimes.

The underclass in our country  largely choose to have children they cannot afford by our middle class standards. They largely choose to not marry baby daddies. Having children while young is endemic in their culture. It is the norm.

The book Promises I Can Keep, an in depth study of young single moms, opened my eyes to the huge gap in values between the chronically poor, made so by producing children while young, and middle class persons.

The post above yours talks about financial stability thru marriage. These young women in the study reserved marriage in their mind for when they were old and no longer, shall we say, juicy. They did not want a man controlling their lives, which us how they viewed marriage.

It is a fascinating book. It is based on academic study but is written for a more popular market. If I have time later I’ll post more from it.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11719
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #85 on: June 15, 2019, 02:24:44 PM »
Hmm, I don't know the figures for other countries but Stats Can is a mine of information for us:
Fertility rate by age group in 2016 (per thousand women):
15 to 19 years: 8.4
20 to 24 years: 37.6
25 to 29 years: 87.6
30 to 34 years: 107.6
35 to 39 years: 56.0
40 to 44 years: 11.5
45 to 49 years: 0.7

Our big shift is more women in their 40s and fewer women in their 20s are having babies.  I can see this in DD's friends, they are getting married in late 20s and having babies in their 30s.

I don't really pay attention to the data on unmarried mothers any more, since here (and noticeably in Quebec) many couples have children while living common-law.  In many provinces (certainly Ontario) the protection of children and property rights (i.e. splitting assets if the couple splits up) is pretty much the same for married and common-law.  So "unmarried mothers"  really needs to be looked at in more depth - are they truly unmarried in any sense of the word (i.e. father of the baby is not part of the household) or are they common-law (a family in every sense, except common-law instead of officially married).

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11719
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #86 on: June 15, 2019, 02:27:37 PM »
I live in a country with universal healthcare and they still cost a few hundred bucks even after rebates.

We should make them entirely free, and we should give all women pamphlets and information about how to access abortions.

If you want to reduce your country's welfare bill and increase the welfare of your mothers, the best thing to do is to remove all political, financial and social obstacles to abortions.

I agree.  In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility.  OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) covers the cost of medical and surgical abortions.  A private clinic may have additional charges. 

Every baby should be a wanted baby.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #87 on: June 15, 2019, 02:35:51 PM »
There was a fairly credible economics study that demonstrated that accessibility to abortion leads to a lower crime rate.   Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 02:41:46 PM by scottish »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #88 on: June 15, 2019, 04:11:44 PM »
Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?

Everyone?  I don't think that many people will argue that children that parents don't want are all that great for society.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2019, 04:28:18 PM »
There was a fairly credible economics study that demonstrated that accessibility to abortion leads to a lower crime rate.   Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?



While discussing the natural-law foundation  of a woman's  right to  choose abortion  with some staunch, anti-abortion Catholics  I asserted  the unwanted children-social pathology nexus, which, needless to say, received a chilly reception.


rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #90 on: June 15, 2019, 09:34:38 PM »


You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.


Agree.
 
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's  safety net.

I would think that on balance  safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.

I am educable.

Most of the evidence shows that parents want the best for their children.  Also, kids who grow up in households with adequate social supports - internal or external - are more likely to succeed in life and not repeat the pattern.  On the other  hand, demonizing and blaming people tends to marginalize them further, dramatically increasing the likelihood of further problems.

So if a single mom is working 18 hours/day to keep the lights on and the kids fed, she obviously isn't able to provide some of the  other parenting that children need.  If she is able to make ends meet on a regular full time job then she will be around for the kids.  Kids whose parents are around are more likely to succeed.

And absent fathers are another issue with a lot of complicating factors worth considering.  The USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, particularly for poor people and especially for poor black men.  A lot of that incarceration is because of excessively harsh punishments for otherwise minor crimes (many of which should not be crimes at all, i.e. marijuana possession).

I'd love to hear some empirical arguments against 'subsidizing' unwed mothers, rather than the classic 'welfare queen' straw people that usually come up.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2019, 09:48:03 AM »
...
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 10:42:15 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2019, 05:55:47 PM »
all the things that they've opposed . . . immigration

Ignoring all the rest of the post, I'm not sure that social conservatives have always opposed immigration in North America. Immigration was wide open at the start of the US and largely unrestricted until after 1920.

Even today some religious and economic conservatives ague fervently in support of immigration. At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?

I would argue that they were fine with immigration of the right sort of people (read: white, European). The Mexican Repatriation movement (which my grandparents barely escaped) and Chinese Exclusion Acts are illustrative.

jeninco

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Location: .... duh?
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2019, 09:08:51 PM »
all the things that they've opposed . . . immigration

Ignoring all the rest of the post, I'm not sure that social conservatives have always opposed immigration in North America. Immigration was wide open at the start of the US and largely unrestricted until after 1920.

Even today some religious and economic conservatives ague fervently in support of immigration. At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?

I would argue that they were fine with immigration of the right sort of people (read: white, European). The Mexican Repatriation movement (which my grandparents barely escaped) and Chinese Exclusion Acts are illustrative.

The RIGHT kind of European -- Italians and Irish and Slavs were not the right kind of white. And there were Jewish quotas, too, which was particularly horrible during WW2.

Then, we've got issues like Japanese Internment Camps, which were put into place after all the intelligence people said "we've got no worries about the patriotism of Japanese-Americans..."

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #94 on: June 17, 2019, 07:11:03 AM »
Jewish quotas (and a particular boat  full of jewish refugees who couldnt find a port to land at until a lot of them died) are big reasons Isreal was formed.

So FDR is a social conservative now?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #95 on: June 17, 2019, 07:41:21 AM »
Jewish quotas (and a particular boat  full of jewish refugees who couldnt find a port to land at until a lot of them died) are big reasons Isreal was formed.

So FDR is a social conservative now?

I wouldn't classify him as a social conservative generally.  The new deal was a pretty liberal idea.  He was socially conservative on immigration though.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #96 on: June 17, 2019, 05:34:34 PM »
There was a fairly credible economics study that demonstrated that accessibility to abortion leads to a lower crime rate.   Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?



While discussing the natural-law foundation  of a woman's  right to  choose abortion  with some staunch, anti-abortion Catholics  I asserted  the unwanted children-social pathology nexus, which, needless to say, received a chilly reception.

I can only imagine how they would feel if you had commented on  the prevalence of pederasty in the Catholic church...   

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #97 on: June 17, 2019, 09:56:57 PM »
I would argue that they were fine with immigration of the right sort of people (read: white, European). The Mexican Repatriation movement (which my grandparents barely escaped) and Chinese Exclusion Acts are illustrative.

The RIGHT kind of European -- Italians and Irish and Slavs were not the right kind of white. And there were Jewish quotas, too, which was particularly horrible during WW2.

Then, we've got issues like Japanese Internment Camps, which were put into place after all the intelligence people said "we've got no worries about the patriotism of Japanese-Americans..."

I wouldn't ague that the history of the US isn't a racist and ethnocentric one. However, to the best of my knowledge the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. For 106 years literally anyone could come in. Again, to the best of my knowledge the quotas mentioned weren't implemented until 1921 (or 1965, depending on the origin). The modern immigration system as we know it wasn't implemented until 1965 which, coincidentally, is when we started to restrict the flow of labor on the Mexican border. 1965

EDITed to add: further reading

EDIT2: my family came in in 1907, which is why I really care about this. We didn't have passports, we didn't have birth certificates, we didn't have backgrounds checks. We came through Ellis Island. That's just the way the world was almost everywhere in the western hemisphere. Before WWI you could walk across Europe without a passport and no one would stop you.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 10:09:01 PM by PDXTabs »

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #98 on: June 21, 2019, 11:28:42 AM »
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.

As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?

The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14326
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #99 on: June 21, 2019, 11:35:27 AM »
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.

As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?

The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.

What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?