Conservatism – what it was and what it is

There is much debate these days about what conservatism really is (ironically enough with little or no references to what it was, but hey, we can’t have everything.) The most vocal amongst the masses tend to follow the line that there is such a thing as a true conservative, and those who just happen to have some conservative ideals. A true conservative apparently prescribes to all (or almost all) of the ideological beliefs of conservatism in all realms – fiscal, defense, immigration, and social. The first two have remained relatively the same for all of my life (with the notable exception of fiscal conservatism being thrown out the window during the previous administration), but the latter two have transformed to one extent or another over the years. The primary changes in ideology regarding immigration have been jumping from one side to the other on the isolationist fence – the pendulum swings, and at any given point there are some on both sides (consider isolationist conservatives doing battle with the Bush administration’s desire to create alien worker programs.) Social conservatism however, has arguably become the achilles heel of the GOP, and has grown to an extent that undoubtedly causes Barry Goldwater to roll in his grave at warp speed.

I’m not going to bore everyone by dragging out history texts – I have no desire to disturb the dust bunnies on my bookshelf, and bluntly, given the general lack of desire to even consider the history, exact names and dates probably won’t contribute to the situation. Besides, this isn’t about people or events – it is about political philosophy.

Social conservatism can claim its roots either in the 1950’s or the early 1970’s – pick your poison, because either or, it is academic. The current surge definitely traces its roots to the Reagan era – something that at least a few scientists involved in AIDS research will attest to, given the early mistakes that were made in the fight against that disease purely because of the classes of people who happened to be stricken first in U.S. (By the time AIDS – before it named as such – appeared in the U.S., there were already cases in France that crossed all the demographic lines being seen in the States.) Social conservatism in its worst form reared its ugly head in the fiscal policies of the Reagan administration because the general attitude was that reducing the gay or drug addicted populations wasn’t a “bad” thing – as if a disease would somehow “know” what sort of person it was infecting.

From that point on social conservatism became defined by agendas that broke completely with one old-fashioned conservative ideal – the right to privacy. Typically when legislators would suggest laws that force the masses to behave in a certain way “for their own protection” or “for the betterment of society”, they were referred to as “nanny laws” (that term no longer applies for social conservatives when it comes to their own suggestions.) Put simply, if it sounds like something your mother would tell you to do (or not to do), then it’s a nanny law, and by the old standards an invasion of privacy. Before the advent of trying to control the lives of the masses by legislating morality (something someone much wiser than myself said couldn’t be done), stating that one was a “social conservative” meant that one was against laws of entitlement (the Great Society, the New Deal, etc.). Now it means promoting laws of exclusion in the name of moral standards that are theoretically based in Christian teaching.

Hidden beneath all of the talk about sanctity of life, promoting abstinence, protecting marriage from gays, and all the rest of the hot button “social conservative” issues is a flagrant disregard for what conservatives used to hold dear – the right to privacy. Add the fact that it is buttressed by cherry-picking scriptures from the Bible, and it is an unconscionable situation. As a person who spent a fair amount of her life reading and studying the Bible, I find it particularly offensive primarily because that is not how it is meant to be taken. Literal interpretations are not appropriate, and given the high level of contradictions within the text itself, it is inappropriate to take any of it out of context as it is done now. There are even arguments amongst biblical scholars about the accuracy of various translations, and even the true meanings of many of the words – remember that it must be taken in the context of the time it was written, and bluntly, for many of the books, the Bible is one of the primary sources of written word for those eras (pretty hard to determine context and meaning with very little to compare it with).

Above anything else that I learned over the handful of times that I read the Bible cover to cover, I understood that Christianity was from the beginning meant to be a religion of inclusion. Love the sinner, not the sin. And finally, judgment is not the job of man.

Apparently social conservatives of today who are hell bent on legislating morality missed that part of the Bible – perhaps it’s a matter of them not seeing the forest for the trees since they have been so busy searching the text for passages to further their cause.

For the record, I am a social conservative, according to the definition offered by a previous generation. My moral health is my concern, and my neighbor’s moral health is his, period. I have no need or desire to control my neighbor’s actions beyond the standardly accepted social norms that forbid us all from causing physical harm to each other. Who my neighbor chooses to share his life with is of no importance to me – assuming that his choices do not impair my own, and that they do not include harming whomever he chooses as a partner. The value of my marriage would never be lessened by the marriage of another couple, regardless of gender. My covenant is between my husband and me and our God – not anyone else.

I want the right to choose to have my children learn about sex in school, and to preserve the rights of all parents to have that option. Sex is a difficult topic for many parents to discuss with their children, and bluntly, I would prefer to let the school tow the line on the facts of life from the biological end. It is my job to teach my children about the choices they have on the moral end, and I don’t want someone else doing it for me.

I recognize the fact that not everyone else agrees with me on the concept of abortion. My beliefs are no more important than anyone else’s in society, and because of that, I cannot abide by promoting legislation that would prohibit abortion. It is not my job to tell other people how to live (outside of my own children until they come of age.) I do not have the right to decide on behalf of others, and would not want anyone else to make those decisions for me.

And two things that have made many people accuse me of being a flaming liberal, I do not believe in the lost cause of trying to prevent drugs or prostitution. We have spent billions of dollars fighting a “war on drugs” to no avail, and trillions of dollars have been spent purchasing them with no taxation. The same goes for the “oldest profession” (there’s a reason why it is called that) – that could definitely do with a great deal of regulation to cut back on the spread of disease, and violence. Since we obviously can’t stop it, then we need to control it, and more importantly, tax it. Arguments have been made that it would lead to radically increased health care costs, and that probably would be the case at first. But it would also cause radical decreases in law enforcement, and there would be tax revenue. Now we pay for health care and law enforcement with no appreciable returns (outside of auctions of drug dealers’ property.) In case you’re wondering how in the world this could be a conservative ideal, remember fiscal conservatism promotes sensible governmental spending. There’s nothing “sensible” about spending money to stop something that can’t be stopped, or did we forget about the Prohibition era? Extremely high tax rates on the activities combined with regulation can’t be worse than what we have now. Let’s try fighting the battles we can win, shall we?

I do not believe it is the place of government to make intimate moral decisions for the people. Our founders sought to prevent that when they created the separation of Church and State. They recognized that people’s moral and religious lives must be kept sacred, and that the State has no business in those areas. What they didn’t foresee was the expansion of Christianity through various sects, or that those various sects would band together for common causes. They did not foresee that their prohibition had a loophole since it didn’t take into account many Churches with a common belief or cause working together. (I wonder what that amendment would look like if they had!)

That said, the social conservative movement in its current form is in my eyes nothing more than a group of individuals seeking to slip through that loophole, but still betraying the spirit of the amendment. It is not a moral high ground because it promotes hatred and intolerance – try to deny it, but railing against gays seeking legal recognition of their unions is nothing other than intolerance. I’ve said it many times that if people are so insecure in their beliefs that they find it necessary to seek legal protections for them, they don’t need new laws – they need to examine their own insecurities.

We have far too many problems that are of much greater importance than what social conservatives today are screaming about. Defending institutions, protecting the American way of life, or whatever else you want to call it is just grasping at straws. We can’t turn back time no matter how much we may like to – the sexual revolution happened, it changed the face of society, and continues to do so today. The best we can do is teach our own children about the values that we want to see survive the tide. If we don’t stop trying to force everyone else do the same, we may not have anything left to protect. Sorry, but getting our government out of debt, getting us out of the wars that we’re in sensibly, and rebuilding this country’s economy are far more important tasks. Solve those problems and then we’ll talk about trying to make everyone morally upright.