I am a conservative. That is something I find myself repeating fairly often, primarily because the definition of “conservatism” has evolved rather severely during my lifetime. Before I was born, the seeds of what is now the neo-conservative movement were sown, and have created something that bears very little resemblance to the previous forms of conservatism. I’ve been berated often for pointing out that the fascination with promoting socially conservative ideals is in direct contradiction with most (if not all) of the other conservative ideals out there.
Goldwater conservatism, the sort of conservatism I subscribe to, is nearly dead and buried. It has been replaced by a rabid desire to promote a morally upright society – who is defining what is “morally upright” remains up for debate, and for my purposes here, is meaningless. The bottom line remains that controlling the private lives of all Americans is the goal.
Respect for personal freedom is one of the first casualties in the neo-conservative war against the old values. They may scream opposition to that statement, claiming their desire to protect the rights of the people to bear arms, speak freely, etc., but those claims fall short in the face of their desire to control the most intimate parts of people’s lives. Anti-choice, anti-marriage-equality, anti-family-planning, and anti-comprehensive-sexual-education sentiments all stand against the previously sacred respect for personal freedom. I am regularly labeled progressive because instead of joining in their choruses demanding control, I stand on the principle that it is not my place to dictate what other people do with their personal lives.
Fiscal conservatism is the next casualty, since by the nature of the beast, legislating the actions of the people costs money. Someone must enforce the laws, and no one will do that without being paid, for one thing. Big government and high costs for programs are particularly relevant when considering the goals of the anti-choice movement. Today, Representative Mike Pence is bemoaning the loss of 50 million innocent lives since Roe. Admittedly, it is a bit cold, but I can’t help wondering what his tune would be if our population was increased by that number, with a fairly large number of those people on the rolls for public assistance. But that is the cold, hard reality. Women don’t choose to have abortions because they have stable home lives, good jobs, and no financial problems. Another cold reality one must consider is an increase in demand for child abuse protection services. It is unrealistic to think that there wouldn’t be a radical increase in abuse cases if abortion was no longer a legal option.
Selective respect for the Bill of Rights is the final issue I repeatedly see with the neo-conservative movement, particularly where the separation of church and state is concerned. I already wrote on this before, and only wish to point out that legislating morality is decidedly part of the crumbling wall between religion and state. This wouldn’t be an issue at all if the framers had used the term “religion” in the first place.
In 2004, William F. Buckley, Jr. tried to determine the motivations of Goldwater when it came to abortion. Analysis at this point is little more than Monday morning quarterbacking, and doesn’t change the fact that Goldwater parted ways with his contemporaries when it came to this issue. His reasoning could have been based on respect for privacy, fiscal concerns, respect for the ruling of the highest court, or a combination of all of the above. All of those reasons fit within what was conservatism. Personally, I prefer to think that Goldwater was not only a conservative, but also a pragmatist. Consequences for actions seemed to be of great importance to him. Perhaps he even realized that an unwanted child probably wouldn’t have a nice life.
The ideology of neo-conservatism and social conservatism largely ignores consequences, particularly where anti-choice sentiment is concerned. It is all about saving lives, but never addresses precisely what we are meant to do about them once they are saved. It ignores the very real consequences of increased poverty, orphans, child abuse, state support, homelessness, etc. But that’s just fine. Stop the “evil”, and let the next generation figure out how to pay for it, right?
Related posts:
Loading ...
Secured by
Follow Us!