 |
Hello:
If social conservatisim is so good, how do you explain its demise?
(First off, if you're going to say that it isn't demized, you should find some questions on the fantasy board to answer.)
Ok, maybe I'm not spelling it out well enough... How come there isn't a social conservative running for president? Or if there is, how come people don't like him?
excon
I don't know, maybe they're trying to appeal to the center instead of the far right. I would love to see a true social conservative run, but those days might be long gone.
Morning, ex.
You want to know what I REALLY think the answer is?
Fear.
Plain and simple.
I think that truly socially conservative people who are in a position to consider trying for a leadership spot are running FROM office instead of running FOR office.
They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their entire lives will be opened up for public scrutiny, and everything they've ever done will be exposed, both in and out of context.
Speaking ONLY for myself, I would never open myself up to that. I'm fully aware of the mistakes I've made, all the way up to the ones I made yesterday. As a Christian, I understand that perfection is a journey rather than a destination, and I'm well-acquainted with the boundless mercy and forgiveness that the Lord extends to me.
The American public, however, extends no such mercy or forgiveness.
I would hate to run as a social conservative only to be made out to be a hypocrite by my opponents.
Besides, if I REALLY want to make a positive difference in the world, there's about a thousand better places to do it than D.C.
DK
Hello Dennis:Quote:
Originally Posted by kindj
Nahhh. We've been diggin in the dirt for years now.
What I think it is, is that George Bush had his shot and ruined it for the rest - forever. Frankly, I think Bush did more HARM to social conservatism than he ever did to promote it.
excon
My thesis is that the moral structures that emerged from the Enlightenment were philosophically bound to fail. They were formed using the disordered and incoherent language while coming out of the Dark Ages where the Church had dismantled the natural sciences violently.
How could a new science ever regain what had been lost? How could the people recreate the vast tomes of knowledge that had been destroyed? The language of morality was in the same state of grave disorder as the language of natural science; it was the destruction of classical Greek morality amid the superstition and intellectual plundering of the Dark Ages of Western Europe that a 'New Conservatism' was built along side of Liberalism.
Do you think that James Dobson is the arbiter of what social conservatism is ?
My quick answer is that his is a single issue advocate and that social conservative issues are well represented by the candidates in this election .That no candidate is willing to lock themselves into a series of litmus tests that Dobson administers is a positive. His special interests have always been but one constituency to be courted .
Yes if he peeled off from the Republicans then they most likely would lose. But that was also true in 1992 when some special interest economic isolationists followed Ross Perot and helped elect Bubba ;or when blue collar Democrats joined the Reagan camp. Dobson like Perot is huffing and puffing on an ego trip that like Ralph Nader's in 2000 can only cause trouble for the party ;but without achieving any real meaningful change and in fact ultimately hurt their cause.
The way I see it Rudy has the right answer to Dobson. The only impact that the President can have on issues like abortion or the marriage amendment is who they appoint to SCOTUS and the other Federal Courts. Rudy has already said he would appoint originalists . So it matters little if Rudy is pro-life or pro-choice. Dobson should get his head out of his butt and realize that is the best he can achieve. Pro-life Reagan GHW Bush and GW Bush did not prevent a single abortion because they could not.
As to your basic contention that social conservatism has met it's demise ;I point to national polling on the issue of abortion as but one marker. For 30 years Gallup has asked Americans whether they think abortion should never be permitted, should always be permitted, or should sometimes be permitted. The results ave not changed since 1975. That give us no reason to think that opposition to abortion has lost political power, or is likely to do so. That base will always be there for political parties to court .
But so are many other issues of concern.
The biggest challenge I think for the Republican Party will be to hold on to the economic conservatives .It is those more than any other group the Republicans took for granted and did not live up to their principles.
Being a fiscal conservative rather than a social one, I am going to guess that social conservatism is on the downward spiral because it promotes responsibility and moral behavior.
Our society today is all about pushing responsibility on someone else (see the thread about the drunk driver trying to blame the bar, for example) and living for the moment and doing what feels good (see the myriad of mistress threads) rather than considering the chaos it brings.
Few people want to hear: work hard, raise your children, save your money, eat right and exercise.
Most people would rather hear: live for today, east dessert first, the government will take care of it.
Hello tom:
Actually, I wasn't referring to any specific guy or event. But, Dobson is representative of the rest. And, even if he isn't, the "family values" philosophy, and the political movement that spawned it - or resulted from it, even though it is alive and well on this board, is for all practical purposes, dead.
excon
I don't think so ;or at least I think from a social conservative view that life issues will sustain a movement . Things like marriage will be resolved ultimately by compromise. I still say it is the defection of the fiscal conservative from the Republican base that should be ringing bells of warning to the party.
There are so-called Social Conservatives running for President in the Republican Party. One is Gov. Huckabee who is polling pretty well for a candidate with little money. There are several others without well known names, but I don't want to give them any pub. :)
America is 86% declared Christians yet, the divorce rate is over 50%. I think that tells it all as far as social conservatism in America is concerned. Divorce ruins more children than any one thing in America.
Social Conservatism is dead in America, BUT TALKING ABOUT IT AND LYING IS NOT DEAD. :) Hypocrisy is not just a river in Texas!!
It's been the same for years; one camp poses as the party of responsibility, lamenting the decadence of culture and the loss of traditional morality. The other side poses as the army of liberation, lamenting Puritanism, repression and the menace of the religious right….
But that's all changing…Teenage pregnancy rates have declined by about a third over the past 15 years. Teenage birth and abortion rates have dropped just as much.
Young people are waiting longer to have sex. The percentage of 15-year-olds who have had sex has dropped significantly. Among 13-year-olds, the percentage has dropped even more.
They are also having fewer partners. The number of high schoolers who even report having four or more sexual partners during their lives has declined by about a quarter. Half of all high school boys now say they are virgins, up from 39 percent in 1990.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't mean to infer that there isn't a socially conservative constituency - only that it's leaderless.
excon
The problem with trying to identify a "Social Conservative" in this day and age, least of all a leader, is that the 'True Social Conservative' movement has been co-opted by the 'Religious Right'.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Social Conservatism isn't about picketing abortion clinics.
It isn't about picketing the funerals of US Soldiers.
It isn't about beating the war drums in far off places.
It isn't about creating monumental roadblocks to access to entitlement programs a person has spent 3/4 of their life paying into.
Nor is it about denying basic health care to the most vulnerable members of society.
Today's definition bears no resemblance whatsoever to the definition espoused and envisioned by the movements progenitors.
The movement promulgated by the likes of Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke has been completely co-opted, much to my sorrow, by the Religious Right.
I say everybody dissatisfied with the Dem AND Rep choices should ban together and vote for Ron Paul then maybe our government would wake up and take us serious! As long as we pit ourselves against each other with the two choices they give us they are content to keep THEIR political game going as always with us really having no say!
Any vote for Ron Paul would be a vote for Hillary . The Ross Perot candidacy is what got us the Clintons in the first place.
Is that fact?About teen pregnancies etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
In my community the problem is just beginning...
And I see it escalating in the future.
I don’t believe those numbers either. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
In fact, the media is so controlled by government I don’t know what to believe.
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Huh?? I've heard some of your wacky stuff, but this is really waaaayyy out there.
excon
Read the article, Wag the Dog…and enjoy the philosophy site…there is even a forum:)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Wag the Dog
Tom;
I heard a little bit of Dobson on Hannity. He stated he could not be true to himself, or compromise his own values, by endorsing a candidate who did not have share his views on certain issues.
I have to respect him on that.
Grace and Peace
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM. |