Kinds of 'social conservatives'

[Machjo]

We often hear the phrase 'social conservative', but seldom is it clearly defined. So I decided to start this thread looking at various alternative terms we could use to distinguish between varied groups which until now seem to just be thrown under the same label of 'social conservative'. Among them could include (and none of these are necessarily exclusive):

1.Religionist conservative: intends to legislate religious laws. Obviously this can vary from religion to religion, and can even vary within the same religion depending on how one understands or interprets his sacred texts. Essentially a moralist conservative.

2. Scientific literalist: believes that science must not conflict with a literal interpretation of his sacred texts.

3. Religionist universalist conservative: similar to '1' above except also supports breaking down barriers between countries with regards to trade, tourism, immigration, travel, etc., either in a belief in the oneness of mankind as a religious principle or wants to simply promote closer ties between co-religionists from around the world. Such a person might even support world federation as a means to that end. He might also view nationalism to be in conflict with his religious faith, believe in that a choice must be made between the state and the worldwide religious community or, alternatively, between the wellbeing of his compatriots and mankind. He's also likely to be more focussed on religious laws as they are explicitely expressed in the sacred texts, while being quite liberal otherwise.

4. Secular social conservative: has a social conservative steak that stems more from nationalist, ethnicist, racialist or other secular traditional values, which may revolve around singing the national anthem in school or elsewhere, restricting immigration, imposing certain nationalist symbols be they a national language, script, holidays (which could include religious ones that have permeated the secular culture to a significant degree), etc.

5. Law-and-order conservative: sees the police, courts, and the prison system as the main way to enforce his social views.

6. Strategic social conservative: willing to consider the legalization of certain undesirable activities, likely in combination with alternative laws or government programmes aimed at combating that activity, not out of an intent to surrender to the activity, but rather as a temporary strategic retreat, if sufficinet evidence suggests that it might work.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that various persons who identify with one or more of the categories above would strongly oppose others of the categories above. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that persons who could fall into any of the categories above could be ideologically right, left, or centre ideologically.

I think the term 'social conservative' has been abused by both the right and the left as a vague catch-all phrase able to mean such a wide range of ideas as to be virtually meaningless. I think a new terminology would be preferable to distinguish between various kinds of so-called social-conservatives, many of whom are likely to disagree just as profoundly with one another as with anyone else.

I'm sure other categories of 'social conservative' could be mentioned too, but the ones above are among the ones that come into my mind at least.

[eyeball]

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not one.

By the way #6 sounds more like a Liberal who is afraid of being branded as a liberal, which makes them even worse in my opinion. I think their wishy-washy positions on things like pot for example only cause the country to swing a little more towards the law and order kind of conservatism with each and every swing.

Liberals retreat conservatives push...and society is basically being pushed and pulled towards who knows what? A police state maybe but most certainly a more controlling state that is dominated by conservative attitudes which I think really sucks.

Edited December 18, 2009 by eyeball

[Machjo]

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not one.

By the way #6 sounds more like a Liberal who is afraid of being branded as a liberal, which makes them even worse in my opinion. I think their wishy-washy positions on things like pot for example only cause the country to swing a little more towards the law and order kind of conservatism with each and every swing.

Liberals retreat conservatives push...and society is basically being pushed and pulled towards who knows what? A police state maybe but most certainly a more controlling state that is dominated by conservative attitudes which I think really sucks.

Thanks for your response, especially with regards to number 6. It clearly shows that it's not easy defining right and left, where number six could fall into either category. the Religionist universalist above I think would be a tough one to classify too. After all, his religious streak along with his support for freer trade would likely brand him a conservative, while his more liberal views on the movement of people across borders, such as immigraiton, travel, etc. woudl likely brand him a lefty.

To some degree, this thread is a spinoff from another thread I created asking why we like ot stereotype the right and the left. I figured this thread should help to highlight how the left-right division is excessively simplistic.

I'm sure we could probably create a similar thread on socialists for example. For example, I know of self-labelled 'socialist' who opposes labour unions, though he is in favour of more government funding for education, free universal education including post-secondary education, etc! Whether right or left, once a group is disected, it can reveal much greater complexity than many party hacks and ideologues can fathom.

In fact, I'm sure were likely to find many people in society to mix and match ideas from various ideologies.

[Riverwind]

A police state maybe but most certainly a more controlling state that is dominated by conservative attitudes which I think really sucks.

I get disgusted with the overbearing moralists on both sides of the spectrum.

[Machjo]

I would guess that categories 3 and 4 above, in various forms, are likely to be more common on the left of the religious spectrum. Some of the so-called 'religious left' would likely fall into category 3 in various forms thereof of course. And I've found many from categories 2 and 4 on the right, albeit with a different understanding of our national traditions of course.

Again, these are generalizations, but I think there is still a wide range of views among the so-called 'social conservatives'.

[eyeball]

With respect to the environment I've often wondered, what is it about conservation that conservatives don't seem to get? I would have thought that given the root of both words (conserve) that conservatives would be stronger on the environment than anyone. Perhaps the religious imperative to have dominion over the Earth trumped this.

Edited December 18, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

With respect to the environment I've often wondered, what is it about conservation that conservatives don't seem to get?

Environmentalists generally see humans as a disease and that nature unsullied by humans is a virtue in itself. The conservatives that you rail against see nature as a resource to the used and managed for the benefit of humans. That does not mean they support practices that cannot be sustained or that pollution is not a problem. It just means that it is not enough to say that any change to environment caused by humans is automatically bad. i.e. if damming a river to provide energy for humans happens to wipe out a fish species then so be it - there are lots of other fish out there. Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Machjo]

With respect to the environment I've often wondered, what is it about conservation that conservatives don't seem to get? I would have thought that given the root of both words (conserve) that conservatives would be stronger on the environment than anyone. Perhaps the religious imperative to have dominion over the Earth trumped this.

Perhaps. I rememebr reading that concern for the environment was in fact part and parcel of right wing nationalism historially. The Nazis placed much emphasis on maintaining a clean urban environment, picking up rubbish and putting it in its proper place, maintaining clean and sanitary cities (and even concentration camps to a surprising level considering the death rate and high population density in thoses camps), etc. Conservatives of the past also placed a high premium on personal, urban, and environmental cleanliness too, as a part of nationalism.

Even among non-political and non-partisan entities such as the boy scout movement, this emphasis for caring for the environment has been part of the movement since its inception.

So you are right, it would seem that this concern for the environment has simply shifted from the right to the left over the years, with exceptions of course.

There are still some on the right who've maintained that concern, and we will find some of them forming the right wing of Canada's green movement (the so-called blue-greens, to be distinguished from teh red-greens). And of course, we have some on the left (though a small minority now I'd imagine) who would still see the left to be about workers struggling against the management class in a proletariat revolution, focussed on controlling the means of production and paying little concern for the environment and perhaps even seeing the environment as a distraction from that labour struggle. So I'm sure there are various camps on both sides of the ideological spectrum there.

[Machjo]

Environmentalists generally see humans as a disease and that nature unsullied by humans is a virtue in itself. The conservatives that you rail against see nature as a resource to the used and managed for the benefit of humans. That does not mean they support practices that cannot be sustained or that pollution is not a problem. It just means that it is not enough to say that any change to environment caused by humans is automatically bad. i.e. if damming a river to provide energy for humans happens to wipe out a fish species then so be it - there are lots of other fish out there.

As for extreme environmentalists, I agree.

[eyeball]

Environmentalists generally see humans as a disease and that nature unsullied by humans is a virtue in itself.

Well, these are obviously people who are being unreasonable. I know a lot of people who call themselves environmentalists and I certainly wouldn't say this about them. I suspect David Suzuki would fall under your definition but from my perspective he's quite reasonable. He's one of the few environmentalists who have come out in support of the type of commercial fishing I engage in. To the folks at PETA David Suzuki is probably an ecological monster for supporting people like me.

The conservatives that you rail against see nature as a resource to the used and managed for the benefit of humans. That does not mean they support practices that cannot be sustained or that pollution is not a problem. It just means that it is not enough to say that any change to environment caused by humans is automatically bad. i.e. if damming a river to provide energy for humans happens to wipe out a fish species then so be it - there are lots of other fish out there.

You're quite sure about that? In my experience the type of people that would do what you're talking about almost universally declare their damming of rivers will NOT exterminate a species or run of fish. They will usually always swear up and down that their impacts will be inconsequential or otherwise mitigated. I've never seen DFO come right out and say "we're going to allow this dam to extinguish this run of salmon...never. They have NEVER been that honest. I don't exploit the type of fish that are affected by dams anymore but that said...

Consider the Bocaccio - soon to be listed under our Species At Risk Act. I caught five last year - 25 lbs out of about 500000 lbs of landed fish. Our entire fishery may have to close to preserve this species. So be it? As my landings indicate there are lots of other fish out there...right?

[Riverwind]

I know a lot of people who call themselves environmentalists and I certainly wouldn't say this about them. I suspect David Suzuki would fall under your definition but from my perspective he's quite reasonable.

You mean the guy who says supporting the oil sands is equivalent to supporting slavery?

I've never seen DFO come right out and say "we're going to allow this dam to extinguish this run of salmon...never. They have NEVER been that honest.

They probably believe what they say. But if, at the core, someone does not really care about being wrong then that will affect the activities they will support.

Consider the Bocaccio - soon to be listed under our Species At Risk Act. I caught five last year - 25 lbs out of about 500000 lbs of landed fish. Our entire fishery may have to close to preserve this species. So be it? As my landings indicate there are lots of other fish out there...right?

This is an example of unreasonable environmentalism. If primary fishery is sustainable shutting it down to save a fish of no commercial value makes no sense. Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

You mean the guy who says supporting the oil sands is equivalent to supporting slavery?

Apparently.

They probably believe what they say. But if, at the core, someone does not really care about being wrong then that will affect the activities they will support.

Please don't get me started on the scepticism/certainty ratios that surround DFO decisions.

This is an example of unreasonable environmentalism. If primary fishery is sustainable shutting it down to save a fish of no commercial value makes no sense.

Well don't be surprised if the same government that is determined to exempt the oil sands on economic grounds shuts us down in a New York minute regardless of the economic damage it will cause people.

[Riverwind]

Well don't be surprised if the same government that is determined to exempt the oil sands on economic grounds shuts us down in a New York minute regardless of the economic damage it will cause people.

To be fair the laws being used to shut you down were not passed by this government.

[eyeball]

To be fair the laws being used to shut you down were not passed by this government.

That won't stop them from using them and nor will they or many of their supporters relent in their moral imperative that I must somehow still carry my own weight in the world.

What kind of society is it that drives people crazy with this sort of Catch-22 - you must stop producing but you also must keep paying?

One that's probably run by wing-nuts I think. To be really unfair ALL governments seem to be prone to these and NONE seem to be immune from them.

[Riverwind]

That won't stop them from using them and nor will they or many of their supporters relent in their moral imperative that I must somehow still carry my own weight in the world.

Let's say the conservatives decided to change the law to limit what can be done to protect a 'species at risk'. Any bets on what the response would be from the other parties?

If you are looking for a sympathic politician you are most likely to find one in the CPC.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[blueblood]

That won't stop them from using them and nor will they or many of their supporters relent in their moral imperative that I must somehow still carry my own weight in the world.

What kind of society is it that drives people crazy with this sort of Catch-22 - you must stop producing but you also must keep paying?

One that's probably run by wing-nuts I think. To be really unfair ALL governments seem to be prone to these and NONE seem to be immune from them.

Are you aware of what happened to the bison industry in the 1800's?

This is what happens when people only harvest and don't replace. Simply harvesting less isn't going to do diddly squat.

The sooner that fish farms and aquaculture come in and put a stop to this ridiculous industry the better it is for everybody.

[Machjo]

Or here's a better idea. Go vegetarian and suddenly it doesn't matter what laws the government passes with regards to the fisheries. Whether the government allows fishing or not, I'm not contributing to it.

Whatever happened to individual initiative?

[eyeball]

Are you aware of what happened to the bison industry in the 1800's?

Sure, there was an unregulated slaughter.

This is what happens when people only harvest and don't replace. Simply harvesting less isn't going to do diddly squat.

This is also what happens when the government doesn't do its job. And sometimes you're right, simply harvesting less doesn't do squat. Sometimes you have to stop other people, like farmers or developers for example, from doing things that wreck fish habitat.

The sooner that fish farms and aquaculture come in and put a stop to this ridiculous industry the better it is for everybody.

No it isn't. Obviously you are unaware of the fact that it usually takes about 5 lbs of wild fish to produce 1 lb of farmed fish. Nowadays farmers are trying get around that by mixing ground up livestock offal into the feed. Mmmmmmm!

[Wild Bill]

Nowadays farmers are trying get around that by mixing ground up livestock offal into the feed. Mmmmmmm!

You must LOVE lobster!

[Pliny]

Are you aware of what happened to the bison industry in the 1800's?

This is what happens when people only harvest and don't replace. Simply harvesting less isn't going to do diddly squat.

The sooner that fish farms and aquaculture come in and put a stop to this ridiculous industry the better it is for everybody.

This is true.

I believe you are talking about private property here.

If Bisons had been private property, and society recognized the sanctity of private property, then there wouldn't have been a mass slaughter of them. The owners would not have allowed it and if government were doing it's job it would have protected their right of ownership, some may have totally depleted their stocks but we just have to look at whether or not cows are in danger of becoming extinct.

[Pliny]

As regards the OP, Social conservatives vary in the senses you illustrate. But the differences are the same as the differences in the left. From extreme to moderate and the more extreme they become, the more socialistic they become.

I hold conservative values myself but I am not about to enforce them on others by lobbying government to ensconce them in law for me and that is what infuriates me about socialists of the left or right variety. They feel the necessity to have their views ensconced in laws that everyone is subject to.

Politically speaking I am for limited government. As an individual I hold conservative values. I would get attacked from the left if I talked about my individual point of view more so than the right but if I talked about my political point of view I would get attacked from the right, left and centre, whatever they are considered to be.

It seems the concepts of small government and individual social responsibility have been relegated to the dustbin for the time being.

[Michael Hardner]

It seems the concepts of small government and individual social responsibility have been relegated to the dustbin for the time being.

I don't know about that. Aren't tax rates going down ? Doesn't that mean revenue for the government is going down per capita ?

[bloodyminded]

As regards the OP, Social conservatives vary in the senses you illustrate. But the differences are the same as the differences in the left. From extreme to moderate and the more extreme they become, the more socialistic they become.

You're right that the left varies in many ways, similar to the way social conservatives' differences are outlined here. (And the poster did point something to that effect out in his post). But I don't think it's the way you describe it. I think the OP is a more accurate assessment, if we wish to apply the same methods of discerning the left.

The left doesn't really go from moderate to extreme, so much as people can contain different aspects of what we often term leftism...and often mixed with qualities not generally considered leftism.

I don't mean that there aren't extremists...hell, an argument could be made that there are extremist moderates. As for extremist social cosnervatives, that goes without saying. So it is with the left.

But I think one of the points of the OP--and I agree with this--is that it's not a straight line, from "moderate left" (or "moderate conservative") to "extremist." It's far more complex and difficult to categorize.

Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

I don't know about that. Aren't tax rates going down ? Doesn't that mean revenue for the government is going down per capita ?

True.

The Conservative government under Harper has indeed attempted to lower taxes. I suspect Harper having roots in the Reform party is more about smaller government than we have seen in the last half century.

[Pliny]

But I think one of the points of the OP--and I agree with this--is that it's not a straight line, from "moderate left" (or "moderate conservative") to "extremist." It's far more complex and difficult to categorize.

I think politically it is a straight line. It is about Statism and big government.

It matters little what the ideology is, and I agree that may vary. It is not a straight line but could be all over the place. The single factor is that the more extreme the more they are inclined to use political and legislative force to impose themselves upon others. Growth of the State is a straight line - the direction may not be. Mussolini and Hitler were born out of leftist socialist ideology and became extreme rightists. The State under them, and as under Stalin, was supreme.