Redefining Social Conservativism: Why I am reconsidering the Issue

The Oath of the New Social Conservative, the ACTUAL Compassionate Conservative: I have no preconceived notions that men and women are perfect, or ever will be. But I believe that as a man under God’s command, it is my duty and responsibility to hold myself and fellow believers to set a standards that Christ called us to.

Why am I ranting on this?
The standards I prescribe to, these standards of Social Conservatism, force us to act in certain manners, and call us to hold other men and women to such actions, because they are for the benefit of all mankind, not just ourselves. We give in charity, and in service, not because its easy or convenient, but because we feel a calling to act better than we did yesterday. We are human, we are finite. But we believe that we can reach out and touch infinity, and by daring to change ourselves for the better, we dare to improve society. A failure to change daily for your own betterment is a failure to live life to its fullest.

All that Pesky Nationalism is riling me up!
When you call on Morality as a National Value, I will force you to hold that ground or cede. No Government can hold a Morality as a National Value, at best a Society can, and even then it relies on the individual people buying into the Value Set. If we no longer as the American Society care to be Christian, fine. But if we dare to call ourselves the Greatest Nation on the Earth, we must act for the benefit of those who are not Great, and we must make sure they have an opportunity for greatness when we finally dissolve. All things are to pass away, it’s on us to make sure that humanity itself does not go extinct. It is in fact Christian to be human and love your fellow man, but it should transcend religion to do so.

It should be not considered insane to rage against the dying of the light. The Compassionate Conservative does not force his will on his fellow man, but instead turns to his fellow man tells him, “when you call on me, I will endeavor to arrive.” I am tied to this. If this be the pathway of Social Conservatism, then I think it can survive.

We who are Social Conservatives bear a banner muddled by brethren and enemies alike. But that doesn’t make the banner worthless, no it makes it stronger because we still rally to it. It is the banner of Love, Loyalty, and Courage. Love of life and Mankind, Loyalty to God and Country, and Courage to Change and Admit our Failures. We bear the burden of Personal Morality and Responsibility. Not one that is imposed on society, but one we impose on ourselves by choice and faith.

Why am I really angry?
I have long sought a way to rectify my personal values and my desire to avoid institutionalizing those values on society. I just feel dirty by the concept that I would do so, because I know that I am incapable of holding myself to my own morality consistently, let alone another 320 million people. As we have seen in recent weeks, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I have heard some use Conservatism as a calling point to call for prejudice against all non-Christians, non-whites, and non-Americans. Conservatives do not police the people like that, Fascists and Nationalists do. Conservatives hate the idea of prejudice against their fellow man because it gives you less incentive to buy into the society and state, which foments instability.

In essence, any time you see someone use Conservatism or God’s name in vain to insult and hate on another demographic of America, they are not Conservatives. They are Social Rightists who seek to impose their version of Paradise on the rest of us, either by law as they have done in Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, or by gunpoint as they did in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, and still in Iran and North Korea today. Social Rightists are looking to blame someone for all their problems and declare that one person is bad and its all their fault. They seek to justify their hatred and killing instinct by some manifest calling or destiny of supremacy. Whether good intentioned or not, they are all callers for regressive traditionalism and stagnation of society for the sake of their collective security comfort.

Boko Haram
Social Conservatives do not operate in this wonderland that the Social Rightists do. We recognize that no law or action can ever guarantee a plan, but if we maximize our efforts and encourage public support and will for the cause, then the cause may actually go forward with something useful. Social Conservatives want to stop the violence in Nigeria by Boko Haram, not because its “simply terrorism and terrorism is bad.” Terrorism is a tool of evil, not an evil directly unto itself. Terrorism requires a victim and a perpetrator, and the dilemma is that the victim is unable to stop the perpetrator in Nigeria. Social Conservatives would recognize that there is a specific calling on America to provide the vital resources for Nigeria to alleviate this dire threat. That doesn’t mean boots on the ground, make Nigeria “Liberia 2.0”, or “Little America.” Instead, what it means is putting together plans with local forces and with the military to eliminate their threats, secure safe zones for citizens, food and water distribution due to the damaged or lacking infrastructure, and training their green or new forces in guerrilla warfare so they can fight and win their own war.

Comprehensive Aid to the Fight against Boko Haram will require large manpower, material, and money reserves for sure. But I would predict no greater than the expenditures of Foreign Aid already, and nowhere near the ridiculous burden we gave ourselves in Iraq in Gulf War 2.0 Speaking of Which

With regard to ISIS, the dilemma is the same. Local forces lack the will or capability to effectively defend themselves. So what Americans should and have been called on to do by the Iraqi, and Kurdish governments is provide economic aid to their governments to secure and pay for rebuilding of vital infrastructure, and provide relief to besieged settlements across the countryside. We as a Nation were burdened by the mistress of convenience to aid the Warsaw Uprising in 1944, but in this day and hour, it’s incredibly easy to provide light and heavy munition drops, food runs, and water provisions. We can train and give advice on how to win the counter-insurgency effort, and we can help Iraq fix itself and the same with Kurdistan.

Which brings up the unpleasant subject of Yemen, Obama’s “Yemeni Freedom” War
When someone says Yemen, until this week, most people would have said probably “Did you say yellow? Yeoman, like the Star Trek position?” And I would have sighed and grumbled about uneducated lots. But this week, rebels stormed the Presidential Palace and tried to establish a coup. WHY? Because a few years ago, at the beginning of the administration’s tenure, they were approached by the Saudis about how bad the current President of Yemen was. He was a corrupt jerk in most regards, but kept the country stable as best as was possible. The administration didn’t like his ruthlessness, and so we aided the Saudis and “revolutionary” forces in staging a coup and electing a different President, one who would tow the American line. Now in 2015, Yemen has Al-Qaeda operating in it, the former President’s loyalist forces, and the situation highlights how vile Americanism can be when we forget that there are other cultures, religions, and societies other than our own.

Why this matters
These days, Neo Conservatives as the Bush administration’s friends call themselves, say they are Social Conservatives. At best they are LIberals who were mugged by reality, but cannot stop believing that they are correct. So they combine the danger of the Military Complex of Conservatism, with the irrationality of Supremacy Complex rampant in Liberalism. The combination creates a toxic form of political ideology in which dissent is discouraged or made illegal, and consent is won by fear and propagation of danger threats. Social Rightists are much like Neo-Cons, but lack all the American Supremacy of Intelligence and replace it with American Supremacy via America. Rather than Intellectualism creating Empire, its Nationalism creating Empire. The two are great for expanding expenses and creating null scenarios where the best objective is ‘not Failure.’

It is unfortunately to hear radio, TV, and read the internet in how it tells us Conservatives we hate people and we are too patriotic to care. The reality is we love people and are caring because of patriotism. But we are only action-oriented to those who make appeals. We require the justification of consent, and once given, we give all we can to repair an ally in serious crisis. I am not calling on the President to be Unilateral and begin a war for no solid reason. But Right to Protect is a solid enough reason for Afghanistan, and now Iraq today. Knowing we must trust our allies with the tools to save themselves, why should we true Conservatives oppose giving them the tools to succeed. We as Conservatives should want to avoid spending as much as possible, so why not sell our “decrepit and outdated” machines to the Kurds for pennies like we do with ships. How about giving grants to purchases war materials from us for the Kurds and Iraqis. Perhaps its time we realize that if we aren’t providing the tools for other states to become the City on the Hill like ours, no wonder we are the only city on this Hill or for that matter, any serious hill around us.

It is acceptable to be a Social Conservative again, but only if you advocate a personal morality, not one you would force on society, like a parent to a child. You cannot beat morality into a child, all you can do is give the example, and pray they follow it. Otherwise, the child might as well not grow up at all. AND GOD KNOWS WE ALREADY HAVE A BUNCH OF WHINERS AND NON-ADULTS.


2 thoughts on “Redefining Social Conservativism: Why I am reconsidering the Issue

  1. What I would and should specify is that not every Social Conservative I meet is Category B, or the Social Rightist. I have met Category A, the Compassionate Conservative, in my hometown, within my church.

    I like personally fighting a war of words, and there is some danger in taking Compassionate Conservative as the Bush administration used it to precipitate Neo-Conservative operations in Iraq.

    Actually Charles Krauthammer, a self-described Neo-Conservative at one point, came up with the “liberals mugged by reality” to explain how he went from Liberal Interventionism to support Republicans like Reagan and Bush I & II.

    Social Progressives have always been Wilsonian Liberals to me, because he was the first Progressive candidate, and may be the only one right now. He was vehemently opposed to Wall Street, loved and fought for high education, and sought to put America in a role of mediation and cooperation with the world through charity and goodwill, rather than military force and presence. IF a Progressive embraces that legacy, that’s what I would call them. The Progressive I hear on TV today though brings up European Socialism, or the Social Democracy a lot. I think Social Democrats can have some cooperation with Compassionate Conservatives, but they hit odds when dealing with government or their personal interactions. Whereas a Wilsonian Progressive would love the Compassionate Conservative, and would just wish they would drop their guns and go to school.

    The crux of the issue really depends on how far you want the government to intervene and the role you see America fulfilling. Wilson thought America should be in the world doing things and helping people. Carter and his Democrat followers saw America’s role as one of being out of the world for fear of messing it up.

    The question I see lying here is the difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Warren represents more of that Social Democrat avenue of thinking, while Bill (and sometimes HIllary) represent the WIlsonian Democrat ideal. Republicans liked Bill and worked with him on a lot of international issues. The same could happen for Hillary if she continues to pursue that Mellioristic and Goodwill-based legacy.


  2. As you know, I consider myself a Social Conservative. I believe in a lot of what you defined for the term. I believe we should help where we can but I always go back to the phrase, “teach a man to fish” vs. “give him fish”. You’re right, we could sell our outdated equipment to nations in need in a way that gives them independence of having to tow our lines. We do need to do something in Nigeria about Boko Harum but the people there have to want that change as much as we do. I want government out of as much of people’s personal lives as possible without giving in to anarchy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s