What is a Social Conservative?

The term "Social Conservative" gets used quite a lot these days. You might even say it's used quite liberally. Republican candidates for the presidency unblinkingly refer to themselves as such, as if being fiscally conservative and/or a war hawk wasn't enough to get elected.

I think we all understand what social conservatives are against. Those of us who don't identify with that mindset have trouble understanding what they're for, except as a reaction against that which they don't like. (And that was probably an unfair statement. Sorry, it was based on the perception that comes to me through my own particular reality tunnel.)

So, my question: How do Social Conservatives themselves define the term? What is a "social conservative," and, more importantly perhaps, what's their motivation? (For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to leave the issue of abortion on the sidelines.)

Apropos of that question, I've always found this to be useful gauge for understanding one's political philosophy:

What statement do you agree with --
That which is not permitted is forbidden; or,
That which is not forbidden is permitted.

It seems to me that social conservatives and their counterparts (Libertarians?) or bound to agree with one or the other pretty strongly.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses!

Baack

I'm a lifelong Republican. Until about 2002, I considered myself to be conservative Republican.

What made me a CR?

I supported the 2nd ammendment

fiscal conservatism (balanced budget)

opposed quotas

supported a strong national defense (served in the US Army)

law and order/pro death penalty

anti-illegal immigration

anti-nation building

I no longer consider myself to be a conservative Republican. Things are not black and white. I now view things in a more progressive way.

What I did not say was that many social conservatives believe that:

homosexuality is an abomination

abortion is an abomination

That there should be no wall between church and state.

a social conservative:

well, just look at the words
someone who believes the current social system is good and should be conserved.

people for the continuation of the white christian male power structure (like bill o'reilly and john mccain)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

people for the continuation of the white christian male power structure (like bill o'reilly and john mccain)

John McCain is not a social conservative. He's all over the map. A political whore, sadly; no different than Bill or Hillary Clinton.

As a conservative Republican;

A social conservative believes the 'nuclear' family is the best scenerio for raising children. That is a child needs a mommy and a daddy.

I dont think abortion has anything to do with 'social' issues. Its life/death kill/dont kill. I always thought it to be very funny when someone would be against abortion but support the death penalty. I dont know how exactly they work that out. That being said I dont like the death penalty. Id prefer life with hard labor.

I dont think homosexuality is an abomination. I couldnt possibly care less where you stick your pecker. But I will tell you that I dont think its best for the child if you choose to adopt. The acceptance of such a situation is very relative as in a kid with 2 dads in San Fran may not have as hard a time adjusting as a kid with 2 dads in Idaho. No law will change that. I wouldnt ever support a law banning homosexuality or the marriage of homosexuals. Passing laws and banning things are directly contrary to conservitism. Though not contrary to the theism so many think of when they hear 'conservative.' I cant begin to tell you how much that pisses me off.

I believe affirmative action is discrimination based on race. Is it not?

Beyond 'social' aspects I dislike any foreign involvement by this country. I am against open border policies, free trade policies, and other policies that will contribute to the weakening of America in the name of globalization.

I think if junkies want to kill themselves they should be allowed to and it shouldnt cost the taxpayer a thing. That means no publicly funded clinics, rehabs, drunk tanks etc... let them die under a bridge if they want.

Any intrusion into peoples private lives is an afront to liberty.

Ill never give up my guns. Every single one of us should be armed. Yes, even the crazy people.

I believe in a seperation between military and politics. We cant turn back time and undo the Iraq invasion but I wholly believe the situation wouldnt be nearly as messy if we just let the military do what it had to do and ended Washington interference.

There is a big difference between what conservatism is supposed to be (Reagan, Goldwater) and what it has become both in reality and popular opinion. I imagine the same has happened with liberalism as well.

If you trace both liberalism and conservatism back you'll notice they flip on issues, contradict themselves, cross over in odd places and are inconsistent all over the place. This is why I believe we need to look upon the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Without some anchor this country would have ripped itself apart a long time ago. Ironicaly, without Lincoln behaving very non-conservatively this nation would have been ripped apart long ago. What he did was federalism all the way. An obvious contradiction to conservativism. I really hate him for that.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
As a conservative Republican;
(very thoughtful and well-reasoned stuff snipped)
.... Passing laws and banning things are directly contrary to conservitism.

Thank you! I like the cut of your gibberish.

Robert Anton Wilson once observed that one could go from being a conservative to being a liberal in 20 years without changing a single idea. Your above-quoted statement would, I think, be castigated as a "liberal" philosophy by a self-styled "social conservative." In actuality, of course, it reflects a viewpoint of true conservatism, with its quite benign attitude of live-and-let-live and MYOB. (Or, as I put it in my original post, "that which is not forbidden is permitted.")

What drives the nanny-staters? Where does the motivation to ban things come from?

In the words of Butch and Sundance, "Who are those guys?"

Baack

Originally posted by Baack

What drives the nanny-staters? Where does the motivation to ban things come from?

In the words of Butch and Sundance, "Who are those guys?"

Baack

At some point American politicians realized mankind is petty. There's always sombody who's self righteous enough and narcissitic enough to believe he has some great obligation to impose his will. You see this with 'liberals' trying to take my guns away and telling me I have to wear a seatbelt. You also see this in 'conservatives' who cant stop assaulting homosexuality.

So, politicians have worked realy hard to create nice and deep divides along idiotic issues like these and its worked well to keep the people distracted. Rather than the people standing with liberty against tyranny we see the people at each others throats to impose their will on their own kind. One group pushes to legislate simply to feel some satisfaction or 'win' against another group. In response a counter legislation is pushed to stifle back.

Before we know it none of us will be free to do anything and we'll all be blaming each other while government laughs and laughs while couting their tax revenues.

Its never a good thing to limit freedoms. Even temporarily. Can anyone think of a temporary law that actually expired? Social Security Insurance was supposed to be temporary. The Income Tax was supposed to be temporary. The Patriot Act was supposed to be temporary. I know the PA is still set to expire but if it isnt directly renewed you'll see it spread out over other bills to be made permanent. I guarantee it.

The only thing I can think of that was really temporary was Clinton's assault weapons ban. Im sure that only expired because it was poorly written legislation and our citizens outnumber our armed forces over 100 to 1. Try and round up our guns. C'mon.

The theist conservatives wont win anything if gay marriage is banned and the liberals wont win anything is guns are banned. Only tyrants win when things are banned. At the risk of sounding like a zealot, God doesnt want anything banned. God wants liberty. The choices we make within that liberty are how we will be judged. And if you dont believe that so be it. You're free as a bird not to and nobody should ever tell you or legislate you otherwise.

[edit]It just occured to me I've heard alot of theist-conservatives say things like "How will we be judged as a nation?" or "How will we be judged as a people?" This is what I think is responsable for the conservative side of the nanny-staters. God is a personal thing and if there will be judgement it will be on an individual basis, not as a nation or as a people. Wouldnt judgement as a group make God a stereotyping bigot?

Im not sure where the liberal nanny-staters are coming from. Maybe just smug self-righteousness. I dont know. [/edit]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
John McCain is not a social conservative. He's all over the map. A political whore, sadly; no different than Bill or Hillary Clinton.

i was just referencing an appearence he made on o'reilly's show in which he basically admitted to wanting the continuation of the white christian male power structure

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
...I dont think abortion has anything to do with 'social' issues. Its life/death kill/dont kill. I always thought it to be very funny when someone would be against abortion but support the death penalty. I dont know how exactly they work that out. That being said I dont like the death penalty. Id prefer life with hard labor....

I really like the gist of this entire thread. You, Madness, and Baack have made several points that I have seen since I was young and been irked by. Well, and I believe consistantly, thought out foundations that I support.

In response to this query of yours, to me it's a question of innocence vs guilt. As a social conservative, I think a baby is innocent and should be protected, even from it's mother if necessary. A rapist/murderer however has given up his rights as a citizen. He/she has broken the most basic social agreement (that we won't kill each other) and cant be trusted anywhere else but dead. Why support him the rest of his miserable days? Give him the same consideration he gave his victims...

*bzzzz*crackle*spark*

Originally posted by Gatordone

I really like the gist of this entire thread. You, Madness, and Baack have made several points that I have seen since I was young and been irked by. Well, and I believe consistantly, thought out foundations that I support.

In response to this query of yours, to me it's a question of innocence vs guilt. As a social conservative, I think a baby is innocent and should be protected, even from it's mother if necessary. A rapist/murderer however has given up his rights as a citizen. He/she has broken the most basic social agreement (that we won't kill each other) and cant be trusted anywhere else but dead. Why support him the rest of his miserable days? Give him the same consideration he gave his victims...

*bzzzz*crackle*spark*

The fiscal conservative in me would almost be willing to compromise on this if you could assure that the cost to the taxpayer would be less for a death sentence than for life imprisonment. There may be ways for the correctional system to profit off of the incarcerated. Also a prompt carrying out of the death sentence would cost hmmm..... .30 cents a bullet? And seeing how many rapists and molesters and murderers just get out to commit it again I can definitely see where youre coming from. But life in some Siberia type facility would do a pretty good job or curbing criminal recidivism.

At the very core of it I cant say I have enough faith in the judicial system to believe that 100% of those sentenced to death would indeed be guitly 100% of the time. You can always free the wrongfully imprisoned but you cant reanimate the wrongfully executed. Ive had some personal experiences with the government and judicial system to justify my mistrust.

Maybe future methods, ethics or technology could change this. But for now I'll have to stick with my current position.