Hypocrisy in the Conservative Media?

I just found this paper, and thought that it was of some interest:

swopec.hhs.se...

Abstract: Conservatives say they are for small government and individual liberty, but a content analysis of leading conservative magazines shows that most have preponderantly failed to take pro-liberty positions on sex, gambling, and drugs. Besides many anti-liberty commissions, the magazines may be criticized for anti-liberty omission—that is, failing to oppose anti-liberty policies. Magazines investigated include National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Enterprise, and The American Spectator. We find that National Review has had the strongest record on liberty on the issues treated, while the others have preponderantly failed to be pro-liberty or have even been anti-liberty.

Let me first state that I'm convinced that a similar study of the liberal publications would find the same philosophical inconsistency. With that said...

My first reaction was: "duh." I mean, these are magazines that cater to Republicans, not Libertarians. But, I do think that this highlights an important aspect of American politics.

In our two-party system, Republicans tend to be economically liberal but socially interventionist. Democrats tend to be socially liberal but economically interventionist, i.e., not liberal. This leaves the Libertarians (economically and socially non-interventionist) marginalized.

This lead me to think about the way that the MSM goes about directing us into one of the two main camps, with neither party actually being philosophically consistent.

This is still brewing in my head, but I wanted to throw it out here and see what your thoughts are. Does anybody disagree with the conclusion of the study?

Liberties like sex, gambling and drugs?

Wait...so these magazines don't encourage random sexual encounters, increased gambling and open drug use....and that's a problem of suppressing individual liberties?

This paper is flawed from the start.

Originally posted by nyk537
Liberties like sex, gambling and drugs?

Wait...so these magazines don't encourage random sexual encounters, increased gambling and open drug use....and that's a problem of suppressing individual liberties?

I think you're setting up a straw man here, because there is a lot more to notions on sex than 'random'...gambling is an example of government intercession into what is considered by some to be a vice, and by others to be nobody else's damn business...and 'open drug use' hardly exemplifies the social issue of recreational or medicinal drug use.

Actually, I think you've proven the OP's point rather handily. In my humble opinion, of course.

reply to post by theWCH


I think you have a really good point. And it's not just in Republican propaganda, but Democratic, too.

It reminds me of the thread The Myth of Smaller Government, which only talks about the Republican side.

I don't approve of large government in neutral times. But in times like Katrina, 9/11 and this economic crisis, I think we need government to step in and re-adjust things so they can get back to normal operations. The economy isn't going to right itself without help from the government.

Actually, I think you've proven the OP's point rather handily. In my humble opinion, of course.

My point is this.

The linked paper makes the case that it's hypocritical for them to seek smaller government without taking a stand on those so called "pro-liberty" issues.

Good. They shouldn't.

Those areas are none of the governments concern in my opinion. Which ties directly into the smaller government argument.

While this is true, it's not only the one side of the aisle talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Liberal politicians like to talk about civil liberties, but only seem to do about it when it's the conservatives infringing upon them them.

Authoritarianism/Freedom are political axes orthogonal to Left/Right.

There are authoritarians and (small "L") libertarians on both the left and right.

Originally posted by nyk537
My point is this.

The linked paper makes the case that it's hypocritical for them to seek smaller government without taking a stand on those so called "pro-liberty" issues.

Good. They shouldn't.

But they DO take a stand on personal pro-liberty issues.

They are against gay marriage and sex outside of marriage.
They are against abortion.
They are against many issues that Libertarian or Liberals say the government shouldn't be involved in.

The problem I see here is the same old problem: confusing a philosophy with a political party.

Conservative does not equal Republican. In some cases it does, not in all cases.

The same goes for liberalism and Democrats.

For example, I know many many lifelong Democrats who consider abortion to be a sin.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by nyk537
My point is this.

The linked paper makes the case that it's hypocritical for them to seek smaller government without taking a stand on those so called "pro-liberty" issues.

Good. They shouldn't.

But they DO take a stand on personal pro-liberty issues.

They are against gay marriage and sex outside of marriage.
They are against abortion.
They are against many issues that Libertarian or Liberals say the government shouldn't be involved in.

Your president is also against gay marriage and has made it no secret. Does that make him conservative? If he still attends church services do you think he will be encouraging his daughters to abstain from sex before marriage or encouraging them to whore themselves out as soon as they turn 16?

I have to agree with Jsobecky - these are philosophical issues, not indicative of a political party. While there are some conservatives who attend church in the south there are a great deal many who don't attend church at all, and many believe that sex before marriage is just a way of life. I'm sure there are some Democrats who believe the same, but it would be unfair to say that they ALL believe that way.

You seem to have a real problem placing conservatives in this pre-determined category. If someone calls themself a conservative then they must believe this 1, 2, 3 ... etc.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by sos37]

You seem to have a real problem placing conservatives in this pre-determined category. If someone calls themself a conservative then they must believe this 1, 2, 3 ... etc.

Yet conservatives have done the same thing for years to anyone they don't like.

I haven't seen the left's equivalents to Michael Savage or Ann Coulter (if they even exist) publishing any bestselling books entitled "Conservatism is a Mental Disorder" or "Treason: Conservative Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism".

I've been told for years that not being one of you means I hate my country and seek it's destruction, favor child molestation, love Stalin, etc etc....

Welcome to the other side of the fence

Originally posted by xmotex
Yet conservatives have done the same thing for years to anyone they don't like.

If you separate the voters from the pundits, you'll admit that your statement does not hold water across the board. Pundits need to do that to stay in business.

I haven't seen the left's equivalents to Michael Savage or Ann Coulter (if they even exist) publishing any bestselling books entitled "Conservatism is a Mental Disorder" or "Treason: Conservative Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism".

I really wouldn't place Savage as any type of spokesman for anyone but himself. He is a real whack-job, imo.

I've been told for years that not being one of you means I hate my country and seek it's destruction, favor child molestation, love Stalin, etc etc....

Really? Seriously? You must hang with some intense people.

Really? Seriously? You must hang with some intense people.

I'm on ATS.

I've been told all of this and more, right here.

I have no problem with rational mainstream conservatives (like yourself), but you seem to be a minority on the right these days, and if you don't believe me, just look around on this very forum.

The far right is dominant in the GOP grassroots at the moment, and is going completely off the rails.

Seen any of those Palin rally videos?

reply to post by xmotex

I'm on ATS.

I've been told all of this and more, right here.

Radicals. Ignore them.

The far right is dominant in the GOP grassroots at the moment, and is going completely off the rails.

Maybe. I'm not sure. I do know they are trying to resurrect their core values after the beating they took last year. They'd better do more than talk, however. One encouraging sign was their opposition to the spending bill, notwithstanding Specter and the deuce from Maine.

Seen any of those Palin rally videos?

No I haven't. She took a real bashing last year, esp. with the attacks on her family.