Hey, POOP. Long time, no see. I wonder if anyone remembers me. Anyway, I wanted to share my analysis of what conservatives* are after and where I think their motivations and the powers they have granted the executive will lead.

*I would specify social conservatives, but since they are dominating the movement at the moment it's a meaningless distinction as long as economic conservatives vote for a socially conservative agenda out of factional loyalty.
=============================================

In his post For Liberals from an Ex-Conservative: The First Principle of Conservativism, Brad Hicks explains that conservatism's guiding principle is,


Hicks further elaborates on this idea in another post, where he summarizes an essay by William Bennett titled “In Defense of Hypocrisy”. The basic idea is that there are three kinds of people: "mundanes," who are naturally happy sticking to the straight and narrow conservative vision of the One True Way; "deviants," who are unable to live on the straight and narrow path for any of a variety of reasons; and "potential deviants," who can survive living as mundanes, but would prefer to live as deviants. Hicks relays Bennett's argument that it is for the good of the potential deviants that the full-on deviants must be suppressed: “If the people in group 3 (the potential deviants) are allowed to see the people in group 2 (the deviants) surviving and thriving, then they too will deviate, and thereby impoverish themselves, impoverish their loved ones, and impoverish the nation.”

Stripped of its religious trappings, the political battle between conservatives and liberals is all about trying to force people to remain on the straight and narrow. With access to safe, legal abortions and reliable contraceptives, the conservative logic goes, women have less incentive to be faithful to their husbands, and become more likely to cheat or otherwise fall off the straight and narrow. Therefore, abortion and contraception must be banned, and those who advocate for them be publicly demeaned and ridiculed. By the same logic, if “alternative” sexualities aren't stigmatized to life-threatening levels, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual/transgender men and women will leave the closet, not marry, not have children, and generally not play by the rules. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be allowed to legally marry or adopt, and if a few of them get bullied to the point of suicide, or beaten to death by their peers, then that's a small price to pay to terrorize the rest of them into staying in the closet.

Such ideas are anathema to a republic founded on the ideals of freedom, justice, and the rule of law, and it is for that reason that conservatives are attempting to undermine that republic. Each new generation is more and more tolerant of diverse lifestyles, and so conservatives' only chance to continue enforcing their vision of the proper way to live will be through literal enforcement: warrantless surveillance can determine who is straying from the prescribed ideal, and broad powers to detain, imprison, and torture can suppress, remove, and coerce deviant elements into toeing the party line, with flimsy (and blasphemous) religious justifications to give the entire affair a veneer of propriety.

I always figured that people did all of that because they were assholes acting on a primal "Us against Them" mentality. The underlying argument that these statements seem to suggest is that people are analyzing what's going on and coming to a logical conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I sincerely doubt that this is the case, at least for most of the people involved.

I didn't mean to suggest that they are acting in a calculated, premeditated manner - I agree, on the whole they look very much to me like assholes acting on a primal "us against them", "the Other is living Wrong" mentality. I'm just pointing out where I think their thinking will lead given the nature of the executive's expanding power and of generational shifts in social views.

Conservatives and and Liberals have the same problem. They both want you to live according to their mold and no other way. Their views in most arenas are diametrically opposed and therefore it always looks like us vs. them. As far as the other stuff, I'm not too sure about, but don't have an alternate theory.

I fail to see how, for instance, wanting to prohibit gays from marrying and wanting to let them marry if they choose are both trying to force everyone to live according to the same mold.

Yeah. I'm sorry but from what I've seen liberals want people to be able to live by the people's own mold not by the liberal mold. If you are going to argue the point I will expect some examples.

To, er, play devil's advocate, I think most conservatives are more against their money (re: taxes) being used to fund social programs that they don't agree with for moral reasons (if we're talking social conservatives -- fiscal conservatives are against their money being spent on anything). i.e., my liberal self believing that, for instance, gays should marry and Planned Parenthood should remain open and funded means that conservatives are funding, through taxes, what they think is an ungodly marriage (though tax benefits received once married) or fornication/ungodly contraceptives (though state and federal funding going to Planned Parenthood). In this way conservatives are, indeed, being told to conform to a certain way of life.

So long as people in the US are told that they are individuals who rely on no one but themselves, and perhaps God, people will be loath to hand over money for taxes, which go to fund all sorts of (in their mind) possibly immoral actions. The rhetoric of the United States is cut deep with Me Me Me, I I I. Which is one reason I feel the citizenship test is flawed for spewing the same rhetoric through rather rosy history lessons.

Sorry, I'm blending topics.

This is exactly what I was talking about, though. Whether it's reproductive rights, social welfare, or LGBT rights, the underlying logic is the same: They're opposed to removing the negative consequences (pregnancy and disease) for extra- and pre-marital sexual activity, because conservatives use those negative consequences as a stick to enforce their belief that the only time anyone should ever have sex is with their married partner. Conservatives are opposed to softening the consequences of being poor and unemployed, because they use those negative consequences to force people who do have jobs to be willing to do anything to keep them. Anything that falls outside the traditional paradigm of "go to school, work hard, marry, have kids, rinse and repeat" is a threat to them and their view of the social order.


No more than a pacifist whose taxes help pay for the military.

I could give an excellent example of how liberals expect conservative to conform to their ideals but it is a banned topic so I shall refrain.

Ah yes. I hadn't thought about that one and while unable to discuss it, it does give me something to think about. Any other examples?

The other banned topic.

I disagree. From both the liberals' and conservatives' points of view. One is trying to stop some people from being allowed to do something, the other is trying to allow some people to do something. They can't both fit into the same catagory.

It would be nice if we could find examples which we could discuss.

Dude.



There you go. Other liberal programs disliked by social conservatives: sex ed in school, stem cell research, assisted suicide, climate change.

Sorry. I should clarify. I enjoyed that perspective but though Taurus addressed it well. I was more looking for examples of direct effect as opposed to the supposed moral downfall and passed on effect.

As a society some taxes will always pay for some things we disagree with. This is inevitable. There should be a ballance which does not remove basic rights from specific groups. The reality of achieving this is obviously difficult.

I find it interesting that everyone has found more to comment on in the first few paragraphs of my OP, rather than in the last paragraph.