Friday, May 25, 2012

What killed social conservatism?

This fabulously liberal columnist noted that technological advances has killed social conservatism.

Here's a section I found of particular note.........

the best hope for social conservatives is to retreat to minority enclaves like those of the Amish. On self-created reservations they can raise their children as they see fit, segregated from mainstream culture and visited, perhaps, by morally liberal tourists nostalgic for an older, simpler way of life. And if their fertility is higher than that of the morally liberal majority, they can hope to take over America by strength of numbers — in 500 or a thousand years.

First, we're already doing that. We call it the suburbs. See, we conservatives decided to leave your shitholes of urban decay decades ago. But there was a problem. We're not allowed to prevent liberals from moving into our communities. As a result, wealthy liberals who don't want their kids going to screwed up schools sitting next to strip joints dodging bullets on their way home move to our communities and bring all their demented social mores with them.

Over time, they end up destroying these communities as well. It's like a termite infestation without the charm.

Let's take a reminder course on how well these open minded liberal enclaves operate in the real world.

Below is a county map from the 2000 Bush Gore election. You'll note that the country is basically red except for our urban counties and the coasts.

What do we find in those lovely blue communities? More crime...... that would include sex crimes. But hey what's a few violent rapes in a "free love" sexual environment.

So we folks in "Redville"  would like to keep our communities puritanically clean and safe. If we can be assured that you liberals will stay the hell out, that would suit us just fine.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The largest problem with honest political discourse today is that most arguments seem to be based not on the virtues of one's own position but rather than on dark assumptions on the evil intent the opposition.

Case in point: nearly every proponent of a liberal viewpoint needs to base their tired argument on the unflattering caricature of a fat middle aged white male sitting in a lawn chair with his assault rifle, guarding his enclave from government conspiracy.

While its a lazy argument for the liberal viewpoint, it works to some degree. Why? Two reasons: First, because for many who are looking to be pursuaded, it's the mentally easy route to consider the conservative ideaology's opposition to federal solutions as an endorsement of total social isolationism (as per the assault rifle caricature).

The other reason it works is that stereotyping conservatives in this negative yet colorful imagery absolves the liberal from having to address his biggest foe: the centuries of failed government-based social solutions; including communism, naziism, and today's EU.

Conservatives are not against a social code or codes. We are against heavy government mandates of a specific code. Liberals are for forced implementation of social programs based on the cherry picking of a subset of Christian morals. Not surprisingly this subset just happens to be the subset which can be loosely translated into the sanctioning of wealth transfer. This is nothing less than government imposition of a specific religious belief system, something liberals adamantly claim to oppose, and that which liberals claim conservatives are trying to impose! Quite ironic, that the modern definition of the word 'evangelist' probably describes today's liberal better than today's conservative.

Far from being isolationist, most conservatives are big on social responsibility. OTOH, we don't want the scope of responsibility to be enforced by a monopoly, the federal government, where it is subject to corruption, inefficiency, and incompetence.