Conservatism, as Barry Goldwater defined it, consists of: free markets, individual liberty, small government, and individual responsibility.
Notice that Barry Goldwater didn't include any gender, religious, or ethnic qualifications in this list. He certainly didn't state that conservatism was uniquely the province of white people, or that individual liberty was limited to men--or to Christians, for that matter. (In fact, Barry Goldwater described the Religious Right as "a bunch of kooks".)
Or to put it another way:
- Real conservatives aren't sexist.
- Real conservatives aren't racist.
- Real conservatives believe in the separation of church and state.
(Some of the most influential and prolific conservative thinkers have been women and minorities, by the way: Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, and Jeane Kirkpatrick--just to name a few. And most of the Founding Fathers were lukewarm on the subject of religion.)
That is real conservatism. Phony conservatism is something else. "Phony conservatism" is the attempt to mix legitimate conservative principles with gender, religious, or ethnic biases.
This is not conservatism at all--but a cynical appeal to barnyard tribalism and group identity politics, the same thing that the Left preaches, only for different political ends.
I am all for challenging the Left's irrational sacred cows. I have no problem with pointing out and refuting the excesses of political feminism, for example: such as gender-based quotas for corporate management (now a common practice in Europe). Like other conservative bloggers, I have taken John Scalzi to task for his trite, politically correct fluff piece on "straight white male privilege."
That having been said, we conservatives don't help our cause by embracing the crude collectivist tactics of the Left. When conservatives allow racism, sexism, or religious extremism to seep into our rhetoric, we betray our philosophy, ourselves, and most of all--the people "on the fence," who can be easily swayed by the statist deceptions of Barack Obama and the liberal monoculture.
Case in point: Today I read a piece on Vox Day's blog, entitled "Women ruin everything." (Vox Day bills himself as a conservative.)
Leaving the title aside, most of the blog post deals with the excesses of the radical gender politics that have arisen in collegiate sports since the passage of Title IX. In other words: the excesses of leftwing, political feminism. This portion of the post is generally reasonable, and generally conservative.
But then Vox ends his post with a non sequitur:
"Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America? Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage?"
What about Jeane Kirkpatrick--and Margaret Thatcher? Would Vox seriously deny these women the vote? (A true conservative would not apportion any political privileges or penalties based on race or gender. Once again--that is the game of the Left and the Democratic Party.)
The implication in Vox's post is that members of one gender are inherently wiser than those of the other. And there is one gender which--by virtue of being that gender--"ruins everything," in his words.
This is exactly what the radical feminists say--only in reverse.
Conservatives cannot fight irrational gender politics by becoming sexists ourselves, just as we cannot fight the tribal politics of the race card by becoming racists. Conservatism is for men as well as women--and for people of all races and ethnicities. (Let us not forget that most of the welfare states in Europe are essentially the creations of white males, while there are some fairly astute Asian capitalists. And yes--some of them are women.)
The logical flaws in Vox's "Women ruin everything" post are obvious. What is not so obvious is how this sort of rhetoric plays into the hands of Obama and the Obamaites.
One phony conservative can do more damage to the conservative movement than all the prattling leftwing lemmings on The Daily Kos and John Scalzi's Whatever combined.
Note: Comments are welcome, but please read My very simple and egalitarian comments policy before posting. Thanks!
Taking on a Devil's Advocate position for the sake of argument, I can offer some clarification based on some familiarity with Vox Day over several years of on-and-off browsing. First, he would deny that he's a conservative in preference to libertarian, although truth be told, he's a pretty genuine social and fiscal conservative right up the line. He doesn't put a lot of weight even on those areas that appear to be libertarian, like lax drug laws, etc. (BTW, he would deny that.) His position on suffrage comes from a philosophy that maximized "freedom," by which definition, who knows. Since laws restricting said liberty have increased since the 19th amendment, this rationalizes for Vox denying women the vote. Logically, of course, the process needn't stop there, and Vox would agree. (See his comment in that post.)
ReplyDeleteWell, I've tried to lay out the logical inconsistencies in Vox's views on this particular subject, as well as why sexist and racist language has no place in conservative argumentation. You seem to grasp the difference between a small government conservative and a "right-winger." We need more of the former and fewer of the latter.
DeleteLikewise, you can oppose lockstep political correctness without becoming an "angry white male." (Interestingly, white males aren't the only ones who run afoul of the PC thought police nowadays.)
Vox seems to have a dedicated following who run to the right of his views. Like Scalzi, I think that VD's worst instincts might be reinforced by some of his more extremist readers and commenters. I do agree with many of Vox's posts; but the good that he does is unfortunately poisoned by his blatantly sexist (and borderline racist) posts.
I am an old-school conservative. I want small government, freedom, and respect for *everybody*. There is also a practical matter to consider: Like Todd Akin (the Missouri rep who came out with the "rape" comments), Vox will only drive moderates closer to Obama if he continues posts like that.
True conservatives have my respect. Though there was a time when I favored shutting down those I disagree with, I've evolved into a big tent, "let a hundred flowers bloom" kind of guy. I have the internet and blogs to thank for that. Let everyone have a voice. The market of ideas will filter out the crazies, save for their few lucid moments. Even Vox Day should have a platform.
DeleteI do have to differ with you that his blog commentariat runs to the right of him. My assessment is that he's right there alongside them.
By the way, if you read enough at that site, I think you'll eventually come to realize that there is substantial reticence to come right out and speak the honest truth, as much as your initial impression might be that here is a place that lets everything hang out, says what it wants to, addresses and argues every objection and lets the chips fall. I think a lot of people there quietly know how bad their true beliefs sound when voiced. After a while the general feeling becomes that the worst is kind of lingering unspoken but silently agreed upon, which I have to admit is rather frightening, like if these people ever saw power they would rapidly evolved into some type of star chamber.
ReplyDeleteVox posted a response to your post, just fyi.
ReplyDeletefree markets, individual liberty, small government, and individual responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI guess the question at hand is, "does women's suffrage increase these things or decrease them?"
The empirical evidence available on the subject shows that women's suffrage resulted in less free markets, less individual liberty, larger government, and less individual responsibility.
DeleteThis applies to the rest of the world as well, not just the United States. Saying that this view is "sexist" doesn't change the truth.
What empirical evidence? You made a grandiose statement without any sources or analysis.
DeleteJohn Lott demonstrated that women's suffrage changed the size and scope of government. A summary of his findings can be found here:
Deletehttp://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
There were also women who were against women's suffrage who made predictions about what would happen if women got the vote, and they turned out to be correct.
Seriously, John Lott? The "scientist" whose methodology has been thoroughly discredited regardless of his study?
Deletehttp://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
The "scientist" who was caught red-handed in several lies.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards
The "scientist" who even conservative icon Michelle Malkin essentially called a hoaxes wet dream.
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2003/02/05/the_other_lott_controversy/page/2
"There were also women who were against women's suffrage who made predictions about what would happen if women got the vote, and they turned out to be correct."
What women? What predictions? Are you saying that there is a direct causal link between female suffrage and societal problems, that no other causes also play a role? Get bent!
Your use of the words "sexist" and "racist" proves that you are in no way a TRUE conservative.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't see that you are blind.
Mr. Trimnell,
ReplyDeleteYour views do not fall in line with the Traditionalist/Conservative Right.
You would perhaps be termed a right liberal in their parlance. (Charles Krauthammer, John McCain, Karl Rove, Bush family, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and most Republicans are right liberal according to this terminology / these definitions).
"Sexism" and "racism" are constructed terms of left liberals (marxists), Newspeak if you will. These terms are not for conservatives, as they feed into the Newspeak reality.
Left liberalism is what you would normally consider liberal, progressive, etc.
Universal suffrage is not a conservative value. The founders did not support it.
The races, or genetic clusters, or variants, or sub species are not fungible. Legal equality and natural rights does not = equality of peoples. Equality is/has become a left liberal term as it is commonly used. Again, a type of Newspeak.
I do not know enough about you and your views, but from what you have written here, I would not term you conservative, though many others would.
Sexism and racism are constructed terms by human beings to describe destructive behavior by one group of people toward another group of people. For legal equality and natural rights to have meaning, the citizens of our nation, through majority rule and the consent of being governed, agreed to create and implement fundamental protections. In the human chronicle, there is an ebb and flow; ideology does not move continuously in the same direction. The founding fathers originally rejected universal male suffrage for fear that the status quo--and their own power--would erode. But as our country grew, and our people matured, the principles espoused by the Constitution became a realization rather than a theoretical exercise.
DeleteLiberalism and conservatism has been bastardized by political ideologues to further their own tribal designs. It's philosophical pornography.
Hunt:
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of people there quietly know how bad their true beliefs sound when voiced. After a while the general feeling becomes that the worst is kind of lingering unspoken but silently agreed upon, which I have to admit is rather frightening, like if these people ever saw power they would rapidly evolved into some type of star chamber.
Well Vox welcomes all types. There is quite a few with rather unique views that are regulars there.
VD is one of the few blogs that is largely a free place to post.
Beliefs/thoughts that you would find scary or bad...Well, I find that rather humorous.
As long as they're just elements of the "marketplace of ideas" I'm not all that concerned about fringe opinions or beliefs. If anything, they just check equally radical ideas at the other end of the spectrum. In other words, the Law of Averages is enough to insulate us from them most of the time. Of course, the fringe is what you have to be worried about at any sign of crisis, but we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it.
DeleteYes, the dreaded fringe.
DeleteIf we did not have them, who would we then scapegoat?
Also interesting, it is amazing how many beliefs are now fringe that in the past were commonplace, even common knowledge/common sense. It seems this thing called conservative may not be that great at actually holding on to traditional values and beliefs.
Post Modernity has sure taught the collective wisdom through the ages the error of that wisdom's ideas and ways.
Actually, that collective wisdom has enabled the human race to expand upon the age old concepts of justice, equality, and freedom. And we will continue to evolve in that regard as a species, whether you approve or disapprove.
DeleteAgree completely that the imprecise use of "sexism" "racism" denotes a non-conservatives. Both words are nothing more than weapons used by the left to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them. Further, it doesn't matter how much the conservatives buy into women's equality or racial equality, the left will simply use some extreme position to prove those who disagree are STILL "racist" or "Sexist". In the 60s "Racists" were those who supported segregation, now its anyone who believes in a color blind society.
ReplyDeleteRCOCEAN II--Replace "the left" and "conservatives" with human beings. Then, and only then, will you be correct.
ReplyDelete