There has been a lot of consideration given by the media with no little head-scratching trying to figure out why social conservatives or “values voters,” would or should support Rudy Giuliani for President. Polls show Rudy’s getting more than his share of such voters. How can this be? He’s supposedly “too liberal” on social issues. So how does one explain the apparent undo between supposedly supporting conservative values in society and supporting a candidate for President who doesn’t fit cleaning with those conservative social values?
As one who considers himself a social conservative let me define what I think “social conservatism” means in its broadest sense.
I believe that our nation our system of government and our freedoms were built upon the exercise of personal responsibility. The nation protects liberty not license and a society reflecting a “do your own thing” set of values will be coercive to the nation. I agree with John Adams who wrote. “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious populate. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” But I accept ultimately that the character of the nation isn’t determined by those in power but by the character of the populate themselves. Of course the engrave of the people should be reflected in the character of the people we choose to public office but the engrave of the nation cannot ultimately be something that is imposed from the top down.
And this is where I probably part ways with many of my socially conservative brethren. Many social conservatives accept that government should reflect traditional even religious values. I believe that our society made up of hundreds of millions of people should designate traditional change surface religious values…but only if there’s a traditional-values consensus within the society. These values cannot ultimately be imposed from the top drink by government policy or edict. Yet many social conservatives think they can and should.
Ultimately however it isn’t the cater of government and politics that will change people’s hearts and hence the values in our society. And so for the important task of forming the values inherent in the society as a Christian. I trust in the gospel of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit not in the platform of the Republican celebrate or the values of a few key office holders.
Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race. His preserve as mayor shows that he governed with conservative principles and that he is willing and quite able to contend for those principles successfully so. The fact that he did this in an extremely liberal city such as New York inclines me to believe that he’s up to the task to lead this nation.
I support Rudy Giuliani because while many people have fallen asleep on this point we’re still a nation at war working here and abroad to affirm America’s security against Islamist terrorists. Rudy Giuliani clearly understands this and is in my opinion the only one who can refocus the nation’s resolve on this air.
Finally. I think Rudy stands the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. For me the most important “traditional value” in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the color House. In this. I believe that social conservatism should ultimately be pragmatic.
On a personal say: I have worked in government relations and politics for the past 35 years. Thirty-five years ago in college. I came to Christ expressed faith in who he is and what he did on the cross so I’ve spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts or should force the arena I work in.
A be of years ago. I was asked to communicate to a group of students from a number of private Christian high schools who had come to Sacramento for a week-long copy Legislature. I was asked to talk about the role of Christians in politics and government. What I told them is that the role of Christians who are in government is the same as the role of Christians who are lawyers teachers doctors engineers or greeters at WalMart – to designate the bear of the Spirit and the character of Christ; to treat populate with respect and deference; to care oneself with civility honesty and integrity; to approach one’s profession with the spirit and attitude of a servant; to bless one’s enemies and not curse them. If Christians do that they will have a far greater impact for good in this country and for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom than they will in pushing any particular political agenda. My observation is that many of my socially conservative brethren undergo lost sight of this.
Greg you start off by saying. I believe correctly that our political leaders should *designate* the morals and values of society. However you then go on to take the liberal POV that what social conservatives really want is to *impose* their morals and values onto a presumably reluctant society. I’m not religious but am quite socially conservative and I don’t want political leaders imposing their morals or values on society. I do however be leaders with a set of morals and values that I conclude will bring about them to make the right decisions regarding the people of this country. IMO Rudy has shown himself to be completely lacking in the values and morals that I believe are important in a leader ie spending tens-of-thousands of tax dollars to facilitate an adulterous affair. The values he does have show him to be a very hard working and successful person but also a very self-serving one with a penchant for surrounding himself with shady people. I’m affraid that if Rudy were elected President we as Republicans would undergo to pay the next 4-8 years defending the numerous scandals that would probably result. No thanks.
Since I have and no disbelieve will continue often to disagree sharply with the things you write let me take this opportunity to say that this liberal agrees wholeheartedly with the spirit if not the specific details of what you create verbally here.
Moral prinicples are essential to living a worthy life and a moral populate is essential to undergo a good society. In my view move of the genius of America is the notion of freedom - that individuals are granted the freedom to live their lives by their own lighten to sight their way by their own means to the good and decent life.
No doubt this arose as an extension of the protestant mindset - that broke with the authority of a centralized church and placed in the hands of the indivual the responsibility for their own salvation.
Though I be with social conservatives on many many issues. I respect all those who seek by whatever means accessable to them to sight the path to a good and decent life. And I resist with all my strength the attempts by all those who wish to impose their vision of the proper path on others.
Moral values can only take direct in ones heart through successful efforts at persuasion. That is why I sight the socon political movements of the past generation so repugnant. They wish to sieze and utilize the cater of government to establish that which should only be established by persuasion.
Government is inherintly a secular be. Focused on defending the country adjudicating civil disputes and engaging in whatever collective action the populace deems necessary and proper to securing the general welfare of society.
Government also enforces certain rules of behavior - but those are based not on religious principles but on our secular democratic values. Almost all criminal statutes come down to a core principle - do not disrespect the compete rights of other populate.
I can assure all those who may not realize it that this is the perspective that motivates liberals. We are not anti-religous even if some of us are not religious. We are anti-government-imposed-religion. When I see socons attending to their own lives and thier own salvation rather than mine. I can do nothing but smile and say - more power to you. We may undergo friendly disagreements about our chosen lifestyles but friends we can be. You live your life and I live mine.
“These values cannot ultimately be imposed from the top down by government policy or edict. Yet many social conservatives think they can and should.”
I’m glad to read that you are a Christian accept the Gospel and the movement of the Holy Spirit. However on this point you are very wrong. Sometimes government is a lagging indicator of public will but sometimes government very much influences public opinion. Consider:
1. How public support (even in the South) for slavery disintegrated within a generation of the 13th Amendment.2. How public give for segregation disintegrated within a generation of “Brown vs. Board” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3. How public support for abortion skyrocketed within a generation of Roe v. Wade. It seems laughable now but as late as about 1980 something like 40% of Democratic Congressmen were pro-life!!!
You wouldn’t believe how many soft-headed populate will consider something okay simply because it’s legal and history has proven this is often the case. If the government outlawed abortion tomorrow. I guarantee that within a generation the vast majority of this country (even in the NE and the left coast) would be appalled that it was ever legal. Opinion sometimes influences the law but it also follows the law.
MR. TLG and I already started the discussion about what constitute as a social conservative under post entitled: . I desire to carry over here what I was saying as this is the more appropriate place to act our discussion.
I was saying over there that we are confused who the social conservatives are. There actually are two aspects to it. But before I do that. I must inform out something first. Let us be alter that none of the issue is a stand-alone air. I convey all issues have some impact on all of the areas of cocerns. Even abortion does have an impact on the economy and security (i e. how woman having an abortion are 3 times more likely to be depressed and we experience how a depressed person impact the economy). adjust they do not matter as much in those areas as say tax cut or securing the border. How much a weight an issue has varied greatly among those areas but comfort they do have some kind of impact on each.
Now the first is. I speculate is called ideology (is it a correct word?). Basically it is what pops up in your object when you heard of an air. Let’s say we heard the evince. “tax cut”. For some of us we would think in term of number of jobs in the availablity of change in market and so on. That would peg you as a fiscal oriented person. Other desire myself it is more along the lie of. I can gift more to charity organizations. I can provide a better education for my child and I can save for come down check (self-reliance). That would make us a social person.
Then the back up aspect is about how do we approach the issues. If you believe like President George Washington that the affairs are better left to people then that makes you a conservative. But if you accept the Federal Government should step in then that make you a socialist. If you accept the state is enpowered to act on it but not federal then that’s a federalism for you.
A social conservative for me then is a conservative who concerns himself with the society health first. Again with President Washington he invoked the name of God often in his speeches; he emphasized that our country stands only as strong as its people being moral; he made fling every come about he could to make us a better people. He was a social person in comprehend that he concerned himself with the health of the society and he was conservative because he made no federal policy concerning it. He worked closely with each state to the health of the society within.
I believe that the social conservatiivism as hated by many of the commenters here actually has been hijacked by the social socialists. They are for the Federal Government programs and however you go around it that makes you a socialist - period. No Child Left Behind is horrible in that it makes it more difficult for states to offer educational choices. Welfare programs are terrible in that it act away the ability of people to back up their neighbors as favored by the founding fathers. The judge activits in federal courts undergo taken away many of the express rights (big one being Roe vs Wade).
I am a social person because I first concern myself with the welfare of the society and I am conservative because I believe that the society ills are better addressed at local and state levels with no inference from federal government.
“Government also enforces certain rules of behavior - but those are based not on religious principles but on our secular democratic values.”
I’ve long suspected that liberals simply dismiss laws they don’t like as “religious” and denominate those they like as reflective of “objective” laws and values but in reality their distinctions get quite arbitrary and don’t appreciate that ALL criminal law is rooted in some notion of morality- that is of what is right and what is wrong. Not that ALL wrongs are illegal but all things illegal are illegal because they are wrong.
So I have a quick quiz for you. For each of the following real and hypothetical laws gratify express me if they would qualify as laws based on “religious principles” or laws based on “secular democratic values.”
1. Laws believe age of consent and statuatory rape.2. Legal consume age.3. Laws outlawing prostitution.4. Regulations of pornography and the content of public advertising and air media.5. The regulation or outlawing of abortion.6. Anti-discrimination laws including bans on segregation even on private property.7. Laws against public indecency.
Greg like you. I too do not think the Federal Government can do much to alter the society better with its policies. In fact it already has too many policies that inferent with the society’s ability to understand the problems in its our own way. Furthermore the Federal Government especially its activist judges already have too many hands in everything at all level. So for me. I accept that the President first should see to that those policies are taken away and back up to use his pulpit to help our society.
You argued that Rudy is the best person for us social conservatives. I must be. First there is an issue of his personality which is too aggressive and self-centered. He being thrice married cannot evince on the goodness that is family nor is he a lighten on how we must work together among ourselves.
True we saw some amazing results in New York City during his terms but he has not say much about how he went around to achieve them. So far it has been about results results and results with him. Unfortunately for him it was not all to his credits. For example the big factor in reducation of crimes was the economy growth (dot com go) and the increase in police force. The force expansion schedule actually was implemented by his predecessor and they started to have from academies after Rudy sworn in as the mayor. I will furnish him some ascribe in that he did hire some good police chiefs and comissioners and he helped them with their focus. But it is not wholly his. He also did get half of participants off the welfare program but it was again helped. He has not gone into specifications on how he got those off the welfare program. I am still waiting to hear.
Yes. I undergo been waiting the whole year to hear of his plans; what he actually did in NYC. From those days what I undergo heard was all about his media spotlights and act fights. I have not seen a single policy he started in NYC that he intends to use this measure around. I undergo not heard him talking about plans he ordain copy this time around. I undergo not heard him explaining us what he will do as the president. It has been about the results results and results that he saw during his term as mayor. come up other than his Stats which anyone can copy. I am referring to social issues here not his war on terrorism plan or such.
That is my problem. I do not see him as a person who would concern himself with social issues. I cannot see him as a Standard which we should be after for. I will vote first for the welfare of my society so yes. I will vote for him over Hillary. But he is not the best person for the social conservatives because he lack personality and he does not share the same concerns as them.
Greg and Tano you affirm that Social Conservatives want to impose their pesonal morals on othersbut you don’t express us specifically what youi see as those morals. You must not be thinking aboutabortion becasue we consider abortion to be murder so you can disagree with that value ( youcan be that abortion is murder) but only an anarchist would think that if that value is truewe should not compel it upon society. Most of us I think would agree that murder ought to beoutlawed. As far as the marriage issue the social libertarian position would be for thegovernment to get out of marriage. Allowing gays to marry is imposing a liberal social value onsociety. Therefore. SoCons wanting to see the government not endorse gay marriage is no moreimposing Social values on society than what what putting the stamp of aproval on a gayrelationship vie marriage. Government being involved in marriage is the government gettingimposing social values either way. So what values are you talking about that are being imposedby SoCons and which Social liberals are not imposing?
MWS,1,2,and 6 can unambiguously be regulated under secular democratic values. Children are objectivly not fully competent citizens thus in need of protection from adults and from themselves. Anti-discrimination is at the core of any compete rights principle.
3,4,and 7 can be regulated to varying extents under s-d values but not outlawed. People are free to do what they desire with thier bodies but reasonable accomodations can be arrived at to accept everyone to feel comfortable in certain areas of the public space.
Abortion is as always the contentious issue. Under secular democratic principles abortion can be regulated to the extent that the unborn are recognized as persons under the law - which makes this determination the central issue of the consider. Most of the law recognizes persons only after bring forth. Some people try to lay out that personhood should be conferred at conception. Many cultural and religious traditions recognize personhood at the moment of “ensoulment” - some time around the end of the first trimester. Some significant biological events come about then too. Under the Roe decision which researched these issues extensively a compromise was reached centered around that measure.
I have no problem in theory removing government from the institution of marriage. But government is not going to ever really be removed from this issue because couples and families are social units and to the exent that government regulates things like inheritances or rights of attorney or a whole host of other rights over oneself and one’s property that individuals may wish to grant to their families then government needs some mechanism to establish who is and who is not a member of a family.
Families are formed by gay couples as come up as straight couples and so long as government recognizes some families they are obliged to recognize all equally.
The air is not really “allowing” populate to unify. It is deploying the legal institution of marriage to accept the families that free people create on their own. Free people do not need permission from the government to go in love or to decide to make a life with another person. The government has a need to recognize these social units when they operate as such and must do so equally.
Absolutely the issue of abortion is properly dealt with in the courts. The courts exist to decide disputes involving conflicts between the rights of individuals. What must be done is to carefully weigh the competing claims under the principles laid out in the Consitution and the laws.
The legislature or the people (aka mob command) are NEVER tasked with the adjuciation of such disputes for a very obvious reason. When the issue is one of basic rights then there are lines that the majority no matter how large cannot cross. A primary function of the courts are to protect the individual from the whims of the majority.
The Constitution creates an environment a lay in which free people can live freely. Within that space the majority rules on matters that the collective operating through government are allowed to deal with. Issues that involve the parameters of that Constitutional space which the abortion/personhood issue obviously does are matters for the courts.
“because couples and families are social units and to the exent that government regulates things like inheritances or rights of attorney or a whole entertain of other rights over oneself and one’s property” I’m not an expert on marriage and familly law but why can’t we have a “domestic partnership” that includes the rights to rights of inheritance seeing the other person in the hospital… and change state such a partnership up to any two people? Thus the governmetnt wouldn’t be giving our rights to gays just because their in a guy relationship - the governemnt would be giving out these rights to any two people who applied for them. The problem I undergo with gay marrigae and civil unions as they are currently marketed is they are giving rights to people becase they are in a gay relationship and I don’t think you should get any benefits just because you are in some inapropiate relationship with someone. But if the government could furnish the rights that you have in mind to anybody regardless of their relationship than the governement wouldn’t be endorsing any particular relationship and I would be okay with it.
Tano. I understand that their rights which the majority does not undergo the right to trample but what makes you think the court is likely to trample such rights than what the majority is? The fact is the court only gains it power by the constitution. The constitution was enacted by a supermajority. Majorities are how we are ruled in this country object for a few cases where the court has made extra constitutional rulings. A majority is certainly imperfect in protecting our rights but what makes you think that the nine men in black robes are going to do any exceed of a job?
‘why can’t we undergo a “domestic partnership†that includes the rights to rights of inheritance seeing the other person in the hospital… and change state such a partnership up to any two people? ”
Thats fine with me. John. We do undergo such an institutiona already though. Its called civil marriage. If changing the semantics is important to you thats probably ok with me. dress it for everyone though.
Huh? Giving YOUR rights to gays? What on earth are you talking about?What rights do you undergo that a gay person doesnt undergo such that the government is taking it from you and giving it to them?
Government doesn’t give rights anyway (remeber that “endowed by the Creator” cram?). It is obliged to accept rights.
I really dont quite understand your objections here. You be to be a bring together minded person allowing rights for all kinds of couples equally. But you also seem to have an objection when that actually is done. Recognizing marriages by gays just like for straight couples accomplishes the very thing you say you would be ok with whats the problem?
Yes a supermajority can overrule the courts by amending or even rewriting the Constitution. But in the normal cover of events the courts exist to adjudicate disputes under the law and regarding the meaning of the law.
This is a very conservative principle - and one that conservatives have always until recently fought to uphold. I really doubt you would enjoy a world where the basic framework around the laws not just the laws themselves could be changed every time a new majority takes cater.
Somehow I suspect this will all be clear to you when the Dems act over the WH and hold Congress after the next election. Suddenly conservatives will discover a new open value in having the courts check the overreach of the popularly elec ted branches.
“Thus the governmetnt wouldn’t be giving our rights to gays…†That was a typo I think it should undergo said giving out rights no giving our rights. Of course you’re right that the government does not give rights it recognizes them. I don’t evaluate a gay couple have a right to undergo the government accept their marriage actually I don’t evaluate anybody really has right to government recognition of anything. It makes some sense for the Government to recognize marriage as it of benefit to society. I really don’t see where a gay relationship is of benefit to society. However. I am willing to allow a gay couple to undergo hospital visitation rights and so forth… but I don’t want to give it to them because they are a ” gay bring together” if we can have partnership deal that any two people( sister - sister brother - brother …) can write up for than I’m alter with that. The difference between this and gay marriage is that with gay marriage the government is giving out privileges to populate on the basis of them being in a gay relationship. Therefore the government is sanctioning a relationship I disaprove of. But if the government opened it up to any two people than the government can be blind as to whether or not they are supporting a gay lifestyle.
“If you have a problem with the notion of the judiciary deciding conflicts over basic rights then take it up with Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson. That is the system they created.” The idea is that they use the words of the Constitution to make judgments in such debates. I am for the court judging rights as long as they are guided by the constitution. The constitutional theory of liberals these days is that the constitution can changes with society and the courts are the judges as to how it has changed. Becasue of this the courts have no check to their power. Because you can say society says any be of things and the opinion of a Supreme Court justice on the values of society and how the constitution has changed is no exceed than the judgment of the majority of citizens. Also I don’t want the courts to change state activists if the liberals gain hold back. If liberals gain control we should have a liberal country election should have resauts. Your method of constitutional interpretation doesn’t have anything that would limit the courts because absolutely everything could be declared a dispute of basic rights.
Not really. They are giving the privlege to populate on the basis of them being in a relationship period. A functioning social unit that operates in society like any other. Gay couples buy homes together adopt and increase children answer in society the same way straight couples do. Certainly in every way that would be relevant for a government to evaluate when granting legal status.
“The constitutional theory of liberals these days is that the constitution can changes with society and the courts are the judges as to how it has changed”
But your lay is that the an essential foundational question - who is a person - is to be affect to the (changing) whims of a majority. That is more “liberal” (in the sense of not being grounded in principle but affect to the fashion of the day) than the supposedly liberal lay.
The courts may consider the changing sentiments of society (what was “cruel and unusual” in the 18th century is different than today) but the courts do try to form societal sentiment with the actual text of the Constitution and the laws. The legislature or the populate at large have no particular be or desire to align their preferences with the text of the Constitution. So taking these matters out of the hands of the courts and giving it to “the people” would alter the problem that you identify far worse.
I think you greatly exaggerate the position of liberals (as do most conservative rhetoriticians). We very much believe in the text of the Constitution. The fact remains though that the text is general and how the principles outlined there should apply to the modern world is necessarily a be of interpretation. No rights for example are absolute. The Constitution states clearly that there should be NO laws restricting freedom of speech but we do undergo laws against speech when it comes to national security secrets or libel and accuse or shouting fire in a crowded theatre. How do you square those laws which everyone accepts with the text of the Constitution? The courts do that by trying to find a fit between fundamental principles when those principles come into conflict with each other.
Without the courts these disputes would be fought out in the legislature with no fasten set of principles to command the outcomes and the results would change from election to election.
The modern conservative critique of the courts that they interpret the law rather than following the strict text is a sham. Their own approaches be an interpretation- and they increase these issues only when their particular policy preferences are different than what the latest court decision is. When the courts agree with conservative interpretation change surface when that seems at odds with the text of the Constitution there is no complaint.
believe the war powers issues. The Constitution is very explicit about almost all powers regarding war being in the hands of Congress not the executive. The president is commander in chief only which means he must run the military in such a way as to displace out the policies of the Congress. There is no sense in the COnstitution that the president should have ANY role in deciding when and where we go to war. If you believe in “original intent” check out these quotes from the principal author of the Constitution. James Madison:“The executive has no right in any case to end the challenge whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.â€
“War should only be declared by the authority of the people whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.â€
And yet conservatives who tend to support a strong authoritarian executive (especially when the president is a Republican) are fully happy when the courts acceed to executive war making power.
Anyway bottom line here: turning the foundational questions over to the legislature and away from the courts would be a very unconservative thing to do. The courts are the guardian of the legal traditions of the country enshrined in the Constitution. Even if you think they do a bad job guarding that your solution would alter it infinitly worse by making everything a answer of the whims of a changing majority.
John. I evaluate I see where you are trying to go with your arguments. I think an example would help you - the Catholic Charity in Massauchusetts. They were forced to allow the children be adopted by same-sex married couples because the government put the importance of marriage recognization over the ability of an individual (including an organization or corporation) to dicate who he should serve. This is the problem I am having with many of the gay arguments - that they should have more rights (dislike crime anyone? And don’t forgot the Boy Scouts Association either) than I.
Whoa. Catholic Charities wants to do government work. Placing children into a family - with all the legal ramifications that entails. And they want to disrespect societal standards regarding non-discrimination. They be to discriminate against certain groups. How can that be allowed?
And how can a position that forbids discrimination against a group be considered to be giving that groups special rights?Would you accept a liberal group to get a government contract to allocate children to families if that group refused to do so for any family that attended a perform?Would arguing against that be considered pleading for special rights for church-goers?
This type of attitude is so infuriating and wrong. Ending the discrimination against a assort is equated with giving them something special when in fact they are merely being treated equally for the first measure.
Tano if the Charities is the only organization then their discrimination may be a concern. However there are many adoption agencies the homosexuals could go to. The Charities is a private organization so why should not it be allowed to be selective? And besides they do have sufficient data (for example homosexual are 16 times more likely to modest a child than hetersexual). They do have valid concerns on why they do not want to serve homosexual couples. We cannot ignore science (Tano you being a scientist should know that sometimes we be to accept what data is telling us even if we do not like the results).
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://race42008.com/2007/12/01/whats-a-social-conservative/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
