Article

2006-01-07 Britain

The sooner the 1960s are over, the better

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-01-07 05:38|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 !@#$%^&*()_+

Posted by gromgoru 2006-01-07 10:13|| 2006-01-07 10:13|| Front Page Top

#2 This sets "moral conservatism" apart from "real conservatism".

The vast majority of people who are conservative are *not* moral conservatives, any more than the vast number of the moslems in the world are violent Islamist jihadis.

But as jihadis pretend to be mainstream, so too, do moral conservatives pretend to be the voices of the vast majority of conservatives. This is deception, it is not the case.

Most conservatives are just that, conservative, appreciative of what is good about the status quo; not reactionary, seeking a return to some illusory time in the nostalgic past "when things were better".

The do not believe that morality trumps reason, reasonableness, or common sense. This is not base pragmatism, amorality, or licentiousness. It is simply the desire to not be herded like cattle towards either some impatient and unhappy individuals conception of the future, *or* of the past.

For example, what other reason than morality could possibly justify keeping marijuana illegal? There is no evidence of any devastating social or personal consequence from its use; but at the same time, its illegality has caused untold suffering, pain, and horrific burdens on society. It is as bad or worse than was the prohibition of alcohol.

Reason and the reasonable mind dictates that laws against marijuana be either overturned or ignored and allowed to whither through statuatory neglect.

This is not libertarianism. This is simply wanting that an obvious and expensive waste of public money and peoples' lives be discontinued.

In fact, the very article speaks to reaction. The author sees the world today as an outgrowth of the 1960s. In this he is correct. But it is also an outgrowth of the 1940s, '50s, '70s, '80s, and '90s; each of which also contributed immensely to what our world is today.

So while the annoying "progressives" of today might be nostalgic about the 1960s, the only reason to be concerned about it, as is the author, is if you are in reaction to it. A true conservative just sees it as being in the past, with both good and ill; the unchanging past--what is done is done.

From this point of view, a checklist of the differences between moral conservatives and real conservatives is easy to postulate, though the moralists would sneeringly suggest that what real conservatives embrace is either "social liberalism" or "libertarian". This is not the case. Real conservatives are just less interested in morality than reasonableness.

For example, moralists hold to a blanket opposition to abortion. Conservatives do not like abortion, but are resigned to its necessity in some cases. They see it as neither a federal prerogative, nor even a State prerogative. It is a cruel necessity.

Moralists also (rather duplicitously) crave religion elbowing its way from a passive personal act to an intrusive act on the privacy of others. They claim oppression by being forbidden to be oppressive themselves. True conservatives have no objection to either their practice of religion or their display of their faith; they object to being proselytized, however, or being intruded upon when they wish to embrace the secular.

Finally, I could conclude by saying that real conservatives are almost never absolutist, or desireous of blanket solutions to complex problems.

Moralists pretending to conservatism far too often are willing to such absolutism, and are recognizeable by their prejudices, their "us and them" attitude, and confusing someone's condition with their behavior. They confuse being Arabic with being a jihadi; being homosexual with illegal perversity; and being in disagreement with them as being liberal or libertarian.

This is not the conservative way.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-07 10:33|| 2006-01-07 10:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Excellent - I've been struggling to find a way to express this. Thanks for the clarity of your thoughts.

Posted by Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-01-07 10:55|| 2006-01-07 10:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Anonymoose. Well said. Agree on every point. It is used as a movement crutch and is an intractable impediment to freedom as to what they say the are against. These are the kneejerk conservatives Clint Eastwood characterized. Real conservatism is patriotic in the protection of individual freedom and country. These anti-characters are the left best allies.

Posted by Bardo 2006-01-07 10:59|| http://www.jtf.org]">[http://www.jtf.org] 2006-01-07 10:59|| Front Page Top

#5 guess I'm just a Conservative then. Play my Grateful Dead CD's and subscribe to National Review.... BTW Bardo - the "kneejerk conservative" is not what Eastwood played. A law and order character stopping killers, thieves and muggers makes society safe for conservatives to live. The moral of the Dirty Harry stories was usually that law and lawyers and bleeding hearts got in the way of real justice.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-07 12:06|| 2006-01-07 12:06|| Front Page Top

#6 Obviously the author of this article must be an imbiber of the most dangerous and destructive drug of them all - alcohol - champion destroyer of minds and morals - and prime cause of abortions the world over.

Posted by Nobody 2006-01-07 12:58|| 2006-01-07 12:58|| Front Page Top

#7 ah, moose. I agree with many of the points you made, I am for the legalization of pot and medical assistance (read provide with a perscription) for addiction to the stronger stuff. I believe prohibition made the reasons for this clear.

I support abortion, though I am very uncomfortable with that. However, I do respect the right that others believe it to be murder and have the right to rally against it - just as I would like to preserve the right to rally against adults over 18 being able to seduce children for sexual gratification. In many countries this is an accepted "moral" standard.

And I am a beliving Christian who, can say that having once NOT truly believed, the fact that I am willing to admit that fact openly, elicits a sublte bigotry far greater than if I admitted I was addicted to drugs or a Believer of the Goddess of the Trees.

And I am a "conservative. I believe in limited government and respect family and traditional values as being beneifical to society. I believe that welfare, while necessary, can often cause great harm in the name of good.

So..in short - you make many good points that conceal the fact that you missed the main point of this guys argument, and brought up a straw man about the fictional "moral conservatives" by which I assume you mean "those whose morals differ from your own.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-07 13:20|| 2006-01-07 13:20|| Front Page Top

#8 2b: A conservative can most certainly be a moral person. In fact, most of them are highly moral. But to distinguish this from moralism, a philosophy of morals to be imposed on others, is important.

How you described yourself is typically conservative, by my description. The concept that few things in life need radical change, or sharp departure from the status quo.

No, I would not say that I oppose the morals of others that differ from my own. I would say that I oppose the imposition of morals one way or another. Others have no more right to use the law to impose their morals on me, than I do of imposing mine on them.

It is a conservative notion that the law should be above manipulation for personal agenda.

That is, I object to a situation where a law is created outlawing eating pizza while driving, because Kyle's mom's daughter was eating a pizza when she choked and drove off a bridge, so Kyle's mom thinks that people should be forbidden from doing that, because it leads to senseless tragedy.

I object as much as when some reverend, rabbi or imam gets a law created because heaven disapproves of eating pizza while driving. It is immoral for people to do so, so it should be banned.

The other twist is the deceptive claim that the government is imposing itself on the moralist by *not* imposing itself on others. That is, by not having blue laws of some form or another, it somehow infringes on the rights of those who would obey blue laws.

And while there are endless court cases about this last point in which there are arguments of finesse ad infinitum, the conservative view is still the same. The secularist has no more right to impose secularism on the religious, than does the religious the other way around. More than anything else, the conservative wants *courtesy* as the law.

A person who wishes to be discourteous to everyone is just as annoying as a person who wishes to be offended by everything.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-07 14:06|| 2006-01-07 14:06|| Front Page Top

#9 the whole idea of a civilization is that there are rules (laws) that are agreed upon so that we can all live better. A common good.

I'm in a hurry - so perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but it almost sounds as if we shouldn't have any traffic lights as it might impose on others.

I still think you are missing his point.
start here and read the next 4 downward.

Our Government of former student political activists - notably Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and Gordon Brown - remains utterly hamstrung by its own teenage prejudices, and utterly boring about them. And the damage these people, in their lack of wisdom, inflict on society is still enormous, and every bit as corrosive as the scourge of drugs about which, until now, they have been so casual.

I think he's spot on.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-07 14:16|| 2006-01-07 14:16|| Front Page Top

#10 Frank G: You are correct about Clint. I was referring to a crack Eastwood made on O'Reilly about kneejerk conservatives who criticized Eastwood about something or other.

Libertarism is not being advocated in anonymoose's post.

Scalia, as did the liberals, the conservative judge, votes against medical marihuana for a woman with M.S. Some much for less governmental interference.

This english writer posted is a prejudiced knownothing.

Posted by Bardo 2006-01-07 14:57|| http://www.jtf.org]">[http://www.jtf.org] 2006-01-07 14:57|| Front Page Top

#11 2b: The argument is not for commonalities that are almost universally agreed upon. Liberals, conservatives and reactionaries all agree that traffic lights are a good thing. So unless the argument has some *potentially* moral component, the argument returns to the definition of government. That is, are we to live under the laws of man, or the laws of heaven?

A man can be very moral, and very Christian, for a fact, without wanting to codify his beliefs in the laws for all. He may personally honor the 10 commandments without demanding that others do so, outside of those parts universally agreed, such as decrying of murder and theft. And even then, he can use the secular language of the law against murder and theft, in no way needing to refer to the 10 commandments.

The moralist, on the other hand, is unsatisfied with the secular law. For him, violations that are also violations of the 10 commandments are crimes *because* the violate the 10 commandments. Their being codified into secular law only interests him in the punishments to be meted out.

To separate the religious element, the prohibition of alcohol was to a great extent the first example of widespread *secular* moralism, though joined by many religious people. The "nasty nellies" were set against alcohol because it led to immorality and was an immoral thing. Tobacco today holds much the same stigma.

The emphasis again, with moralism, is the imposition of morality on others. The original author cites "lingering and harmful practices" from the 1960s. Which of these impose on him? Is he forced to smoke pot and exchange venereal diseases?

The moralist can always find some indirect imposition. If not personally, he sees harm to society as a whole. But since society still does these things, and it, as a whole, finds them less than objectionable, can we not agree to disagree?

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-07 15:45|| 2006-01-07 15:45|| Front Page Top

#12 my misunderstanding, then, Bardo :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-07 15:55|| 2006-01-07 15:55|| Front Page Top

#13 I see the point that you are making and agree with you, for the most part, on what you are saying regarding passing laws simply for morality's sake. Another example to illustrate your point would be outlawing abortion soley to prevent premarital sex because one thinks that is premarital sex is immoral- and for no other reason.

I do take some issue with "He may personally honor the 10 commandments without demanding that others do so, outside of those parts universally agreed, such as decrying of murder and theft" ....... as the issue is the universally agreed part. You will NEVER EVER get universal agreement Therein lies the problem.

Society has to agree to draw the line somewhere when writing the laws. For some - abortion IS murder. Not because God said so, but because it involves sucking a little baby out of a womb and throwing it in the trash. So their desire is no less "moral" to prevent it (at least in their own opinion) than is yours to prevent someone from murdering a clerk at 711 cause he really needs cash for baby formula.

But I still think this is all off of the point this article is making and it is more on point with the other article we have both posted on today concerning Iran. In that article I argued that Europe is a toothless tiger that doesn't even bother to roar. That isn't actually correct. Europe has teeth - it's just doesn't bother to roar for many of the reasons stated in this article - all a hangover from the 1960's refusal to grow up and act like responsible adults.

If you belive, as I do, that Islamic Jihad is a serious threat to all that liberals claim to hold dear - then all democratic societies have to DO something other than pretend we can all just hug, sing kumbaya and stick our heads in the sand and somehow some daddy somewhere will magically make it all go away.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-07 16:29|| 2006-01-07 16:29|| Front Page Top

#14 2b: While I've no argument about the current crop of EU parlimentarians, and no doubt their particular ailment devolves from the 1960s, the illness itself long predates that time. With US complicity, the very idea of setting up social-democracies in Europe after WWII pre-ordained much of this current nonsense.

In Britain, the post-Churchill Labor government was a piece of work, venturing every excess imaginable; and much the same in Germany. In a way, they set the stage for the 1960s in Europe.

As far as the absolutism argument, i.e. abortion is murder, let me compare that with the question: is murder murder? That is, society as a whole recognizes that there are both different forms of murder, and that there are mitigating circumstances that make murder less a crime, or even not a crime.

And this is why we have judges and juries. As far as abortion goes, about 1 in 4 fetuses are naturally aborted. If they are more advanced in their development, a d&c procedure is necessary to remove them from the mother. Other fetuses are alive, but not viable for birth, often at risk to the life of the mother. Unless they are aborted, then both will die. On the other extreme are the abortions done solely as a convenience.

And yet, if you examine the extremes of the abortion argument, both sides parade their moralism and try to seize the argument. However, the vast majority of Americans of all kinds, and conservatives in particular, while they generally dislike the concept of abortion, understand that there is a grey area between the two extremes. A grey area demanding judgement. But whose good judgement?

That is why the question remains mostly unresolved. Most Americans reject the blanket arguments of both sides, though both sides will shout down any efforts at reasonableness. And yet, over time, the abortion law evolves into what the majority of Americans want.

Importantly, not as a moral decision, but as a judgemental decision. And this is the line drawn by society. Firmly in the grey area.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-07 19:20|| 2006-01-07 19:20|| Front Page Top

#15 moose - I agree with what you just wrote to the point that I went back and reread your post #2 and realized that the thrust of your original argument was different than I had initially understood - you were focusing on the morality component his argument against drugs, etc. and I was focusing more on comments like this, "because of a notion over the past few decades that wrongdoing is somehow the fault of those who live by the rules, and whose lives, with their normality and affluence, are a constant provocation to criminal elements.".

So thanks for an interesting discussion... can't find anything more to argue about :-)

Posted by 2b 2006-01-07 20:28|| 2006-01-07 20:28|| Front Page Top

21:58 Vince Watkins
21:44 Vince Watkins
21:20 Vince Watkins
22:13 Vince Watkins
23:32 Steve White
23:28 .com
23:23 .com
23:17 xbalanke
22:56 2b
22:55 2b
22:42 Fred
22:34 Pappy
22:24 2b
22:22 mom
22:21 TomAnon
22:19 Rafael
22:18 mom
22:17 Qwerty
22:14 Paul Moloney
22:13 49 Pan
22:11 mom
22:09 Rafael
22:08 mom (Chicago expat)
22:06 Frank G