• Erik
    605
    I'm trying to formulate a coherent understanding of what this position entails and would like some feedback. I haven't read many of the 'classics' on this topic, but instead have arrived at my opinions based upon experience and intuition. I probably hold a very idiosyncratic blend of progressive and conservative positions that I feel are, or can be, complementary rather than contradictory. To me, being a social conservative is bound up with an overall way of thinking and being that can be expressed in particular beliefs and positions. Some basic guidelines would include:

    The idea that the good of the community takes precedence over individual freedom. The opposite of libertarianism I guess. Or, more properly perhaps, the belief that genuine individuality thrives best when undertaken in collaboration with others for the sake of larger social goals that benefit everyone. In other words, there's a symbiotic relationship between ourselves and our community and the failure to understand this - or to deviate too far to one extreme or the other - has had a disastrous impact upon both.

    The idea that life - especially human life - is sacred, for lack of a more sophisticated way of expressing this view. My personal views have tended towards anti-abortion in recent years, for example, despite the fact that I'm not an overtly 'religious' person. War, and the use of violence generally, should also be undertaken only as a last resort. A further consequence of this position, for me at least, is a very progressive (almost socialist) economic agenda that would tax the shit out of the extremely wealthy and redistribute it to the less fortunate while also investing in schools, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. It's a sincere attempt to implement the notion that people are ends in themselves and should be treated accordingly, unless of course they forfeit that dignity through egregious displays of anti-social behavior like excessive greed or violence.

    The idea that schooling is of vital importance in shaping the opinions of the young, and should be understood as much more than mere preparation for a career inspired by money making. It should also involve some humanistic aspects with an emphasis on inculcating certain character traits that, once again, benefit both the community and the individual. To shun consumerism and be civic-minded is a good thing which can alleviate the alienation inherent in a capitalist system. Again this does not IMO necessarily mean that a particular religious worldview must dictate and dominate others. I would also include an appreciation for the classics of the Western tradition here, in conjunction with a thoughtful and respectful engagement with other non-Western cultures, as long as this respect was reciprocated. I'm not sure that ISIS deserves any respect.

    The view that we are stewards of the planet rather than masters who can recklessly appropriate it in order to satisfy our desires. Things will be seen as more than mere resources to be exploited at will. This world can be disclosed in myriad ways and the current narratives are becoming a threat to the psychological health of individuals, not to mention physical health and well-being. Seeking out a deep connection with our natural surroundings in all of its power and beauty is another important element in the process of overcoming our estrangement and malaise.

    The individual is sacred. The community is sacred. The environment is sacred. Life has become cheap and meaningless. Basically what I've intuited in my brand of 'conservatism' is a fusion between the 'spiritual' and the material. Traditional (at least Western) religions seem to separate these aspects into distinct realities, whereas the more secularly-inclined seem to reject the notion of a spiritual aspect to life altogether. Obviously many of these views can be found in some form or another amongst the Romantics who reacted against what they felt were the excesses of Enlightenment rationalism. I think they were correct on many points, but I also appreciate much that came out of the Enlightenment (e.g. emphasis on social justice, the elimination of hierarchies based upon inherited title or wealth, challenge to narrow and dogmatic and hypocritical religiosity).

    Anyhow these are the broad outlines that I understand to underlie my social conservatism. This view is clearly not exclusive to any particular race or ethnicity and could cut across party lines. It is not at all nationalistic either. In fact, I think a rejection of politics in favor of a grassroots movement spearheaded by artists and intellectuals is the more viable option over the next, say, 30-40 years if we can make it that long. Once people start to freely reject the idea that their personal worth should be assessed by their bank account, or that a life well-lived is one spent in a dreary job that allows them to buy stuff they don't need, etc. things may begin falling into place. The collective realization that our time on this planet would be better spent working 25-30 hours a week doing something challenging and enjoyable - I see the two as related - as long as it can cover our (now modest) expenses. The realization that entering a committed relationship and having children is much more rewarding than buying that extra house or car or taking that extra vacation. These and other sorts of things could slowly percolate through society and ultimately lead to some sort of 'spiritual' revolution which would, in turn, give rise to political and economic changes. I take the bottom up rather than top down approach.

    Craziness? Hopeless romanticism? Conservative? Progressive? Both? Neither? I feel that many people know some of the things outlined above to be true - although I'm sure there are many who also disagree, especially here - but we've grown so cynical about life and this collective insanity has been normalized to such an incredible extent that no other possibilities seem realistic. To change the world we first need to understand and perceive it differently (pace Marx). This, I would contend, is precisely where a genuine social conservatism can gather strength and lead to a new dispensation of history. The details are murky, but I do believe that's the general mindset that will precipitate real change if it does eventually come.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    Hi Erik!

    I don't think a self-labelled conservative in this or any other era has any business talking about a "new dispensation of history." You are a liberal.

    Imagine a bunch of hunter-gatherers who over time have learned (sometimes the hard way) all sorts of things about what berries and mushrooms are edible, the best way to make leather, and so forth.

    The people in the group who are most devoted to preserving those skills and passing them on to the next generation are the conservatives in the group. The guy over there trying to put up a tent in a way nobody's ever done it before.. he's a liberal. He thinks "changing the world" is important.

    So though you may hold some views in common with conservatives, that alone doesn't make you a conservative. The beliefs that make up liberal vs conservative morph and change. There can be 180 degree shifts in a single lifetime. There can be periods of moderateness where it's hard to tell the difference between liberals and conservatives by their beliefs. Look at general demeanor. Conservatives tend to be somewhat afraid of change. They clearly see the risks in doing things differently.

    Liberals come to the foreground of human life when the old ways aren't working. We have to try something new even if it's risky. That's obviously you.
  • wuliheron
    440
    After forty years of research academics have finally proven that the republican party is organized along the same lines as a flock of chickens. Its really no surprise to anyone, but what it means is that their basic philosophy revolves around Three Stooges slapstick and the principle of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and obeys a simple memory centric systems logic.

    Chickens are are so dumb a Missouri judge legally declared them walking vegetables, and their memory centric systems logic is the default way for them to organize and is the same way our own neurons organize. In fact, a chicken's behavior is not significantly different from any one of their individual neurons precisely because they are relying so heavily upon their memories. By pecking at one another they ensure that those with the better memories become the higher ranking chickens by default again because, obviously, those who can't remember who to peck and who to avoid learn to avoid pecking anyone or suffer the consequences.

    Anyway, conservatives adopting the same default systems logic reflects the fact they are a largely rural population continually struggling to fend off the encroachment of civilization. Already the family farm is all but history in places like the US and the rise of terrorism among both Christians and Muslims can be attributed to their simply defending their lifestyle using whatever low tech approaches actually work. The IRA in Ireland, for example, defended the largely working class poor and won serious concessions before abandoning their fight.
  • BC
    13.6k
    It isn't your fault, Erik, that terms like "conservative", "liberal", "socialist" et al have become debased over the last 50 years (and longer, likely). Unfortunately I can not suggest any good alternatives that would be readily accepted. I am afraid you will have to be handed over to the authorities and charged as a Secular Humanist.

    • The idea that schooling is of vital importance in shaping the opinions of the young, and should be understood as much more than mere preparation for a career inspired by money making.
    • The idea that the good of the community takes precedence over individual freedom.
    • The individual is sacred. The community is sacred. The environment is sacred.
    • The idea that life - especially human life - is sacred,
    • The view that we are stewards of the planet rather than masters who can recklessly appropriate it in order to satisfy our desires.

    Perhaps you have elevated to sacredness a bit too much. Privileging the good of the community over the individual conflicts with the sacredness of the individual. If the individual, human life, the community, and the environment are all sacred, how does one prioritize? If we are stewards and not masters of the earth, then perhaps humanity is not quite sacred. (Besides which, earth has other stewards, like Nature, whose final decision on human beings hasn't been revealed.) If we are stewards of the earth, we are doing a bad job of it.

    I agree with Mongrel that your platform makes you much more of a liberal than it does a conservative, at least in the common parlance of the day. And I agree 100% with your education plank and the essential importance of the individual plank. Does that make me a conservative?

    Would you be willing to remove human beings from their pedestal of sacred preeminence to one species among many others, who also have a claim on existence? Would you be willing to say that the good of the human community has to be compatible with the good of other plant and animal communities? (We can't live as a human community without a healthy community of varied species.) Would you be willing to demote human beings from "steward of the environment" to a "a stupid species that is screwing up the environment"?

    Individual vs. Community is a difficult problem, since we can't really exist as individuals without the community, yet communities often destroy individuals.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    Initially I thought the term social conservative an oxymoron. It is hard to see how a conservative can be progressive socially, they seem to involve two separate ideals. Thinking more about it perhaps it is a reasonable, but challenging position where the Conservative individual accounts for societal change based on traditional concepts. Somewhat along the line where you state
    The individual is sacred. The community is sacred. The environment is sacred. Life has become cheap and meaningless. Basically what I've intuited in my brand of 'conservatism' is a fusion between the 'spiritual' and the material.

    The deduction of Conservative positions toward societal issues based on traditional laws, customs and fundamental concepts that all ready exist.

    “In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.” – Benjamin Disraeli

    I think that the distinction between Conservative and Liberal, as it is spatially described, "Left & Right" falls short of encapsulating either position, especially when we are talking about an individual who can have several separate positions that might be categorized as belonging to either side. I like Disraeli's distinction.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    I don't think a self-labelled conservative in this or any other era has any business talking about a "new dispensation of history." You are a liberal.Mongrel
    Give me a break. If that's what counts as a liberal, then I too am a liberal, and the biggest kind of liberal possible. Look at this. If I want to conserve that white post in front of my house is it sufficient to keep it as it is? No - because if I keep it as it is, it will turn black over time. If I want to conserve it, I have to do something to it - I have to change it. And I'm (well really, G.K. Chesterton, whose example I plagiarised, even though he affirmed he was a liberal) not the only one who dispelled with this strawman before. The father of conservatism, Edmund Burke said it much better:

    "A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation"

    The people in the group who are most devoted to preserving those skills and passing them on to the next generation are the conservatives in the group. The guy over there trying to put up a tent in a way nobody's ever done it before.. he's a liberal. He thinks "changing the world" is important.Mongrel
    This is again false - especially with regards to social conservatism.

    Look at general demeanor. Conservatives tend to be somewhat afraid of change. They clearly see the risks in doing things differently.Mongrel
    This isn't true for all conservatives. For reason-skeptical conservatives like Burke yes. For reason-friendly conservatives like myself, certainly not. There is a difference between the two forms of conservatism, which is quite well explained here - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ - esp. Burkean vs Rational conservatism.

    Liberals come to the foreground of human life when the old ways aren't working. We have to try something new even if it's risky. That's obviously you.Mongrel
    If the old ways aren't working, it may be possible, that just like the post in front of my house, they have become black due to the passage of time, and so need to be re-painted once again. So again, it's not necessarily true that this makes one a liberal.

    I agree with Mongrel that your platform makes you much more of a liberal than it does a conservative, at least in the common parlance of the day. And I agree 100% with your education plank and the essential importance of the individual plank. Does that make me a conservative?Bitter Crank
    So BC, does the fact that I want to change society make me a conservative or a liberal? :P

    Privileging the good of the community over the individual conflicts with the sacredness of the individual.Bitter Crank
    This is again assuming some liberal biases. Now, there is no such thing as absolute sacredness of the individual. This is always bounded by the community. For example, an individual whose passion is discovering new ways to break into people's homes and stealing from them - or whose passion is discovering new ways to murder people - such an individuality isn't to be prized or respected, and liberals agree. But now when we get to something like adultery - liberals suddenly are like "Oh but we have to respect their individual choices!". Conservatives have a wider sense of what is included in morality and civic life - something that liberals lack. For liberals, it's all about let everyone do as they wish provided they don't harm others - of course we will exclude such harms as committing adultery, etc. These aren't really harms, because everyone is a free individual and should be allowed to make their own choices - that's how the argument goes. So conservatives go a step forward and value community bonds over individual selfish desires. It is important for people to become individuals - but becoming an expert thief or an adulterer - that's not becoming an individual from a conservative point of view, because becoming an individual involves fulfilling certain objective criteria which are demanded by the process of individuation. These criteria are very general - so they allow for example one to find their individuality in painting, and another in leadership, and another in building houses. But - they demand fulfilment of those general standards by everyone for them to be individuals.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    I am actually curious - who do liberals view as key intellectual social conservative thinkers both past and present?
  • Wayfarer
    22.8k
    I think what you're describing is close to certain strains in Catholic social democratic movements. They tend towards being politically progressive but socially conservative. In other words, emphasis on family, community, education, which means they tend to support public education and public health, which in America's tortured political landscape is now associated with 'liberalism'. But they're socially conservative with respect to marriage, family and sexuality.

    Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day
  • BC
    13.6k
    But now when we get to something like adultery - liberals suddenly are like "Oh but we have to respect their individual choices!". Conservatives have a wider sense of what is included in morality and civic life - something that liberals lack. For liberals, it's all about let everyone do as they wish provided they don't harm others - of course we will exclude such harms as committing adultery, etc.Agustino

    I rarely use the term "straw man" but your depiction of liberals calls for the term.

    First, serious liberals have a wide sense of what is included in morality and civic life. Liberals and conservativesI may not agree on the positions taken--but that is another matter. [In the many posts on adultery we have made, I can't remember anybody saying "Adultery is a good thing, and everybody ought to do it as often as possible." The differences in opinion concerned how much scorn and manure should be heaped on the heads of adulterers. Preferring less scorn and manure might be more typical of the liberal, and it is just as morally sensitive and civic minded as some conservatives' desire to see them severely punished.]

    Serious liberals would expect citizens to participate in civic life perhaps more than conservatives. Liberals' morality covers the same territory as conservatives: Liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels are as little liked by liberals as conservatives. Liberals are not against free enterprise, capitalism, wealth, and so on -- they share these values with conservatives. Far-Left-Beyond-Liberals like me dream about workers losing their chains and gaining a world--not liberals, and of course not conservatives.

    There are extremists who liberals and conservatives can not accept. People who view the federal government as their enemy are far afield of both liberal and conservative thinking as they can get. How large the government should be is a bone of contention; the government as evil enemy isn't.

    Indeed, one of the frustrations of radicals like me is viewing the squabbling in congress and seeing no substantive grounds for differences. Control of the House, Senate, and White House is worth the parties time to fight over, but ideologically there is little difference in the parties who represent "liberal" and "conservative" positions.

    It's probably the case that party leaders are scarcely concerned with ideology: they are all about power apart from ideology. I don't think either serious conservatives or serious liberals think that is a good thing. Party members, party nominated representatives, and the parties themselves should hold and pursue a fairly clear ideology. Then the electorate can decide whether they want a disestablishmentarian in office, or whether they want vigorous social benefit programs.

    The election of 1964, where the Republicans had to sort out Rockefeller (relatively socially liberal) from Goldwater (very socially conservative) Republicans, and Democrats had a social benefit planner, was an exceptionally clear election. 2008 was a clear election too -- an idealistic black candidate vs. an old white experienced politician and war hero (who was heavily burdened with a laughably nitwit running mate).
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    No I'm just curious which thinkers liberals get their views of social conservatism from, just for me to compare with the thinkers a social conservative himself would look at, because it seems to me many of the liberals have views of social conservatism that I (who self-identify as one) don't share. Hence why I'm thinking maybe they're looking at different sources than I would be for example.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Okay, so what in your view is the difference between liberals and social conservatives? Clearly it seems that we agree that both can desire to change the world. So then, how do we decide who is more a liberal and who is more a conservative - if not by looking on their views on particular issues such as abortion, marriage, family, etc.?
  • Ciceronianus
    3k
    I am actually curious - who do liberals view as key intellectual social conservative thinkers both past and present?Agustino
    I don't even know what social conservatism is, myself, let alone who might be social conservative thinkers. If there is such a thing as social conservatism, is there such a thing as social liberalism?

    A check of the internet indicates somebody, at least, thinks the man called Confucius in the West was one; also Cato the Elder. Not the other Cato, Caesar's enemy, but the Cato who wrote a treatise on agriculture--Cato the Censor, who condemned Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal, for having fancy-schmancy Greek philosopher friends. He was, I think, the chairman of the Senate's Committee on Un-Roman Activities.
  • Agustino
    11.2k


    Of course there is such a thing as social liberalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism).

    A check of the internet indicates somebody, at least, thinks the man called Confucius in the West was one; also Cato the Elder. Not the the other Cato, Caesar's enemy, but the Cato who wrote a treatise on agriculture--Cato the Censor, who condemned Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal, for having fancy-schmancy Greek philosopher friends. He was, I think, the chairman of the Senate's Committee on Un-Roman Activities.Ciceronianus the White
    Yes these folks certainly did have social conservative elements in their philosophies, as did, I might add, MOST of the Ancients.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    I don't think the terms have much relevance beyond political cheerleading. As terms I don't think they say much at all. Policies and values are where substance lies, not whether one is called "liberal" or "conservative." The whole notion of: "X is the most liberal" or "X is the most conservative" is politics by ignorance. It tries to do it by speaking a label which people can trust rather than talking about polices and values.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Well if you bothered to look into it (just check for example the one link I attached previously), you'd see that conservatives and liberals do have different values. Now of course not every conservative will have exactly the same values as other conservatives. But they will be along a general framework.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    Missing the point, Agustino. The point is doing politics through the "liberal" or "conservative" label is lazy. It's trying to use a (frequently inaccurate) shorthand to specify who ought to be trusted by name, rather than on the basis of policy and values.

    If we bother to check values and policy (as we should), there is no general framework. We know the candidates, we know the values, we know the policies in each case. The "general" is not needed becasue we know who we are talking about and what they stand for.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Missing the point, Agustino. The point is doing politics through the "liberal" or "conservative" label is lazy. It's trying to use a (frequently inaccurate) shorthand to specify who ought to be trusted by name, rather than on the basis of policy and values.

    If we bother to check values and policy (as we should), there is no general framework. We know the candidates, we know the values, we know the policies in each case. The "general" is not needed becasue we know who we are talking about and what they stand for.
    TheWillowOfDarkness
    How is it missing the point? I'm saying social conservatives should be trusted. This means that these values - namely policies which are generally anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-monogamous, long-term marriage, etc. should be trusted.
  • BC
    13.6k
    Of course by looking at their views on a wide variety of topics and policies, and deciding how those views measure up to your own expectations.

    Laws that would significantly simplify divorce procedures would likely appeal to liberals more than conservatives, but both might see benefits applying to people across the board. Perhaps increasing the per-child deduction on the 1040 tax form would appeal to conservatives more than liberals, but again -- both groups could see advantages.

    It wasn't back in the Pleistocene epoch when conservatives and liberals were able to find common ground to govern effectively. The problem became serious during Bush II and has gotten worse over the following 16 years.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    That's because liberalism has changed its meaning. Edmund Burke for example called himself a liberal. So did G.K. Chesterton. Now in today's world, they're not liberals. So what was known as classical liberalism has been turned into something completely different by the New Left. And of course conservatives disagree - primarily because they don't share the social values of the New Left.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    Because if you are talking about policy, then it's those you trust. The "conservative" label does nothing to make a point. It's just an excuse to be lazy in thinking about society. Instead of talking about what matters, you will just say "trust the conservatives." Politics is turned into a contest about names rather than an understanding of policy and value.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Well okay, then I will drop the short-form and just say "trust those who are at least somewhat anti-abortion, pro-family, pro life-long monogamous marriage, etc." happy? :D
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    I named three of them just yesterday in another thread: Chesterton, William S Buckley and Auberon Waugh. I'd add Auberon's father Evelyn since we are allowing a little more time latitude.
    You mentioned Edmund Burke, who I would also say makes the grade. It's interesting that you see him as espousing a form of conservatism with which you do not agree, as I find many of Burke's suggestions acceptable and I'm more like what people call a progressive or liberal.

    I can't think of any modern-day conservatives that are of similar intellectual distinction to these. But maybe you can suggest some.

    There's a moderate Muslim public intellectual in Australia named Waleed Aly, who describes himself as a conservative. Most people would peg him as a liberal but Aly says that that's because the term conservative has been hijacked by extremists. He says he's the real conservative and they (the shock jocks and flag wavers) are not.
  • Jamal
    9.8k
    I am actually curious - who do liberals view as key intellectual social conservative thinkers both past and present?Agustino

    In the present day, Roger Scruton.
  • Erik
    605
    Thank you all for the contributions.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Thanks for sharing. For the record, I don't disagree with Burke's conservatism - with his values. I just disagree with the way he reaches them - with his method, which is reason skepticism similar to Hume.
  • Michael
    15.8k
    Well okay, then I will drop the short-form and just say "trust those who are at least somewhat anti-abortion, pro-family, pro life-long monogamous marriage, etc." happy?Agustino

    What's the "etc."? An opposition to same sex marriage? An opposition to the theory of evolution (as given here)? Promoting Christian values? Promoting the Second Amendment? Limiting welfare?

    How much of this is needed to count as a social conservative? I wonder, if two people each support a different half of these things, would they both count as socially conservative even though they disagree on everything?

    That's the problem with labels.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I agree with Wayfarer that your view sounds similar to what in Europe would be exemplified by Christian Democratic parties. I've always lamented the lack of such a thing in the US, where the right is, in my view, an apologist for corporatism and the left an apologist for abortion, identity politics, etc. Put another way, thoughtful conservatives are hard to find in the Republican party and Blue Dogs are hard to find in the Democratic party nowadays.
  • WhiskeyWhiskers
    155


    Roger Scruton is definitely one of the foremost conservative philosophers today, but his (British) conservatism is a fairly different animal to its American cousin, of which he sometimes takes issue with.

    For example, he criticises the symbiosis of big business with government because it undermines the sovereignty and allegiance of democratically elected officials - though he admits regrettably that our own conservative party have sold their souls too. He also believes one cannot be a conservative without being so on environmental matters; the planet is a resource like any other which we must preserve and enhance for the benefit of future generations. He thinks this point is entirely lost on American conservatives, due to their pro-business leanings and rejection of climate change.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Christian DemocraticThorongil
    This isn't exactly true. Social conservative values in Europe (especially Western Europe) are quite a rarity in politics. Sure, you may see issues such as anti-abortion laws (like in Poland recently), but the attitudes and beliefs of those running Christian Democrat parties (for example, look at Merkel's CDU in Germany) are quite liberal and progressive. They pretend to uphold social conservative values, but hypocritically so. Europe is by far more progressive than the US - that's why when folks on this forum say when they are on the political spectrum they go like "far left in US", "left in EU". Progressive biases have infiltrated the European intellect to the point that the Christian Democrats have become just "Christian" Democrats.

    In Eastern Europe for example, you can very easily find people hating gays. Everyone does that. Just a prejudice really, they don't have any reason for it. This "oh the Church says so", that's just an excuse. People just do it for fun. Most of the common people have those attitudes. But when it comes to abortion - all those common people are for it. When it comes to cheating - they don't really care - even less than people in the US care (and if they care, they are most often women). In the US if a President cheats, it's a big deal. In the EU nobody cares - just look at Berlusconi. He even did rude gestures to women in public. In the EU people who cheat or commit adultery face very few consequences, if any (especially if they are men - and lately also women in Western Europe). Quite the contrary, you'll often find yourself admired and respected for it.

    So no - by far Europe has less social conservative resources than the US. Issues such as abortion, adultery, etc. aren't even on the table in Europe.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    For example, he criticises the symbiosis of big business with government because it undermines the sovereignty and allegiance of democratically elected officials - though he admits regrettably that our own conservative party have sold their souls too. He also believes one cannot be a conservative without being so on environmental matters; the planet is a resource like any other which we must preserve and enhance for the benefit of future generations. He thinks this point is entirely lost on American conservatives, due to their pro-business leanings and rejection of climate change.WhiskeyWhiskers
    Well yes but this has to do with economic policies - certainly not social conservatism - and Roger Scruton was named by jamalrob as a "social conservative" thinker. As I've said quite often, it is very possible for there to be left-leaning social conservatives. G.K. Chesterton was one - so was Russell Kirk. So is Scruton.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.