View Poll Results: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES American Social Conservatism is on a Permanent Decline

    29 72.50%
  • NO American Social Conservatism is not on a Permanent Decline. It will be Back.

    11 27.50%
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 106

Thread: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-27-15 @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    2,191

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Nope. I've lived long enough to see it run in cycles. Btw, this is what we thought in the 60s/70s. Didn't take but a decade or two for social conservatism to reassert itself, and in my own generation.

    But you didn't have cell phones.

    -You didn't have 24/7 social media

    -You didn't have internet

    -You didn't have a generation of millennials and generations under them routinely digesting ultra progressive lifestyles and societal themes from elementary school and up


    I think the effect of technology is underestimated by older generations of Americans who aren't as connected as my generation and generations under me are and have been our whole lives. I see a dramatic shift to Western European style values and politics within my lifetime in America that essentially wipes out social conservatism (and I'd argue we're already seeing it occur among under 30's), largely thanks to technology. Again I simply think older generations immensely discount just how socially liberal even a conservative oriented millennial or younger truly is.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,731

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by Einzige View Post
    American social conservatism is rooted in empty, meaningless identity politics.

    What is 'tradition'? To my mind, America has no traditions. It's far too young a nation to have developed any as yet. This anomie is what in part fuels the pathetic spectacle of the American "values voter" - a clinging-on to the received wisdom of the late 19th century as though it were some eternal Truth handed down from on high.

    Most of us here are of European heritage. Five thousand years ago, our ancestors worshipped anthropomorphic incarnations of natural phenomenon like lightning or the sky. They were doing likewise three thousand years later.

    Christianity is what is anti-traditional. To begin, it is the first human project to lay claim to being "catholic" - that is to say, universal, applicable to all men everywhere and irrespective of history or Tradition. Everything that the Christian conservative hates in contemporary liberalism - its "rootless cosmopolitanism", its internationalism, its pursuit of global redemption - is nothing more than a secularized extrapolation from Christianity.

    Christianity is decadence; Christianity is decline; Christianity is decay. It is the ferment of the ages. There can be no Restoration until it is done away with.

    In European man, this will manifest either as a tendency towards pagan revivalism or an atheism which is similar in its world-perspective to paganism, simply emptied of its metaphysical content. In the African-American, torn from his connections by Muslim and Christian monotheistic slave-traders, it will appear as a return to African syncretic religions, adapted to account for his experiences in the New World. The Asians have less need for this; they alone have remained relatively true to themselves through the passage of dozens of centuries.

    Right-wing conservative 'Traditionalists', who at best look back to 1789, are less than worthless. Do not take me for an Ultramontaine.



    Wow!

    So if there was no Christianity, there would be no injustice or bigotry in the world?

    Well, that explains a lot.

    Not well or in any depth at all, but an explanation is offered.

    Out of curiosity, in what way is the "rooting" of those idealisms that are not American Social Conservatism different from "meaningless Identity politics". You should keep in mind that you have just engaged in exactly that.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,731

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARTHUR 1976 View Post
    Amen, Hispanics are the fastest rising population and the majority of them vote Democratic left leaning because of the social safety nets, and they are angry about the nasty racism directed towards them by white conservatives..

    Take a look at the 12 election, Hispanics voted A WHOPPING 85% for Obama over Romney..

    Hispanics tend to be younger, and the Democratic party has a pretty strong hold on the young vote..


    Does that say more about the Democrat party or more about the Young voters?
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,731

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan5 View Post
    Very true post.


    Chinese and Russian Communism and German Nazism for instance, while decried by US social conservatives as supposed "Radical Governments", were both actually considered by their national populations at the time to be social conservative ideologies and governments. Most Americans would find that a shocking fact indeed. The hard truth to stomach is Social Conservatism is and always has been the dark path to authoritarianism because social conservatism is inherently authoritarian by its very nature. It's basically oppression defined.

    Such is why Western Europe and ex Eastern Europe Communist nations are so socially Liberal. They know what social conservatism leads to and they've had world wars and genocides in their backyards. They've seen the barbarity of supposed social conservative governments at their height of power revealed to their true nature. Authoritarianism.


    This seems to be saying that religion is a very important component of Social Conservatism. The next idea is that the Nazis and communists were authoritarian and therefer were social conservatives.

    Both the Nazis and the Communists were pretty tough on traditional religion.

    How do you square that circle?
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-27-15 @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    2,191

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems to be saying that religion is a very important component of Social Conservatism. The next idea is that the Nazis and communists were authoritarian and therefer were social conservatives.

    Both the Nazis and the Communists were pretty tough on traditional religion.

    How do you square that circle?
    Well let's see.

    You're completely wrong good sir. That's how I'd square that circle.


    -Hitler was a radical Catholic. (don't make me fill the thread with pictures and speeches proving so).

    -Russian Communism was a direct counter to the fanatical oppression of the Russian peasantry by the self anointed religiously divine Russian Czars. Without their religiously sanctioned oppression of the Russian peasantry Communism never would have fomented in Czarist Russia. (Again, do your research good sir).


    Social Conservatism is authoritarianism however you describe it (Be it Hitlers Nazism, Stalins Communism or Mao's Collectivism). You're denying social liberals their basic rights to conduct their lives and directly hurting the economy by doing so.

  6. #46
    Elitist as Hell.
    Einzige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-29-16 @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Wow!

    So if there was no Christianity, there would be no injustice or bigotry in the world?

    Well, that explains a lot.

    Not well or in any depth at all, but an explanation is offered.

    Out of curiosity, in what way is the "rooting" of those idealisms that are not American Social Conservatism different from "meaningless Identity politics". You should keep in mind that you have just engaged in exactly that.
    I never said anything of the sort.

    There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with prejudice; I reject the self-evidence of the 'equality of man'. But I find Christianity anathema for precisely the same reason that the Christian finds liberalism abhorrent - its claim to universalism; its rejection of the distinct, of the peculiar.

    The belief that "salvation belongs, first to the Jew, then to the gentile" is the most destructive doctrine imaginable. A faith is either grounded I'm a people, in their cultural essence, or it works against them, eradicating those distinctions which make them unique.

    My aim is the recreation in American life of the aristocratic consciousness. This is intended as a palliative for three centuries of Christian-coerced democratic decline. I believe that hierarchy - real hierarchy, not an illusory Randian hypercapitalist market hierarchy - is innately valuable: and I in no sense imagine that I would be at the top, or anywhere close to it.

    The social conservative, who hates the liberal 'elite', is a symptom of the populist disease. Every other form of American 'traditionalism', from the Southern slaveocracy of the nineteenth century to the neoliberal 'meritocracy' of today, has made a mockery of genuine distinction of rank, taking as their respective measures an arbitrary racial caste system or fiduciary gain. These too are products of democracy, and as such are inherently tainted. (The landed gentry of the antebellum South is almost precisely the opposite of what I have in mind.)
    Last edited by Einzige; 05-24-15 at 06:19 PM.

  7. #47
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    16,857

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Do all social conservatives necessarily have to impose their beliefs on others?

    What of those who choose to live in a social conservative way, but do not feel the need to spread the word?
    Let me know when you find one like that.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,731

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Exactly so.

    and there are people on both ends who subscribe to a social libertarian ideal as well.
    That's pretty much where I am with the caveat that nobody is harmed and everyone has reached the age of reason.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,731

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    One can't draw a breath if he's starving to death so economic freedom precedes political freedom in the sequence of freedoms developed during the course of history. Which is why until only recently it was called political economy instead of separately politics or economics.

    Political freedom is no more "awarded" by the "authorities" than is economic freedom "awarded" by the authorities. We the people create and earn each, respectively, always have, always will. This is concomitantly true of social attitudes and values.

    Politics and government are about the distribution of power in the society and who gets to decide on the distribution. Economics is about the wise use of resources, almost always meaning limited resources, and who gets to determine what is wise use. Social attitudes follow to eventually become a central component of the dynamic.

    In Western civilization, the authorities have had increasingly less to say concerning political economy since King John had to sign the Magna Carta. In social terms, society's values began to break radically from the long dark past with the advent of post-industrial society in the late 1960s into the mid 1970s.

    In the Age of Information, social change is occuring radically and rapidly, never to be reversed.

    So the concept of an "award" is not in this vocabulary in any real terms or sense. Everyone is entitled to a living wage regardless of the nature of his/her employment or station in life. The Harvard MBA by the nature of it gets more, much more. And the more religion and other social reactionary institutions and forces try to interpose themselves, the more and the faster they are discarded.

    No problem.
    Wow!

    It's difficult to know where to start with this.

    Your ideas seem to rest on the ideas of award by a higher authority in an organization and an odd mix of definitions.

    A right, by definition in the USA, is something that cannot be taken away by government. This becomes confusing as the political parties try to sell things and conflate one meaning with another. There is no unalienable right to vote. It is an award and is not available to all. You need to be a resident and of a minimum age and so forth. This is an award and has been expanded and retracted over our history. Until recently, when laws were abandoned in favor of political expediancy, foreign visitors were not allowed to vote in our elections.

    You seem see no difference between political freedom and economic freedom. There is a huge difference. Economic freedom is something that exists completely until the government restricts it. This is what was taken advantage of by the economic empire builders of the late 1800's and attacked by Teddy Roosevelt. That attack has been ongoing ever since. There was a time in the late 1800's that the private corporations had more money, much more, than the federal government. At that time, the government had no real, effective method to strip it away.

    Government gets involved in both economics and politics not in the distribution of power or wealth, but in the RE-distribution of power or wealth. Government creates nothing. It only regulates or re-distributes it. When the government is afforded power, that power is what enables that re-distribution to be conducted.

    One of the great thinkers said of government that it should fear its citizens. In our country, the citizens fear the government. As a result, we are now living in the first Constitutional Dictatorship. We have become Imperial Rome of the 3rd Century AD.

    Late in your post you add the word "entitled" to the words "award" and "right".

    The idea that everyone is entitled to a living wage is fantasy. Entitled on what grounds? By whom?

    <snip>
    "en·ti·tled
    inˈtīdld,enˈtīdld/
    adjective
    believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
    "his pompous, entitled attitude"
    <snip>

    Tie this thought in with the MBA from Harvard. Intrinsically, any credential means as little as a title of nobility. Nothing.

    Any person is worth what someone else will pay him for his worth. If there is a community of 1000 Harvard MBA's and only one ditch digger and every one of those Harvard MBA's needs a ditch dug before noon today, that ditch digger can pretty much write his own ticket.

    The same thing happened in the Y2K panic when the IT guys got fat only to starve in 2002 when their talents were so omnipresent and the work so rare that they were suddenly leaving that profession.

    It might be good to examine the meaning of the words rights, awards and entitlements.

    You seem to think that they are synonyms and they are not.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,731

    Re: Is American Social Conservatism on a Permanent Decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan5 View Post
    Well let's see.

    You're completely wrong good sir. That's how I'd square that circle.


    -Hitler was a radical Catholic. (don't make me fill the thread with pictures and speeches proving so).

    -Russian Communism was a direct counter to the fanatical oppression of the Russian peasantry by the self anointed religiously divine Russian Czars. Without their religiously sanctioned oppression of the Russian peasantry Communism never would have fomented in Czarist Russia. (Again, do your research good sir).


    Social Conservatism is authoritarianism however you describe it (Be it Hitlers Nazism, Stalins Communism or Mao's Collectivism). You're denying social liberals their basic rights to conduct their lives and directly hurting the economy by doing so.



    I'm not denying anyone any basic rights.

    I am only challenging your conclusions and assumptions.

    I would prefer to not be put into the position of defending big religion as I've pretty much rejected it for me at this point in my life.

    That said, though, it's a little hard to believe that Hitler referred to his WWJD bracelet before every decision he made. The same is true of Stalin and of Mao. All three were responsible for terror tactics, mass murder and restriction of civil rights. These were NOT done in the name of God.

    That you see an assertion of a supreme power as a connecting thread does not make the assumed supreme power the same one. In the three political entities you name, the three supreme powers were earthly and the existance of another supreme power was obliterated by one, ignored by one and tolerated by one. The parallel is not there.

    <snip>
    Religion in the Soviet Union
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Soviet Union

    When the Soviet Union was established by the Bolsheviks in 1922, it was the constitutional organization which took over from the Russian Empire. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply integrated into the autocratic state enjoying official status. This was a significant factor that contributed to the Bolshevik attitude to religion and the steps they took to control it.[1] Thus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[2] and its replacement with universal atheism.[3][4] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[5] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
    <snip>

    Catholic Church and Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cultural Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    <snip>
    The Revolution was launched in May 1966, after Mao alleged that bourgeois elements had infiltrated the government and society at large, aiming to restore capitalism. He insisted that these "revisionists" be removed through violent class struggle. China's youth responded to Mao's appeal by forming Red Guard groups around the country. The movement spread into the military, urban workers, and the Communist Party leadership itself. It resulted in widespread factional struggles in all walks of life. In the top leadership, it led to a mass purge of senior officials, most notably Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. During the same period Mao's personality cult grew to immense proportions.

    Millions of people were persecuted in the violent struggles that ensued across the country, and suffered a wide range of abuses including public humiliation, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, sustained harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced, most notably the transfer of urban youth to rural regions during the Down to the Countryside Movement. Historical relics and artifacts were destroyed. Cultural and religious sites were ransacked.
    <snip>
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •