It's time for liberals, moderates and libertarians to agree: Crush social conservatism!

[Pushed To The Left]

War on Drugs, Anti-abortion legislation, Prop 8, DADT, DOMA, the religious right, terrorism (Al Quaeda are EXTREME social conservatives), racism, sexism, homophobia, opposition to hate crimes legislation (from people who claim to be "tough on crime" what a joke), sodomy laws, vice laws, etc.

Without social conservatism, Americans could debate the economic issues facing our country without the distraction of wedge issues that the right wing loves so much. Funny thing is, the social conservatives are the pawns for the more ruthless of the economic drown-govt-in-a-bathtub conservatives. They get less educated and less informed voters to ignore the issues that affect them the most and vote against their own self interest by baiting them with these social wedge issues. The thing is, these bathtub conservatives sell out their own small government philosophy by aligning with the theocrats and fascists.

It's downright sad that, in a blue state like California where I live, same sex marriage and marijuana legalization...hell, even medical marijuana...are considered controversial issues. It wouldn't be this way without the social conservative and/or religious right movement having way too much power. Don't misunderstand this post to mean that I'm a fan of economic bathtub conservatives or corporatists in any way. I oppose them just as much, believe me. But I think the social conservative movement has no place in a free society, and I think it's time for clear-thinking Americans to agree to reject this destructive ideology once and for all.

[wingnut40]

1. and they think the same about you.

its a vicious circle we are entrenched in.

[kenfrequed]

24. Of course

They hate people for existing and we hate the fact that they hate.

So yeah its all the same isn't it.

Sorry, false equivalency argument here.

[FiveGoodMen]

29. 'They'?

Didn't you mean to say 'we'?

[geckosfeet]

2. It will be consumed by its own doctrine of hate and discrimination.

But it poisons the society that plays host to it. Social conservatism is a parasite. Sucking the life blood from society. This parasitic organism must be eradicated by the defense mechanisms of the host.

[Sinistrous]

3. Nice thought, but one question --

How?

[Pushed To The Left]

9. That's the most important question. I wish the "secular progressive" movement that Bill O'Reilly is

paranoid about really existed and was as aggressive as he says they are. The quick answer is to oppose the social conservative movement on all of their issues and to not give them any breathing room. For example, the anti-abortion crowd tries to weaken Planned Parenthood by putting "parental notification" on the ballot every few years. Even if it sounds reasonable at first, we need to say no, because we know what they are trying to do. In a way, I enjoyed what happened to Miss California last year. She came out against marriage equality and got hammered! They didn't give her an inch, and she was eventually exposed. If people want to be social conservatives, I have no problem with them living their lives that way. When they try to impose their personal religious views on the rest of this by writing it into law, they are totally out of line in my opinion, and need to be stopped.

[AlinPA]

4. You hit the nail on the head: "They get less educated and less informed voters

to ignore the issues that affect them the most and vote against their own self interest by baiting them with these social wedge issues."

[Odin2005]

5. K&R

[DonCoquixote]

6. There is an elephant in the room

That one of the main reasons, if not the ONLY reason, these assholes are still afloat is that liberals, moderates, and libertarians are good at slitting each other's throats, while we let the right off easy by only having to pander to the lowest common denominator.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

7. SAD BUT TRUE

[patrice]

8. You can see that right here right now with all of the strategic Obama trashing going on. Power is

the motive, not solutions and anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.

I'm a Deanocrat, so I'm NOT entranced by the party power structure: Obama is NOT perfect, but he COULD be enough to "advance the ball" if people REALLY wanted that more than they want to feather their own status as power brokers.

What people are doing will make progress less possible and then they will justify themselves by blaming him for poor results. It's frakking BULLSHIT.

[MindandSoul]

15. Yes x100!

[blondeatlast]

25. Exactly--and the RRR knows how to play that weakness to the nth degree. nt

[treestar]

10. Amen!

We need to think of a way to do this. don't most polls show agreement with progressives on these issues anyway? It's ridiculous how the right uses them.

[ShadowLiberal]

11. Problem is for starters most libertarian politicians aren't really libertarian on social issues

While some people like Ron and Rand Paul may claim to be true Libertarians the fact is they align themselves with social conservatives on abortion. Not sure about gay rights, but they'd probably take a no help position on stuff like hate crime laws, as you know, it's big government telling privately owned businesses what to do (Rand's own words about the 1964 civil rights act).

And then not all moderates agree on social issues either, it's quite possible for two moderates to scroe nearly identical on a liberal/conservative scale test, but to disagree with each other on nearly everything issue.

I think libertarians would be more of a true Libertarian if we actually had a parliament form of government, or some other type that actually favored multiple parties, rather then just 2 big ones like our Federalism form of government does.

[Pushed To The Left]

12. Randi Rhodes had a great line the other day (I'm paraphrasing probably)

That Rand Paul wanted to shrink the government so small that it could fit in a woman's uterus.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. it took me a long time and it took growing older, but I think I came to understand something about

social conservatism.

There are two points to the social conservative way of thinking that attracts a lot of followers.

1. First of all there is a selective memory of the past. Many people long for that mystic past based on that selective memory and also a misguided notion that by opposing all the social changes that have reshaped society since the 60's they can reestablish the kinder and gentler world they less than accurately remember. But there is some truth to some aspects of that social memory that have some validity. Many people recall a past in which the world was a far simpler and certainly a less complicated place. Many people are old enough to recall a world where it seemed that a hard working person could make a decent living, a world where neighbors and relatives actually knew each other and to a significant level seemed to care much more about each other than they do these days. They recall a world where every small town had a number of factories and jobs that provided enough to make a decent living were available. They recall a world where every neighborhood, even in small towns had neighborhood grocery stores where the owner of that store held his head high and felt not the least bit inferior to anyone. Many recall a world when a person of modest means could join the world of successful small shopkeepers or perhaps even small time manufacturers.

2. Also social conservatism appeals to a misguided sense of class anger. When they look at the world of today which many see as abrasive and harsh, they quite naturally ask themselves, "what has changed since the 'good old days?'." Rather than recognizing that capitalism has run amok and created a far more materialistic society where competition has become so hostile, they see all the social changes that have gripped society, both good and bad. Rather than directing their anger toward all the economic forces that have created a meaner and nastier world, they direct their anger toward the kind of people who were not so transparently visible in earlier times.

Needless to say, "the good old days" were not all good. It was also a time when racism, bigotry and sexism were part of ordinary life and a world where being different would invite far more hostility.

Until the 1960's the Democrats pretty much held a monopoly on working class populism. The Republican Party rarely even attempted to restrain its image as the party of the banker, the country club and the wealthy and powerful. But quite cleverly and quite cynically they realized that they had to re-brand their image. Some would suggest that the George Wallace campaigns, first in the primaries of 1964 and then with his independent presidential run in 1968 demonstrated that there was a market for right-wing working class populism - first appealing to race antagonism and then appealing to resentment against all the rapid social changes that had so dramatically reshaped society.

For the left to effectively crush social conservatism it has to show that it can crush economic conservatism, the real spoiler of that which was good about the past and the real enemy of the old fashioned American dream.

[patrice]

19. Thanks for this! Very clear and understandable, yet concise.

How do we crush economic conservatism?

I can guess: cease to be a consumer culture and start small local businesses that replace corporate monopolies . . . what else?

[kenfrequed]

26. More important in many ways

Without the wild inequity and twisted ubber powerful, hyper capitalist corporate rule, there would be fewer benefiting from distracting us.

[Mojeoux]

23. Kick and Rec

[Trekologer]

14. The "values voters" are constantly used by the Republicans but don't understand they are being used

For 6 years (2001-2007), the GOP held all three branches of government, and they did absolutely nothing to pass the social conservative legislation they get the voters all up in a huff over, even during the "lame duck" session after the Democrats won majorities in 2006. Time and time again, the GOP uses wedge issues for to get the votes but never do anything for them because they know that if they do pass legislation, they will loose the wedge issues and those voters might actually vote their best economic interests or (even worse to the GOP) stay home on election day. What I don't understand is how the GOP keeps those groups voting for them time after time without any results.

The whole irony is that the "small government" crowd is aligned with positions that are putting the government more into individuals' personal lives. At the same time they want to "keep the government's hands off my Medicare" but want to put the government into people's bedrooms and other medical decisions.

[distantearlywarning]

16. Fully agree.

n/t

[Ed Barrow]

17. Don't forget their unconditional support for the Israeli government, no matter what they do. (nt)

[hansberrym]

18. It sounds easy, but the problem is that very few are consistent in their beliefs

Note that the dissenters in Raich were the most conservative, while the majority upholding Fed government power to ban marijuana were those normally thought of as the most liberal. On the issue of abortion, the sides are reversed.

Unfortunately it is this sort of inconsistency that makes it unlikely that a libertarian/limited government approach in the sphere of personal autonomy will return to the predominant view any time soon. It seems more and more the presumption is in favor of government power over the individual. Note that the war on drugs has been conducted by politicians on the right and left.


Crushing what you refer to as social conservatism will require letting go of government power that is so addicting to both conservatives and liberals. While small gov conservatives are often guilty of aligning with social conservative, liberals also often choose to side with gov power over individual freedom (Raich, Heller, Kelo, and more recently imposing a mandate to purchase health insurance) in the name of reform.

[patrice]

20. I'm not sure that I get your point, but I don't think consistency is required. The thing that is

missing is commitment to a unifying motivation that would connect the differences into a whole.

[Union Yes]

21. A hearty K&R!

:thumbsup:

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. We need to crush corporatism first.

Because it's the corporatist propaganda machine that allows the delusional "social conservative" minority to have far more power than their actual numbers should allow.

[TheKentuckian]

27. I'd agree that this is the more pressing and pervasive concern

Yes, so called "fiscal conservatism" (which it is not, no one burns and borrows more than those who label themselves as such) is actually corporatism and until that monster is defanged nothing can much change on any front in a structural sense.

Sure, one day they might allow gays, minorities, and women to join in the destruction of the other 90% but a more diversified ruling class isn't really the point.

[JackRiddler]

28. Sadly, moderates don't agree. Mostly they just withdraw, hand-wring, and avoid having views.