The Aerie
I spend a lot of time, comparatively, that is compared to normal
people, arguing politics in on-line. Even when I attempt to escape
the usual nests of such villians, the Star Tribune On Line or Salon,
the discussions emerge in normally non-political places, such as the
web conference for my church.
I go to a liberal church: it's about as liberal as it can get and
still be a church, and not a naked forest dance. But while the church
and its philosophies are liberal, some of its members are not
politically liberal, and one of them has raised the debate of whether
one can be a political conservative in a religiously liberal church.
Liberal and conservative are too broadly applied, IMO. There are
different forms of conservatism: social conservative, political,
fiscal, moral, and religious. So is there only one way to be
conservative? No. I'm fiscally conservative, butut I'm socially
liberal.
I've really been contemplating my own thin-skin regarding social and
moral conservatism lately, and I don't have any good answers yet. I
think the thing which irritates me the most about chatting on line
with social and moral conservatives is that I honestly can't believe
they believe all the stuff they spout. I don't mean that in a snide
way, I mean that I am always wondering whether they are jerking my
chain or are actually sincere.
I mean, the same people who will decry government interference or
involvement in ANY private affair (a social conservative) seem also to
be the ones who refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is a natural
condition of humankind (thus, moral conservative.) For a person who
is both social and moral conservative, it's not okay for the
government to inspect your workplace for safety violations, but it is
okay for the government to inspect your urine for private consumption
of drugs, or to prosecute you for private sexual activities between
consenting adults. They don't see or won't acknowledge the cognitive
dissonance between contradictory beliefs founded in their various
social and moral belief structures. Maybe they have a hierarchic
model, where moral beliefs overrule social beliefs?
So I see this cognitive dissonance coming from an individual and I
can't figure out what to say to them: either they don't acknowledge
it as cognitive dissonance (in which case all appeals to logic and
reason are likely to fail), or they're disingenuous, or they haven't
thought the topic through.
This problem is only exacerbated by the notion of a socially and
morally conservative religious liberal. How can this work? Do they
read our Principles as "I respect the sacred journey of every person
assuming they follow the Bible and not some uncivilized pagan
belief"? "I believe in the worth and dignity of every person except
that by 'person' I don't include bastards or homosexuals"?
I rely heavily upon logic and reason in discussion ideas with others.
I've been accused, by conservatives, of losing my temper because my
belief system is weak. I think they're close, but not quite on: I
think I feel threatened by illogical belief systems, because if I
can't trust logic and reason, then my belief system collapses. So
when I try to discuss ideas with conservatives, and I don't receive
clear statements or logical constructions in reply, the basis for my
own faith is called into question.
Finally, and this is also important, being a conservative is the
practice of saying "No." "No" to government spending, "no" to social
change, "no" to moral evolution (sometimes even "no" to evolution
itself). The process of being a liberal, however, is the "pro-"
position of debate; a lot more work. Liberals have to identify a
problem, develop a solution, and present it for public display.
Conservatives don't even need to wake up from a night's sleep. They
just launch their lazy "no"s out there, ignoring reasoned debate,
logical arguments, even impassioned appeals to justice, ethics and
compassion. All a curmudgeon need to do is type "no" and the liberal
is left facing the fight or flight decision, with neither being
satisfying.
And that's frustrating. Sure, it's GOOD that conservatives function
as brakes and governors upon every wacky idea that comes down the
pike. But it's also part of the reason why conservative initiatives
are almost an oxymoron. When social conservatives launch concepts,
such as Newt's famous "return to orphanages" idea, they fail much more
often, because conservatives aren't as practiced on promoting their
ideas as they are shooting down those of others.
So arguing with conservatives of any sort is like arguing with a brick
wall made of "no"s. And if you can't break through, it often makes
more sense to just go around.
[1]Last
Posted by Albatross at July 1, 2000 12:00 AM