A purpose-driven conservatism
Tuesday February 12, 2008
Categories: Conservatism
"It is not enough for conservatives to advocate for lower taxes and smaller government if the purpose is for Americans to acquire more money and material goods Americans already have so much they are renting storage units in which to...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Can there be another purpose? Stuff is life! (And acquiring it keeps people employed, like writers.)
Yes and no. I'm reminded of Jonah's writings about how conservatism is - and should be - an incomplete philosophy of life. Conservatism as a movement should advocate individual liberty. Deciding what we choose to do with that liberty does not need to be the purpose of conservatism, or any other movement.
Bless,
Doug
Cal Thomas used to drive me crazy. If one kind of conservative said that conservativism was about business making lots of money, Cal Thomas would ask "at what cost?!" I used to consider the social side of conservatism to be a real distraction, since taking time to raise your children could get in the way of making money for your business.
This is what used to draw me to the GOP: the "million dollar boys club" side of the party.
Man, so much has changed. If nothing else, I've learned that libertarianism was substituted for conservative political philosophy and ignorance was substituted for social philosophy.
I'm with Cal, now.
So rather a "Crunchy Con" than a PODS person, huh? ;-P
Although Thomas' insinuation that only conservatives do charitable work was patronizing to say the least.
gjoe, I've come around to Cal's way of thinking, to. And like you, I once loathed him...
Larry, where did Cal insinuate that only conservatives do charity work? I missed that part of the column. Though I'm sure you've heard about that survey that suggests conservatives do give more – both time and money – to charity. I was surprised by that statistic when I first heard it, but the more I pondered it, the more it made sense. If liberals expect the government to take care of people (not a "bad" expectation, but one not shared by conservatives), it only follows that they would see less need to give of their own time and money... I have a feeling that came across as "patronizing" too, and it could be an incorrect assessment. Just musing aloud...
But yeah... a purpose-driven Conservatism. I can get behind that!
Rod, thanks for linking to the Cal Thomas article. Everyone should read the full article, which quotes from David Frum's book.
Like the ideas contained here. Catholic social and moral teaching remind us that freedom is not license. Freedom is designed to give us "freedom for" attaining various goods (truth, virtue, righteousness, holiness). It is NOT "freedom from" the constraints of life and community.
The suggestion that conservatives adopt a family and volunteer in other ways calls to mind other splendid examples from the past: Newt Gingrich banging nails in the 1990s for "Habitat for Humanity;" Mitt Romney's Dad (George Romney) establishing the national volunteerism initiative in the early 1970s, etc. Relegating charity and good works to the government (through various welfare assistance programs) does nothing for our souls and creates a bureaucracy filled with careerists.
Social conservatives and economic conservatives also need to dialogue. I sense on this blog and elsewhere a great deal of hostility and mutual suspicion between the two groups. In his CPAC speech on Thursday, Mitt Romney quoted Harvard professor David Landes' research that found that "culture" (e.g., solid families, high ethics, reliance on faith, communitarian attitudes, culture of life, strong work ethic, etc.) is the key to economic growth among nations.
If indeed strong families and a vibrant work ethic lead to economic prosperity ... which in turns finances a a vigorous national defense ... then social, economic and national-security conservatives have every reason to work together.
a PODS person? What is that, Larry Parker?
A guy who owns a vacation home in Ireland is warning people about materialism.
Sheesh, Cal.
"A guy who owns a vacation home in Ireland is warning people about materialism.
Sheesh, Cal.
Posted by: Joel | February 12, 2008 5:18 PM"
Having "stuff" is not bad, in and of itself. But when it becomes a person's (or country's) raison d'etre, that's when it becomes a real problem. I've been reading Cal Thomas for years, and I don't believe having more stuff is his raison d'etre. He seems very much aware of the importance of a spiritual life, and all that it implies...
MargaretE, I am by no means going to give Cal Thomas the benefit of any doubt. He is a Republican hack who defends torture and who recently claimed that Barack Obama has not sponsored any legislation in his career as a Senator, a claim that anyone with Google can disprove in less than a minute.
Joel,
Right, because demonization of everyone you don't agree with is so much better for your spiritual well-being. Carry on.
I think Larry Parker is referring to those movable storage units people can rent that can be loaded onto the back of a modified truck.
at least he's in good company:
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. . . . for the pagans run after all these things ... You cannot serve both God and Money."
Thanks, IK. (I thought everyone knew what a PODS was.)
MargaretE:
Thomas had a line about how only conservatives could take in another person and make a difference in his or her life. Didn't know ideology prevented people from positively affecting others' lives on a one-on-one basis ...
If government social programs were ended, and those who cannot afford to buy food and shelter for themselves were left to rely on the individual charity of conservatives, there would be mass starvation. If you doubt it, imagine ending military "entitlement" programs and leaving our soldiers to rely on individual contributions. As for encouraging large families, there are already large families living in homeless shelters. By all means, go encourage them.
Anyone who quotes David Frum as an expert on moral behavior has completely forfeited my ability to take him seriously.
Larry Parker, is this the Cal Thomas quote you refer to? It's the only one I could find that came close:
"Imagine the economic - even spiritual - revival that might occur if conservatives "adopted" one person or family and made it their goal to help them improve their lives. There are few thrills greater than seeing a life transformed in which you have played a part."
If that's the line you're talking about... I don't think Thomas is saying that "only" conservatives could (or should) do this. But his column is about conservatism, why it's failing, and how it might be reborn to be more successful. I think it's unfair to suggest that he's making some claim to exclusivity in this passage, or saying that ideology prevents people from making a difference, one on one. Instead, he's looking at his own "team" with an honest, critical eye, and acknowledging that the "old way" isn't working... that they need to stop talking and start applying their principles to real life problems. How that's condescending to your "team" escapes me.
I see, thanks. I didn't realize they were a type of person.
BrianF, the question of whether I or anyone else agrees with Thomas is completely irrelevant. What matters is that Thomas is objectively immoral (re torture) and inaccurate (re Obama and many others). If pointing this out is demonizing him, then demonization is way easier than I thought.
Maybe, MargaretE.
But Thomas is also talking about what DISTINGUISHES conservatism. And since he's saying that's one way that would distinguish conservatives from liberals, he's conversely implying that liberals don't "transform" -- and ultimately can't.
Sorry, Larry, but I think MargaretE has it right, and you are seeing something that isn't there. From the larger context of the essay as well as the context of the paragraph in question, Thomas is not comparing. If anything, he's cajoling. :-)
So Joel says that Thomas is "objectively immoral". Hhhmmmm, that phrase has a familiar ring to it.
Look out Joel, if my experience is any indication people are gonna get ya for that.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.