June 15, 2016

Why social conservatism is not only valid, it is absolutely essential

David MacKenzieRebel Columnist
 

“Being a social conservative from Alberta [is] not really a winning formula for this Party anymore.” That’s what Global National’s Tom Clark reported from the Conservative’s convention in Vancouver.

Clark could be correct. Who can argue that the mainstream media know an awful lot about formulae? Indeed, formula is written into everything they do, from their news broadcasts to the selection of their prime-time programming.

They know our vanities, and they’re quite willing to exploit them. It’s good business.

Hence, if a winning formula is all that matters, why don’t political parties just ride the latest Twitter-trend, or cultivate the ideology which tickles the most contemporary ears? Ideally, a winning platform should emphasize lots of free stuff, an abundance of enabling, no harsh reality, and plenty of sexual catharsis.

The trouble is, this “platform” has already been thoroughly cultivated by the Left! 

Strategists may be loathe to admit it, but a “winning” formula never quite disqualifies our collective need for “the good”. Indeed, the sheer vacuity of what is often politically “successful” these days may soon help fuel the public’s desire for far more transcendent political principles. Such, at least, is the hope.

To that end, let me humbly submit nine reasons why social conservatism is not only valid, but is absolutely essential to the political and social health of Canada. 

1) Social conservatism is now the only political construct in which the nature of individual morality and its relationship to politics is routinely debated and appreciated for its contributions.

By contrast, social progressivism’s Marxist capitulation has meant an emphasis upon systemic causes of oppression, not individual responsibilities. In general, the Left now cares very little for the moral argumentation that has been standard political fare from Aristotle to Locke and beyond.

2) Philosophically, the “conservation” of the past is a necessary aspect of true progress.

Without a baseline, there is simply nothing by which to measure the credibility of social change. One simply cannot know progress without precedent. Put another way, the past is necessary to the future. Conservatism, therefore, provides irreplaceable perspective on the human political condition and its contemporary trajectory.   

3) Social conservatism values the traditional nuclear family, and claims (almost exclusively now) that family stability is indispensable to a functional society.

Given the erosion of family in the past fifty years— with increased rates of divorce, promiscuity, abortion, absentee parents, sexual and spousal abuse— we can expect that conservatism’s thesis will either be increasingly obvious, or thoroughly disproven. When the former inevitably happens, it will then be up to progressives to quit substituting the State for family.  

4) Social conservatism tends to be strongly theocentric (“God-centred”).

Surprisingly, this can be a key asset for political health and humility. In the Judeo-Christian context, such conservatism has a tendency to produce a prudent socio-prophetic impulse— that when the State begins to ignore moral authority or usurp the ultimate authority that, alone, is God’s, the “socio-prophets” will be raised up. Anyone can criticize the State, but not all are profoundly principled when doing so. 

Truthfully, those whose Statist desire is for the nation to become god, are seldom comforted by social conservatism’s capacity to produce a respectfully critical, counter-idolatrous, counter-culture.  

5) Social conservatives have a healthy sense of human mistrust.

They still believe in decay. Do social progressives?. If humans are essentially “good” and government is “naturally” progressing, we shouldn’t need political watchdogs, ombudsmen, and whistle-blowers.

But social conservatism doesn’t tend to mind realistic safeguards; they act as bulwarks against the worst aspects of ourselves, and of naive legislation. One very contemporary example of this is the recent conservative criticism of inclusive public washroom policies.  The naive liberal inference is that social conservatives are just being “haters”. The truth is that laws which actually enable predatory behaviour are bad laws— bad for being anthropologically gullible.          

6) Socially conservative values, as represented in such basic covenants as the “Ten Commandments” or the “Golden Rule” are intended to be integrated with public life— benefiting society.

Core principles of honesty and integrity must flavour more than just political philosophy. Wherever theft, fraud, and breach of contract abound, a business climate is inevitably brutalized. All agreements become riskier because trust is routinely broken. Conservative Indian evangelical Vishal Mangalwadi has argued that Western society has historically developed a demonstrably better business culture for being informed by the ethics of “Thou Shalt Not Steal”.   

7) A socially conservative priority of not aborting children may drive radical feminists to distraction, but it will help to grow a country and its economy.

A caring nation actually multiplies talent and vitality as it multiplies its own people. Conversely, a country that disposes its children will find its tax-base disposable as well. For a time, it may hide behind immigration in order to compensate, but a country that relies on another nation’s love of children fails to perceive the irony in its own parasitic priorities.       

8) This may come as a shock, but social conservatism implicitly understands minority rights, and yet with the inherent balance and qualification of upholding the common good.

Because of their connection to religious values, social conservatives know what it means to be opposed to certain broad cultural trends. Such philosophical opposition is routine enough that they don’t have to theorize as to what “minority” feels like. At the same time, however, social conservatives are interested in what is “good” as opposed to what is merely opportune, and recognize that nations need a commonly held, political “good”. Hence, they understand the social balance between “the one and the many” better than their critics often think they do.  

9) Because of its religious affiliations and doctrinal familiarities, social conservatism still debates truth in the objective sense of that word.

Philosophically, such conservatism doesn’t cling to moral relativism, or post-modernism, quite like progressivism does. As a consequence, social conservatives still adamantly believe that mistakes can be objectively identified and corrections potentially made. Shockingly, too, its ranks are still capable of being horrified by lies. Perhaps this is why there is still some mystique left in becoming a social conservative; regardless of numbers, we remain philosophically dangerous to the status quo.     

History would tell us that, as principles fade, politics turns to mere pragmatism.

To illustrate, when Jesus converses with the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate asks him two curiously related questions: “What is truth?” and “Don’t you realize that I have the power to crucify you?” Do progressives perceive the implicit warning? Put another way, did Machiavelli worry about “truth”?

When politics, ancient or modern, finds truth a philosophical burden or a losing “formula”, it tends to default to raw power. A social conservative would understand this, but does Tom Clark? Maybe this is why Tom should worry less about the “formula”, and more about Canada.   




Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-06-18 19:38:31 -0400
In another stories comment section, Kevin Hampson said:
“The Tories should be guided by reason and truth, not fashion”

And I would say that the mark of a Real conservative, is to be guided by reason and truth.
Absolute truth doesn’t change. It’s something we can discover.

What Michael Mann talks about is relative truth. He is so small minded that I am sure he thinks that a majority of people could Decide what the truth is.
commented 2016-06-17 11:38:25 -0400
It should note that I use the term “social liberal” generously—-the article actually contrasts social conservatives with “social progressives.” There are many social liberals who do NOT identify as social progressives, in fact I would say only a minority do so but that’s merely conjecture.

Oh you said the word FACT without providing proof…so it must be a fact? Fail.

Again, you say qualitative terms like “vast majority” (non-numeric), without any citation is this based on your experience? What is your experience? Fail.

Social conservatism does not abrogate liberalism; it embraces it; social conservatism does embrace classical liberal values; we live in a liberal democracy or at least that was the intended model under the Magna Carta. Conservatism ‘conserves’ those values—they conserve classical liberal value. Just as you have variations (social liberal+fiscal conservative) so too do those who identify as conservative. Again, the article uses the term social progressive—progressivism does not conserve it seeks to change under the ostensible cause of “progress.”

“I say again, the number of SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE Canadians is incredibly small.”

Again, lazy thinking—“incredibly small?” Citation needed. Fail.

Now your trying to say people who vote conservative don’t hold to conservative values. You can’t make this stuff up! This past election can be considered the strongest expression of support for social progressiveness, (i.e. Liberals + NDP) in decades and thus I believe we are left with a stripped-bare estimate of the number of staunch conservatives. As I understand your point is that we need to split hairs further from fiscal conservatives and social conservatives—it’s a valid point—it’s a weak one but I’ll give you that—and so you conclude, without any data whatsoever that social conservatives are incredibly small? Once again—citations please? Fail.

The voter map I pointed to is an illustration: rural communities, agricultural communities and resource based communities tend to be socially conservative (at least in my experience travelling the country you state I need to educate myself on, but corroborated by the voter map). I have no specific data, but that’s why I found the voter map so telling—more than half the country (~18M people) are huddled up in large cities and most of those cities voted Liberal/NDP, so my observations are not without merit—they also carry the most seats (it’s why election reform is on the docket). It’s better than just saying “a vast majority” are this way and the other way “is incredibly small.” Dismissing voting is literally dismissing a national poll, and dismissing their choices in that poll is ridiculously facile if not outright stupid. Another fail.

And there you go again, creating “REAL” Canadians versus fake ones (whatever happen to “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian?”—or that only counts for convicted terrorists?). It’s no different than proposing people who disagree with you should leave the country (erm…Texas?). Weak, and really? Is it necessary to make your point? Because it sounds juvenile, and does a disservice to the Canada that you apparently have never educated yourself on whatsoever.

And that is why you fail.
commented 2016-06-16 21:17:47 -0400
Danniel,

See – this is why you fail and you are better off to just say nothing. You make the incorrect assumption that if one votes conservative – they are socially conservative. That’s couldn’t be more wrong.

It is a FACT that the vast majority of Canadians self identify as liberal in varying degrees. That could mean center left and can also mean fiscally conservative, but socially liberal – so yes, fiscally conservative, but socially liberal people vote conservative.

I say again, the number of SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE Canadians is incredibly small. The Rebel’s overall failure reflects this per their traffic/ranking, but more importantly, the actual Conservative Party knows that if they ever want to win elections again, they have to become less socially conservative and have acted accordingly by now supporting gay marriage, etc.

Why would I mix it up, when the batshit crazy conservatives here would love for Canada to be Texas. Hell, there is a member here that MOVED to Texas, because REAL Canadians and what Canada is all about disgusted him.

You clearly need to educate yourself on the country that you live in. If you think REAL Canadians feel as you do, then you are more delusional than your post to me suggested.
commented 2016-06-16 17:44:50 -0400
Mann – you are consistently the stupidest of the trolls here, speaking for the “vast” majority of Canadians; your narcissism seems boundless. Not that I give shit, but it does get annoying seeing someone who never encapsulates a single shred of logic or evidence, whether it be based on fact or not. Fucking lazy thinker and overall stupid shite.

“Canadians don’t give a fuck what you think David and would actually say that you are an embarrassment to Canada "

Ad hominem – attacking the messenger not the message. Of course that’s your primary ‘modus operandi,’ it comes as no surprises really. Add to the the evident intolerance of a differing opinion such that—if you had a choice—you’d literally deport him. This is a mantra of yours you’ve echoed again and again, Texas being the presumed destination; one would think you could at least muster an iota of creativity and mix it up a little. God Bless Texas! (Oh and by the way, it’s not ‘ad hominem’ when you actually provide evidence that you’re an ignoramus, among other epithets issued here—it simply provides the basis).

“The amount of Canadians that are socially conservative is such a small demographic – it’s practically negligible by comparison. "

Citation needed. We just had a 10 year Conservative government, and if the 2015 general elections were any indication, 32% of Canadians voted Conservative. 32% is not a negligible number, and given they’ve won most of the last few elections it’s stands to reason the number could be high as 40% given the previous Conservative victories. If you have a study that shows the numbers are “negligible” produce them—otherwise you sound like an uneducated twit; it’s called begging the question, and equivocation (of the word “negligible.”)
-
“So no, it’s not valid at all if you want to be a Canadian”

Strawman logic. He didn’t say it was but he did say it was essential for political and social health of Canada. It can easily be argued that so is social liberalism—the two are not mutually exclusive. As someone who probably cums in his pants everytime the word “diversity” is raised, you’d think you might understand that. But, like your ‘diverse emissions’, you just opened that mouth of yours and everything happened just a bit too premature.
commented 2016-06-16 15:05:34 -0400
David,

Delusional people like you need to be woken up from their slumber and that means that you usually need to be a little harsh so it sinks in. The truth hurts.
commented 2016-06-16 13:14:43 -0400
If Canadians, including presumably Michael Mann, don’t care what I think then why does Michael Mann seem to “care” in such a visceral fashion?
commented 2016-06-16 12:30:31 -0400
I think policy and thing things that matter are too simplified by dividing people into social and fiscal conservatism. One glaring problem is most conservatives are a mix of both. But there are issues that go to values that are beyond what we mean by fiscal/social conservatism. There is the issue of Indian government and the budget for Indian affairs. What is our position on military defense and projecting ourselves to fight terrorism? What about the UN and national sovereignty and our relationship with the US? Do we want to fight terrorism as a law enforcement issue or military issue? Conservatism is far more complex and the narrative that there is a battle between fiscal and social conservatives is not exactly 100% true.
commented 2016-06-16 07:46:15 -0400
The man makes a great deal of sense. The family was the main building block that built our strong nations, what do we have now, nations crumbling and in decline?
commented 2016-06-15 23:04:42 -0400
Canadians don’t give a fuck what you think David and would actually say that you are an embarrassment to Canada – the VAST majority of Canadians are liberal in varying degrees and even those that are fiscally conservative are still socially liberal.

The amount of Canadians that are socially conservative is such a small demographic – it’s practically negligible by comparison.

So no, it’s not valid at all if you want to be a Canadian. Perhaps Texas is more your speed.
commented 2016-06-15 19:25:12 -0400
Here is a Female dominated job, yet states: "We encourage members of the following designated groups to apply and also to self-identify: Women, members of visible minority groups, aboriginal people and persons with disability.

Preference may be given to candidates who are members of an Employment Equity group;

- No true social conservative today would allow this, at least, “diversity” must be applied, reflect the reality fo the situation and include Men, and exclude Women from this Female dominated job.

- Likewise, exclude Francophones from most bilingualism required jobs as bilingualism since the 1980s has become a tool to hire Francophones like themselves as most bilingual jobs are dominated by Francophones

Records Management Clerk

Reference number: BSF16J-014448-000174
Selection process number: 2016-EA-NOR-CPSD-AMM-CR03-128
Canada Border Services Agency – Corporate and Program Services Division
Ottawa (Ontario)
CR-03
$40,786 to $43,993
Closing date: 15 June 2016 – 23:59, Pacific Time
commented 2016-06-15 19:20:03 -0400
A lot of Social Conservatives today are what Social Liberals used to be in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s.

Social Conservatives judge people by what they do, not what they say, which is why Feminists, Gay Activists, Environmentalists can fool those by making flowery Trudeau type speeches with great buzzwords, but are discredited when actual looking to see if actions back up the words, such as Equality, Diversity, when actions indicate preferential treatment and only if you think like us and no diversity for Whites, Males and other groups they stereotype as “privileged”, “advantaged”

SCs judge people as individuals, which the many of the left hate because they hide behind their group, like Wynne does behind her homosexual group and calls any dislike of her arrogant and bitchy personality as being homophobic.

SCs insist on fairness by looking at all sides, not just the politically correct special interest group side, thus if Gender Parity is to be done, it should be applied for both Women in male dominated areas, BUT also for Men in femaled dominated areas, where such Trudeau “equality” Feminists only want it applied when it benifits (preferential treatment in the name of equalty) Women.
commented 2016-06-15 18:56:14 -0400
A lot of Social Conservatives today are what Social Liberals used to be in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s.

1. Support of civil rights for minorites that Martin Luther King was about in Equality, not what his follower practice today in Preferential Treatment in the name of Equality.

e.g. Employment Equity, Minority Safe Space (no Whites allowed), Diversity (too White)

2. Support of Feminism which Feminists do not practise anymore despite claims of people like Rosemary Westbrook of the Metro, as they act like a bunch of sexist female chauvininsts seeking preferential treatment for women in the name of equality along with preferential treatment for Feminists over non-Feminist women in only wanting Feminists to speak for women.
commented 2016-06-15 12:54:28 -0400
Ramadan Bombathon 2016 Day number 10

Muslims often insist that other religions are just as violent as theirs and that the bigger problem is “Islamophobia”.
We put that narrative to the rest each Ramadan with a running count of ALL terror attacks categorized by motive.

Motive – Terror in the name of Islam………………..Attacks = 79……….Kills = 684
Motive – All other religions combined …………….Attacks = 0…………Kills = 0
Motive – By Islamophobes…………………………….Attacks = 0…………Kills = 0

Source: TheReligionofPeace.com

Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progressed.

Author unknown
commented 2016-06-15 11:38:30 -0400
We must fight to maintain our God centered conservative values or we will soon be living under tyranny. It has begun. We must believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can help us and will help us if we hold our ground.

This is not the time for conservatives to cave.

Good work Menzies.
commented 2016-06-15 11:34:36 -0400
Point #8 is an often overlooked or glossed-over perspective.
commented 2016-06-15 11:27:29 -0400
Small government (includes government getting out of all private sector business, like selling booze – it’s retail folks and the private sector already does it well)
Low taxes.
Red tape extermination.
Enforced laws, not just “constantly changing laws to fix stuff” – this is willful fraud.
Stay out of our homes.
School our kids without brainwashing propaganda.
Leave women’s vagina’s alone – they pay for their choices, not you.

And as far as values go, the CBC is the financed promoter of liberal policy that is morphed into Canadian values for the last 60 years – Canada has no values – Canada has regurgitated liberal policies – and stupid Canadians are too stupid to see this.

So forget talking labels and isms. Do this stuff and Canada will be a better place.