Social Conservatives – Fighting The Wrong War

It has been almost two weeks since I last wrote anything of significance, due to a a bad fall on the ice and a major blow to my head. During that time, I have contemplated a lot on different subjects, some of which I may never write about. A lot has happened during my forced time off, some of it at home and some of it abroad. Egypt’s dictator has stepped down and that country is in the midst of some major changes. At home, our political leaders continue to wrangle back and forth over the coming battle over the budget and over which political party has the plan to cut spending the most. As we get into that fight in the coming weeks, I will most likely cover it in more detail, but for my return to writing on what I hope to be a full-time schedule, I want to touch on something else, something that struck a chord with me as I read it, even though I hardly felt like reading or commenting. Specifically speaking, what I read was a blog post by Matt Ross from Conservative Hideout, Blog Focus: A Criticism of Social Conservatives. I can’t remember when anything has stuck with me like this post and I think it is something that needs a closer look. To get us started, I want to include a few paragraphs from Matt’s post, but if you have not read it, I encourage you to visit his blog and read the entire post. It will be well worth your time.

In our past, we were as de Toqueville said.  There was no need for the Federal Government to legislate personal behavior.  We didn’t need a “conservative” nanny state, or any other, for that matter. We didn’t need to dictate anything to anyone.  People were good because parents raised children, and schools didn’t undermine the ideas that make our Republic work.  However, when people started becoming alarmed about our “social condition,” many decided the mistaken path of legislating their ideas of morality.  So, to fight the “culture wars,” the people have supported the expensive and excessive war on drugs, among others. In the end, we face the choice of two flavors of nanny state, depending on your social or moral preference.  This is a false choice, as both are “progressive,” and any time we give the government power over anything, we are less free.

So, where does that leave us?  It leaves us with us!  I believe that besides the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the greatest gift that God gave us is free will.  It’s up to we the people to be “good.”  If we take care of ourselves, and each other, there is little need for government to do it for us.

In the bigger picture, if we can remove the influence of Cultural Marxism, by removing the left’s power over our institutions,  people will, in the most part, not be encouraged to engage in evil.  The Marxists won’t go away-evil will always be among us, but they can only achieve their goals if they have the control mechanisms of the state.  Remove them, and the people (and the Holy Spirit) will do the rest on their own.  I think that might lead to another “great awakening,” one in which people will seek out spiritual truth, without the “deconstruction” provided by the Cultural Marxists.

Conversely, using government to achieve our social goals make us no better than the people and ideas we are fighting.   Tyranny is tyranny, and the path to hell is paved with good intentions.  We should not forget that we cannot fight what amounts to a spiritual battle with politics.

I consider myself to be a strong social conservative. By doing so, I mean that social issues are very important to me, issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, illegal drug use, etc. In other words, I consider abortion to be murder and it’s legalization to be one of the worst things that has happened in modern American history. I may not base my choice of political candidates solely on their stance on this issue, but it is a very strong qualifier, at the very least. Concerning homosexual marriage, I do not like the idea of homosexuals being able to marry, although I think civil unions could be used to accomplish the goal of giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, without applying the label of marriage. As for illegal drug use, I fail to see how anyone could consider some of these drugs a good thing. I mean, making oneself see things that are not actually there can not be good on one’s brain. Just look at the aftereffects of something like speed, crack, cocaine, or heroin to see what I am talking about.However, except in the case of abortion, these issues are about personal choices.

If there is one thing I have learned in my 48 years of life, it is that you can not make people be good. As Matt alluded to in his post, morality simply can not be legislated. One only has to look as far as the war on drugs to see that one simple fact. It doesn’t matter how much you tell someone that drugs are not good for their body, once they have became addicted to them, it is nearly impossible to remove that craving. However, that doesn’t just go for drugs. One of my college professors told my class years ago that he had not smoked a cigarette in 30 years, but the first thing he always wanted to do after class was smoke a cigarette. That is not to say smoking a cigarette makes you a bad person, but it does show that the craving for any particular thing can be a very powerful thing. Just ask any alcoholic and see what they have to say about such cravings. Can there be any doubt that the prohibition of alcohol was an unmitigated failure, or that the war on illegal drugs matches that failure? Could it be that we need to try another approach?

My thought process goes about it’s business in a very strange manner at times, so bear with me while I try to explain myself. Even though I strongly disagree with anyone using mind-altering drugs, what business is it of mine if you decide to smoke a Marlboro cigarette, a marijuana joint, or crack cocaine? As long as you do not harm someone else in the process, or resort to illegal means to obtain the money to fund your habit, is it my business, or the business of the government? By the same token, how is it my business who someone wants to marry, even if I strongly disagree with that choice?  If we try to make it our business by using the government to abolish such behaviors, do we not violate the very principles of conservatism we claim to hold so dear? By doing so, how are we any different than Michelle Obama trying to legislate what kind of food our children should eat? I have, therefore, came to the conclusion that social conservatives would be better off using means other than politics to achieve most of our goals. The main exception to this would be abortion. As Matt said in one of the comments on his post, we seemed to have found a way to legislate mortality, so we must fight the murder of our unborn children with any means necessary.

I know there are many who will disagree with my thought process and conclusion, so I want to make myself very clear. I still think a person should be careful about what they ingest into their body and drugs certainly fall into that category. I still disagree with homosexual marriage and believe it goes against the very laws of nature. However, I think we have been fighting against these things in the wrong way. Instead of using politics and fighting a losing battle, maybe we should focus on removing as much government influence from our lives as possible. I think we may see much better results by going back to the basics that used to be the foundation that made America and it’s people so great. In doing so, we can accomplish two major goals. We can, once again, hold the freedoms our creator gave us dear to our hearts and we can bring America back to the very foundation on which she was built. That would be a good thing, I think.

Read more at Political Realities