And so it begins...
Nov. 11th, 2004 08:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shirenomadJudging by the reaction to my poll, I've decided it's safe to give this a test run for a few weeks and see what happens. My "guest writer" is planning to get his own LJ, and when he does I'll either start pointing you all there for each post, or mirror his essays, depending on further reaction and response. But for now, here he goes.
So without further ado, I'd like to introduce you all to my brother, Will Reaves. (And you wondered where I get it from...)
------
Some of you are probably wondering why I am bothering to write this at all. I am, after all, a complete stranger to you, and introducing myself to you through a series of political essays -- specifically from a perspective with which most of you disagree -- does not bode well for first impressions. Furthermore, I don't expect to actually convince more than a few of you, if indeed any at all, of accepting even most of my policy positions, much less converting to full-blown conservatism. Political worldviews are incredibly resilient, as the continued flourishing of Communism in academic circles demonstrates rather well. Thus I do not expect even my infallible reasoning and marshalling of indisputable facts to convince many of you of the wisdom of conservatism; by the same token, you shouldn't expect your infallible reasoning and indisputable facts to convince me of the shining truth of liberalism, either.
This is not to say that there will be no undecided readers out there. I'm certain there will be some who will genuinely develop and/or switch their positions (one way or another) due to the arguments we put forth. But for the most part, those of us doing the actual arguing have probably already come to a sufficiently entrenched political position to avoid easy displacement.
So, leaving aside the possibility of a lone convert here or there, why am I doing this? Because even should I convince absolutely no one of any belief I have, I will (or at least I should) provide an opportunity for dialogue which far too many people presently lack. With very rare exceptions by CMZ, the only political dialogue -- that I have observed, at least -- ranges from center-left to very-strongly-left. (Apparently, Surgo is a libertarian, but as his journal is restricted to friends I've never had a chance to read him.) This is despite the fact that in CMZ's (admittedly highly unscientific) poll about the possibilities of this column, over one-fourth of respondents identified themselves as conservatives. This probably means that a) the political climate of the community is sufficiently hostile to conservative thought to stifle true dialogue, b) the various conservative members of the community do not wish to endanger their friendships with liberal members by voicing alternate views, or c) some combination of the first two options.
But regardless of the reasons, this means that most of you have very little opportunity for a true political conversation. I don't mean by this that you do not confront conservatives or Republicans; just as growing up in the California Bay Area I had little choice but to interact with liberals, many of you no doubt are stuck in firmly "red" regions of the country. But interaction, or even confrontation, is not the same as dialogue: A true dialogue is sustained, reflective, and carefully reasoned, which is virtually impossible under normal circumstances without deliberate effort on both sides. With very rare exceptions, my opportunities for dialogue started at the beginning of college and ended when I graduated. So I admit that I am doing this for partially selfish reasons; I believe that political conversations between opposed mindsets -- so long as it remains generally civil -- is a healthy thing and something in which I would like to partake. Referring to the (again, highly unscientific) poll that CMZ posted, it seems that many of you agree.
Additionally, not knowing any of you personally allows me to speak with a certain degree of freedom which others may lack. While I will, of course, do my best to be courteous, I have no friendships to endanger and thus can speak honestly when disagreements arise. I can guess that my opinions will at least in some areas will cause at least some of you to find me offensive and distasteful, no matter how politely I state them. That is, of course, a perfectly natural response; my only hope is that it will not adversely limit our exchange.
Well, so far I've managed to go on for nearly 700 words without actually articulating one conservative belief. So I'll close this introduction with a query: What would the liberals/undecideds reading this like to discuss? What conservative position most confuses or frustrates you? I'll use your responses as a basis for where to begin.
So without further ado, I'd like to introduce you all to my brother, Will Reaves. (And you wondered where I get it from...)
------
Some of you are probably wondering why I am bothering to write this at all. I am, after all, a complete stranger to you, and introducing myself to you through a series of political essays -- specifically from a perspective with which most of you disagree -- does not bode well for first impressions. Furthermore, I don't expect to actually convince more than a few of you, if indeed any at all, of accepting even most of my policy positions, much less converting to full-blown conservatism. Political worldviews are incredibly resilient, as the continued flourishing of Communism in academic circles demonstrates rather well. Thus I do not expect even my infallible reasoning and marshalling of indisputable facts to convince many of you of the wisdom of conservatism; by the same token, you shouldn't expect your infallible reasoning and indisputable facts to convince me of the shining truth of liberalism, either.
This is not to say that there will be no undecided readers out there. I'm certain there will be some who will genuinely develop and/or switch their positions (one way or another) due to the arguments we put forth. But for the most part, those of us doing the actual arguing have probably already come to a sufficiently entrenched political position to avoid easy displacement.
So, leaving aside the possibility of a lone convert here or there, why am I doing this? Because even should I convince absolutely no one of any belief I have, I will (or at least I should) provide an opportunity for dialogue which far too many people presently lack. With very rare exceptions by CMZ, the only political dialogue -- that I have observed, at least -- ranges from center-left to very-strongly-left. (Apparently, Surgo is a libertarian, but as his journal is restricted to friends I've never had a chance to read him.) This is despite the fact that in CMZ's (admittedly highly unscientific) poll about the possibilities of this column, over one-fourth of respondents identified themselves as conservatives. This probably means that a) the political climate of the community is sufficiently hostile to conservative thought to stifle true dialogue, b) the various conservative members of the community do not wish to endanger their friendships with liberal members by voicing alternate views, or c) some combination of the first two options.
But regardless of the reasons, this means that most of you have very little opportunity for a true political conversation. I don't mean by this that you do not confront conservatives or Republicans; just as growing up in the California Bay Area I had little choice but to interact with liberals, many of you no doubt are stuck in firmly "red" regions of the country. But interaction, or even confrontation, is not the same as dialogue: A true dialogue is sustained, reflective, and carefully reasoned, which is virtually impossible under normal circumstances without deliberate effort on both sides. With very rare exceptions, my opportunities for dialogue started at the beginning of college and ended when I graduated. So I admit that I am doing this for partially selfish reasons; I believe that political conversations between opposed mindsets -- so long as it remains generally civil -- is a healthy thing and something in which I would like to partake. Referring to the (again, highly unscientific) poll that CMZ posted, it seems that many of you agree.
Additionally, not knowing any of you personally allows me to speak with a certain degree of freedom which others may lack. While I will, of course, do my best to be courteous, I have no friendships to endanger and thus can speak honestly when disagreements arise. I can guess that my opinions will at least in some areas will cause at least some of you to find me offensive and distasteful, no matter how politely I state them. That is, of course, a perfectly natural response; my only hope is that it will not adversely limit our exchange.
Well, so far I've managed to go on for nearly 700 words without actually articulating one conservative belief. So I'll close this introduction with a query: What would the liberals/undecideds reading this like to discuss? What conservative position most confuses or frustrates you? I'll use your responses as a basis for where to begin.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 05:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 06:24 am (UTC)However, I have a bit to say about some of your other points:
...in the few countries where gay marriage or even the equivalent of civil unions is allowed, marriage has further dissipated...
I don't believe that that indicates that legal gay marriage causes a dissipation in marriage on the whole--it is entirely possible that that cause/effect relationship is backwards. (If people don't care as much about marriage, then it's reasonable to expect they'd be more likely to allow same-sex couples to do it.) I'm not saying the relationship is necessarily backwards, I'm just saying it's not necessarily forwards, either. It may be one third thing is causing both of those effects, or it may be completely coincidental--a theory which would be supported by the fact that Massachusetts, where gay marriage was legalized, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
If it is arbitrary and unduly restrictive to maintain that marriage is between two people, a man and a woman, then why is it not also arbitrary to maintain that marriage is between two people?
I would like to posit that I have absolutely no problem with supporting group marriages as a viable form of marriage. I do not often discuss it because it's politically bad mojo, but I believe that it behooves me to do so as long as I'm responding to your post. Decades ago, there was a fight for interracial marriage, and people supporting that idea may well have had the same view about gay marriage. It is my hope that gay marriage sees legality within the next two decades, and polygamy follows in several more.
...marriage properly understood is not about individuals in intimacy with each other but the family as a unit...
I'm not sure if that's true, but I'm willing to grant it for the sake of argument. Having done so, though, I still fail to see how that leads into an exclusion of gays. Gay couples can adopt, just like straight couples (and I don't think many would argue that a straight couple with an adopted child is less worthy of the mantle 'family' than one with a biological cild.) It may even someday come to pass that gay couples can conceive children fo their own--perhaps by way of inserting DNA from one woman's egg cell into another woman's egg cell.
they have found that a man and a woman, raising a child, is better than the other combinations....
If, then, households with both genders occupying parental roles function better than households with only one, should not only two gender households be allowed?
I do not see how this can be a viable argument against gay marriage unless you also purport to make single-parenting unlawful.
(edited to fix a couple typoes and clarify a couple phrases)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-16 07:47 am (UTC)I came across this news article, too. It seems relevant.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 06:14 am (UTC)Naw, I wouldn't worry (about me). I might find your views offensive and distasteful, but that is pretty different from finding you offensive and distasteful. Despite the impious tone of my commentary which I am not entirely able to prevent from seeping in even in this conciliatory sentence, I don't think you are a bad sort!
(Flonne icon reused to emphasize that there are flowers in my head, filled with love and witlessness)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 01:21 pm (UTC)I dislike the policies of the Bush administration, and think it a shame that he was re-elected, but I'm not gonna get all suicidal and look to expatriate myself. I'm not the kind of person who thinks that Canada is some awesome utopia. Besides, moving is a pain in the ass.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 04:35 pm (UTC)However, the accuracy of the results of the election are far from a sure thing at this point, and its' definitely worth looking into some more, if only so we know the truth:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10500.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/11/opinion/main655162.shtml
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6460869/
http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2004-11-09.html
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 07:41 pm (UTC)While the whole bit about people crying about Bush not winning in 2000 annoys me as well as you, I feel the reason people (along with some disillusioned people who still feel like crying about 2000) are coming out in force is because of the executive, congress, and judicial branches are all about to be about as far right as it gets.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 07:36 pm (UTC)...marriage properly understood is not about individuals in intimacy with each other but the family as a unit...
If by "family as a unit" you mean children, then childfree people (people who never want children) such as myself should never be able to marry by that logic.
If you mean like a traditional two-person family, there is no reason why they could not be.
Anyway, on to the main point of this. Something I truly do not understand about today's conservatism is the United States' fiscal responsibility. The Republican party used to hold the ideal of small government and financial responsibility dear to its collective heart. Nowadays under this Bush administration, however, small government and financial responsibility of the government seems to be a thing of the long-gone past. What's with the switch?
One other point I do not understand is rather general, it's the idea of sacrificing civil rights for so-called national security. Why is everyone for that with such fervour?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-13 02:57 am (UTC)I don't mean why you (I think) are pro-life. I mean why you and other conservatives are so pro-life that the sight of causes of abortions and solutions to the abortion problem are lost.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-13 04:15 am (UTC)The war in Iraq was begun for reasons that were false. These reasons have been changed over time, and none of them have ended up being true. WoMD were never found, and Iraq had no ties to Al-Quada and the Sept 11 attacks. The attack against Iraq was made without the support of the UN, against the wishes of many countries who cautioned against attacking without proof and without a plan for sustaining the country afterwards. And while we had to go to war to save Iraq because it is "right", mysteriously, this does not apply to other countries who meet the same criteria, such as North Korea. The people of the world have been lied to about this war. They were lied to about there being Weapons of Mass Destruction. About finding them. About a lot of things. Instead of admitting mistakes, and resolving to fix them, the Bush Administartion declares that they never messed up in the first place and everything is going great. How can one have confidence in that? And that plan for rebuilding Iraq? Still don't have one. Still pointlessly losing lives of civillians and American soldiers, day, after day, after day. Still costing the American people billions of dollars.
How can one justify this war and the huge cost (in money, and more importantly, in lives) of it?
Next time, Environment, perhaps.
Continuing the Gay Marriage Debate, Part 1
Date: 2004-11-15 05:40 am (UTC)Actually, I think it's both. Yes, the lack of concern about marriage makes people more inclined to accept same-sex ones. But the reason they are less inclined to care is that they have a (relatively new) definition for marriage: they view it as merely involving people who "love" each other (read: have romantic feelings for and/or are shagging each other). If gay marriage is commonly accepted, the former definition gets locked into place legally; that is, after all, how the courts have been forcing it into law.
This reasoning makes a certain degree of sense: If marriage really is nothing more than a) some combination of people involved in sexual relations with one another who b) wish to formalize that relationship, then restricting marriage to only heterosexual pairings is obviously discriminatory. But I don't think that definition really does explain what marriage is (or what, more accurately, it is supposed to be).
On Massachusetts's low divorce rate, two points: 1) Gay marriage is just beginning in MA, so we don't have any data about what effect it is having, and won't for another five to ten years, and 2) these numbers would make clear that despite having strong marriage values, they still felt that gays should be included, if it was their decision. It wasn't. Their Supreme Court, acting against their wishes, did it for them. We really can't judge anything about the marriage culture in MA by the fact their judiciary leans left.
(This, incidentally, leads to another argument--not against gay marriage, but against the methods used to enact it--which I found on your own LJ. It notes the general distaste and anger generated when individuals have Supreme Court rulings shoved down their throats. It's worth a read, particularly given it addresses an issue that will come up again--regarding both sides--when I discuss abortion.)
Part 2
Date: 2004-11-15 05:42 am (UTC)Marriage is not about families in a generic sense. It is about the best possible scenario. All other things being equal--i.e. no abuse, etc.--a single pairing of a man and a woman is the best possible for raising children, for a variety of psychological/biological reasons. With enough research, we could probably determine how the other possibilities line up--assuming we were really curious as to whether heterosexual polygamy would beat out homosexual monogamy (the former has a better historical pedigree, although the problems caused are also better documented).
But this is beside the point, namely that we know what the best situation is for raising children, and it's (not surprisingly) the one we spent the last several thousand years gradually restricting into the present shape of marriage. I would argue the recent experiments to "de-restrict" marriage (particularly no-fault divorce) have been an unmitigated disaster, each harming the fundamental state of marriage as a secure place to raise children, and each leading legally to the next step on "de-restriction".
The legal argument supporting gay marriage is dependent on the new definition of marriage. This definition will be enshrined into law if the current legalization attempt succeeds. (See my my original post, along with paragraphs one and two here.)
Chime: I do not see how this can be a viable argument against gay marriage unless you also purport to make single-parenting unlawful.
Surgo: If by "family as a unit" you mean children, then childfree people (people who never want children) such as myself should never be able to marry by that logic.
I don't think either conclusion follows. Single-parenting would be more akin to gays being able to adopt--which is not the same thing as marriage. Surgo, assuming you still don't want kids five to ten years from now, being married still doesn't require any fundamental change of the current system that would cause the culture of marriage to shift. My central concern is that I don't see any way to expand the definition of marriage regarding homosexuality without destroying the definition, for the reasons above and in my original column. I think my position that destroying the definition is a Bad Thing has been sufficiently explicated.
Although it is rather an obvious thing for me to announce ...
Date: 2004-11-15 05:53 am (UTC)--Will