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.