Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Clarification about the site

Most folks have noticed the change from a pure left wing site to one that incorporates ideas from the right, as well as from straight liberalism, into it, on top of it all. With that, my main interest is in social conservatism, and the philosophy that goes along with that, not in fiscal conservatism. Right wing, pro-corporate, libertarianism has little attraction for me.

4 comments:

Lorraine said...

Takes all types, I guess. I'm left of center across the board. Push comes to shove I'm a social anticonservative first and economic anticonservative second. Give me a choice of only two candidates, one a social liberal and economic conservative, and the other the opposite, I will find the former a lesser evil. Definitely a compromise vote, but definitely a preferable choice without reservations. Economic conservatism makes my life more difficult and means I have to kiss more ass to make a living. Social conservatism is an immediate threat to my safety. If social conservatives want their culture war, be it known I am a non-pacifist.

John Madziarczyk said...

My social conservatism is highly unconventional. The thing, and I'm not really bragging or puffing myself up, is that I've studied lots and lots of political philosophy, and "social conservative" and conservatism in general have a different meaning for me than the norm.

I mean it more in a Burkean sense than either fundamentalist Christians or others. I'm bisexual, although my main preference is women, and am not on board with any anti-gay rights business.

It's more about the notions of character and virtue, things that I see severely missing in our society.

John Madziarczyk said...

Or anti-choice stuff.

Lorraine said...

Ah, a log cabin social conservative. :)

While I would never be against character or virtue, anything I can imagine saying in their defense would be accompanied by distancing myself from the "character" and "virtue" "brands."

Certainly social anticonservatives have been known to exhibit character and virtue. The question for me is the source of these virtues, values, etc. Received culture as a source of values, like "revealed truth," sounds suspiciously like an appeal to authority. At the very least, I reserve the right to reject specific tenets received via heritage. I find less discomfort in the sterility and amorality of utilitarian Enlightenment reasoning.