August 18, 2007
Bush-era conservatives are obsessed with sex
Conservatism used to be about commonsense issues that affect all Americans: low taxes, free enterprise, law & order, and our nation’s defense.
Do you remember Ronald Reagan’s speeches about the differences between the United States and the Soviet Union? What about Barry Goldwater’s proclamation that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”?
Reagan and Goldwater defined the high ideals that inspired the conservative movement during the Cold War era, when the main challenge to freedom was Soviet Communism.
While Soviet Communism is a thing of the past, America still faces many challenges at home and abroad. But so far, conservatives have failed to frame the important choices that the country now faces. Conservatives can’t be bothered with issues like illegal immigration, Chinese military hegemony in Asia, or radical Islam.
Nowadays, conservatism seems to be mainly about sex.
Don’t believe it? President Bush has opted for a “take it slow” approach when it comes to securing America’s borders. Although illegal immigration costs American taxpayers billions of dollars each year, the President has failed to allocate the funds and manpower needed to defend the southern entry points of the United States.
He has, however, found plenty of time to propose an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriages. Which is more important to the average American family: securing our national borders or banning gay marriage?
(I should note, by the way, that the gay marriage debate has been tremendously overblown by both the Right and the Left. But this is an essay about the foibles of the Right. While I have serious doubts about arbitrarily redefining the basic definition of marriage----I cannot believe that this issue warrants an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)
Case in point: Ohio's Citizens for Community Values
No teenaged boy was ever as obsessed with sex as is Ohio’s Citizens for Community Values, a grassroots conservative organization. When visiting the “issues” section of the CCV’s website, it becomes obvious that the group is only interested in sexual issues (and internet gambling).
Among other things, the CCV treats us to a rambling treatise on the various classifications of pornography. For example, they tell us that “group sex” is defined as “two-on-one or multiple partners and sexual activities.” This information might be useful for someone tasked with designing the floor layout of an adult bookstore, but I hardly think that the rest of us care.
Is this what conservatism is all about nowadays? Grading pornography in order to build an excuse to expand the nanny state?
Ohio’s Citizens for Community Values seems to think so. The organization is currently tying up legislative resources in order to implement Senate Bill 16--- a new series of strip bar regulations.
Someone, somewhere in Ohio possibly cares about this nonsense. But record violent crime rates in Cleveland and Cincinnati are far more serious issues that Ohio’s conservatives should be tackling---as is the flight of manufacturing jobs from the state. Ohio needs lower taxes a lot more than it needs new regulations for exotic dancers.
Rational people need to take back conservatism
I happen to be a conservative and at least a nominal Republican. But I am disgusted by the trivialization of conservatism that has taken place during the Bush era. Conservative leaders should be taking the lead with the issues that matter the most to American families: safe streets, secure borders, and the country’s economic independence. They should be boldly proclaiming the philosophical differences between radical Islam and Western-style democracy---as Reagan contrasted Soviet Communism and free enterprise a quarter of a century ago. Instead, conservatives have dumbed themselves down to the least common denominator: rabble-rousing the masses over lifestyle and sexual issues.
When did this all come about? When did conservatism shift from common sense to silliness?
The shift began in the late 1960s and 1970s, when the so-called Dixiecrats deserted the Democratic Party over civil rights and joined the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were not only intolerant toward African-Americans---they were also intolerant toward anyone who didn’t accept their views of Scripture. In the late 1970s, the Dixiecrats morphed into the Religious Right as we know it today.
The Religious Right “conservatives” weren’t interested in fighting communism and preserving Western-style freedoms. They were more interested in lifestyle issue campaigns--- like boycotting 7-11s that sold Playboy magazine. (In case you don't remember, the boycott was championed by Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1980s.) Needless to say, this tomfoolery didn’t inspire traditional conservatives. Worse, it gave conservatives a reputation for intolerance among the general population. (Barry Goldwater, incidentally, once referred to the Religious Right as “a bunch of kooks.”)
Given the Bush Administration’s lack of intellectual leadership, the ever vociferous Religious Right is now running roughshod over the more traditional pro-freedom elements of the Republican Party. Initiatives like Ohio Senate Bill 16 aren’t going to help elect a Republican in 2008. In fact, the Religious Right---by making conservatives look uptight, bigoted, and banal---might just be the best friends that Madame Hillary ever had.