Social conservatism also sees old-fashioned sexual morality, however it plays out for different people, as a kind of ultimate equalizer, a justification of necessary social hierarchy, maybe even patriarchy.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Why social conservatives barge into the lives of those who are different in their quest of "freedom" from government
I was particularly appalled at a news story about
how a particular federal employee was treated at the Bank of America when she
tried to get some sort of temporary forbearance on her mortgage when she wasn’t
getting paid during the government shutdown, even though backpay is supposed to
be given. (Not so for contractors.)
Banks have said they will work with loan customers. But this customer was told, “No, we can’t
help you. Try asking family and friends
to pick up your mortgage.”
Whoa? I
haven’t been affected yet, and don’t have any big bills for a while. Property taxes, and a big dental procedure
have all been paid. No one has
approached me. Maybe I should feel
grateful, or lucky. But, even though I didn’t “have a family”, am I supposed to
become a personal insurance policy for others because of the misdeeds of those
who don’t do their jobs (either at banks or in Congress), particularly when
their failure is due to their own ego-driven agendas? Or is my asking this more
of the same kind of talk. The buck has
to stop with someone; if everyone simply wants to blame hardship on someone
else’s bad behavior, seek “justice”, and not step up, we all perish.
Yet, I hear rhetoric that sounds a bit like this
from the far Right, including some not so libertarian members in the Tea Party.
The most radical members (even Ted Cruz)
act like they want some kind of quasi-fascist coup. They want to abolish all federal entitlement
programs and throw people on the dependence of “family, friends and
neighbors”. Think how this plays out
with all kinds of issues: pre-existing conditions, homelessness, food stamps
(where the system that processes them failed this weekend), unemployment, even
bank failures.
That has an effect on “family values” that doesn’t
get stated often. The “socially
conservative” view sees taking care of the vulnerable as a highly personal
responsibility that everyone must share.
It’s not just a matter of deciding to have children, or knowingly
engaging in behavior that can bring children into the world. Everyone will, in their view, have the
responsibility for supporting other family members anyway. For example, everyone has filial
responsibility to take care of aging parents (and many states have filial
responsibility laws, which gets nettlesome with longer life spans and an
epidemic of Alzheimer’s). Sometimes
childless and/or single people are asked to raise siblings’ children after
family tragedies. This is a very difficult
matter for me to contemplate, as I did not set up my own “domain” with my own
“natural family”. I have to face the
idea that I found social competition humiliating and developed an attitude that
I would not allow any intimate relationship with anyone where I could not use “upward
affiliation”. I wound up “rejecting” people
based on any perceived imperfections.
Social conservatism in the US argues that it
supports “freedom” from government intrusion because it encourages
self-sufficiency, but only within the family unit and local neighborhood. Everyone shares chores and everyone shares a
certain level of fellowship or social intimacy in their local surroundings
before they try to make a name for themselves, as, for example, auteurs. This is a very difficult situation for those
of us who are “different”, that is, perhaps just a little bit autistic, in that
gray zone where we understand everything but watch it from a distance, and
build websites rather than work directly with people.
Social conservatism also sees old-fashioned sexual morality, however it plays out for different people, as a kind of ultimate equalizer, a justification of necessary social hierarchy, maybe even patriarchy.
Social conservatism also sees old-fashioned sexual morality, however it plays out for different people, as a kind of ultimate equalizer, a justification of necessary social hierarchy, maybe even patriarchy.
The current “Values Voter Forum” has a view of
freedom that is still collective and the “natural family” level. It is not the vision of the individualist, or
libertarian. I don’t even think Ayn Rand
would approve. But maybe Jesus would.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment