Social Conservatism Is Dieing

[MSimon]

Rod Dreher

As a social conservative, I am as pessimistic as I’ve ever been about the future of social conservatism in US politics. It’s not because of the maladroit campaigning of people like Mourdock and Akin. It’s because of the demographic changes that this year’s election appears to lock in. Social conservatism is concentrated among older voters, who are dying off, and being replaced by younger voters, who simply aren’t socially conservative, and aren’t likely to become socially conservative (at least not as socially conservative as older, expiring Americans are). I know liberals and media figures love to say that social conservatism is a loser’s game. I don’t think that’s quite true, at least not in the way that they mean. But I think it is true that going forward, it will be very hard for a presidential candidate to win nationally if he or she is heavily identified as a social conservative. We social conservatives are going to have to figure out how to deal with that. They’re not going to be able to tell us to go away, but we are in a weak position.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... what-next/

How to deal with that? Nominate social conservative Rand Paul. A spirited discussion of that is going on at:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/it-i ... ay-around/

A more comprehensive look from my point of view at:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/losi ... lture-war/

[Diogenes]

Orthodox births fuel population jump as numbers of poor rise; Reform, Conservative decrease.

According to the new UJA-Federation of New York survey, “Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011,” Orthodox Jews, because of their high birthrate, now make up nearly one-third of the Jewish community of the five boroughs, Long Island and Westchester and a whopping 64 percent of its children. That growth helped to increase the Jewish population here by 9 percent over the last decade, to 1.54 million.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/sweeping-changes-jewry-seen-ny-population-survey





From Israpundit.

As a proportion of the community, the Orthodox population more than doubles when you compare the demographic slice of middle-aged Jews with that of Jewish children based on the new data, according to Cohen. “Every year, the Orthodox population has been adding 5,000 Jews,” Cohen said. “The non-Orthodox population has been losing 10,000 Jews.”

Image from:
http://www.vosizneias.com/107806/2012/06/12/new-york-nyt-aided-by-orthodox-citys-jewish-population-is-growing-again/

[williatw]

Orthodox births fuel population jump as numbers of poor rise; Reform, Conservative decrease.

According to the new UJA-Federation of New York survey, “Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011,” Orthodox Jews, because of their high birthrate, now make up nearly one-third of the Jewish community of the five boroughs, Long Island and Westchester and a whopping 64 percent of its children. That growth helped to increase the Jewish population here by 9 percent over the last decade, to 1.54 million.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/sweeping-changes-jewry-seen-ny-population-survey





From Israpundit.

As a proportion of the community, the Orthodox population more than doubles when you compare the demographic slice of middle-aged Jews with that of Jewish children based on the new data, according to Cohen. “Every year, the Orthodox population has been adding 5,000 Jews,” Cohen said. “The non-Orthodox population has been losing 10,000 Jews.”

Image from:
http://www.vosizneias.com/107806/2012/06/12/new-york-nyt-aided-by-orthodox-citys-jewish-population-is-growing-again/

An example of natural selection working on the level of human cultures. Liberal progressives vs. traditionalists. Men like that would also probably be allot better at protecting their families and communities when push comes to shove if things begin to seriously go into the shitter in the years to come. Being brought up with a strong belief in your duties to family, community, faith seems to bear up allot better when things start going south than mere muddle-headed good intentions do. Men like that be they Christian, Jewish, Moslem have been raising families successfully for many centuries without a social welfare state. We are the richest society in human history by any measurable parameter and yet somehow we are rapidly going bankrupt; look at agnostic socialist Europe, they have only a fraction of our defense burden yet they are beating us to bankruptcy.

They kind of remind me of these lot:

http://jpfo.org/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms ownership America's most Aggressive Defender of Firearms ownership

[MSimon]

williatw,

I used to correspond frequently with Aaron Zelman the founder of of http://jpfo.org/ before he died. It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

We both considered the typical Jew's attitude towards guns to be very stupid.

Here is another Jew that gets it:

Richard Feldman of the Independent Firearm Owners Association has an oped in USA Today.

…we must focus on the fact that authorities say 30% to 45% of all gun crime is attributable to the illegal drug trade. History proved that taking profit out of trade in “demon rum” dramatically eliminated related violence. Why wouldn’t that work again?

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/04/it-worked-once/

More Richard Feldman posts at CV: http://classicalvalues.com/?s=richard+Feldman

JPFO posts: http://classicalvalues.com/?s=jpfo

[ladajo]

Typical propaganda slight of hand.

It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

Implied to the non-critical thinker that her is bright because he agrees, and only bright people can understand the truth.

Personally, I think he was stupid if he did what you claim. Not bright at all.

[Diogenes]

Typical propaganda slight of hand.

It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

Implied to the non-critical thinker that her is bright because he agrees, and only bright people can understand the truth.

Personally, I think he was stupid if he did what you claim. Not bright at all.

Maybe brighter than first meets the eye. Humoring a zealot might be the quickest way to get him to leave you alone.


I note that once again, the topic thread "Social Conservatism is Dieing", has once more been forced to veer into another discussion of "Prohibition."

[Diogenes]

An example of natural selection working on the level of human cultures.

And this is exactly right.

Liberal progressives vs. traditionalists. Men like that would also probably be allot better at protecting their families and communities when push comes to shove if things begin to seriously go into the shitter in the years to come. Being brought up with a strong belief in your duties to family, community, faith seems to bear up allot better when things start going south than mere muddle-headed good intentions do. Men like that be they Christian, Jewish, Moslem have been raising families successfully for many centuries without a social welfare state.

Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

We are the richest society in human history by any measurable parameter and yet somehow we are rapidly going bankrupt; look at agnostic socialist Europe, they have only a fraction of our defense burden yet they are beating us to bankruptcy.

That's because Social Bankruptcy is ~90 degrees out of phase with Fiscal bankruptcy.


Simon understands leading/lagging phase relationships with current and voltage, but he seemingly has no conception of the exact same phenomena in terms of social and fiscal.


Libertarians don't want there to be a connection, and so they are blinded by their own confirmation bias.

[williatw]

Simon understands leading/lagging phase relationships with current and voltage, but he seemingly has no conception of the exact same phenomena in terms of social and fiscal.


Libertarians don't want there to be a connection, and so they are blinded by their own confirmation bias.

Political positions of Libertarian party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson who I voted for in the 2008 elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... rug_policy

Johnson says his drug policy is "Don't do drugs."[45] He believes drugs are "harmful, addictive and destructive to our lives and society."[45] He believes the same about alcohol, and has not had a drink in decades.[45]

However, Johnson believes that the War on Drugs has not been successful, and should be ended.[45] He "believes it is insane to arrest roughly 800,000 people a year for choosing to use a natural substance that is, by any reasonable objective standard, less harmful than alcohol, a drug that is advertised at every major sporting event."[41] He compares present-day drug prohibition to the failed alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.[45] He says "90% of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related."

Sorry don't see any suggestion there that because he thinks the war on drugs is a failure, that drugs themselves (pot or otherwise) are "harmless". Any more than people who worked to repeal prohibition thought drinking whiskey to excess was harmless. He thinks the greatest threat to our survival as a nation is our exploding debt, which I would strongly agree with.

[Teahive]

Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

[MSimon]

Typical propaganda slight of hand.

It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

Implied to the non-critical thinker that her is bright because he agrees, and only bright people can understand the truth.

Personally, I think he was stupid if he did what you claim. Not bright at all.

He was bright because he considered liberty indivisible. And he understood that Prohibitions of that sort were a Progressive idea. He also got that such Prohibitions were unconstitutional. And I have proof. The 18th and 21st Amendments.

I am greatly amused by the current crop of Constitutional Conservatives who would preserve Wickard. Which led to Raich (an anti-marijuana decision). Which gave us ObamaCareless. Raich was cited 6 times in the majority ObamaCareless decision. BTW Scalia went with the majority (anti-marijuana) in Raich and the minority in ObamaCareless. Thomas was consistent. The minority in Raich (Wicard was wrongly decided) and the minority in Obamacareless (Wickard was wrongly decided).

Well of no matter. About 58% of Americans want to see the end of cannabis prohibition. And as the refer madness crowd dies off that number will continue to increase some. It is only a matter of time until the laws change.

Social Conservative Rand Paul for President!

Endocannabinoids.

[Diogenes]

Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

Human nature changes at the speed of biological evolution. I think we're good for a few thousand years or so.

[hanelyp]

I would say human nature has a solid core of self interest, as with every successful species. If evolution brings any improvement on the character of the animal it will be a longer term perspective on self interest.

[Teahive]

Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

Human nature changes at the speed of biological evolution. I think we're good for a few thousand years or so.

I wrote changing environment. Put genetically identical humans in different environments and they will behave differently. Adaptability isn't just an emergent property of the process of biological evolution, it's part of the development process of individual brains.

We don't live in the same environment people lived a few thousand years ago. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

[Diogenes]

The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

Human nature changes at the speed of biological evolution. I think we're good for a few thousand years or so.

I wrote changing environment. Put genetically identical humans in different environments and they will behave differently. Adaptability isn't just an emergent property of the process of biological evolution, it's part of the development process of individual brains.

We don't live in the same environment people lived a few thousand years ago. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

And it's silly to argue that Human nature isn't the issue of relevance. Yeah, we know how humans do in different environments. We have the history, and we wrote it down.

[ladajo]

About 58% of Americans want to see the end of cannabis prohibition

Another misrepresentation. It certainly does not mean the 58% (which year? what survey group and methodolgy?) agree to complete legalization as you constantly imply and try to get folks to believe.

Well, in any event, it does not mean they are right. Nor are the 30% (ish) of americans who believe in Bigfoot probably right.

(2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll)