Is conservatism usually on the wrong side of social justice?

[triumphguy]

Pope Leo XIII on liberalism (From his encyclical “Libertas”):

…

But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

…

Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license.

…

Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs.

And so on…
Also see Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism)

The trouble is, though, that most people today who style themselves “liberals” are more closely related to a form of fascism or even socialism. They don’t believe in freedom of thought. In fact, most practice a form a rigid orthodoxy (if you don’t believe exactly as they do, you are a hater. If you oppose abortion on demand, you are a misogynist. If you oppose the simulation of marriage by two men or two women, you are a homophobe). And most have very little respect for private property (except for their own, of course).,in direct violation of the teachings of the Church.

See Leo XIII Quod Apostolici Muneris for a very forceful rejection of Socialism.

Bottom line is that I don’t really accept your premise.

Clears throat… Politely coughs - FYI - the Pope Gregory XVI encyclical condemns those most American (liberal) ideals such as freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and freedom from tyranny, and the separation of Church and state.

“…that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, …”

“…that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever…”

“…certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes…”

“Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state…”

 

[triumphguy]

Out of interest - what would the church say about writings like this?

Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

I agree!!!

 

[pnewton]

Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism)

If you read the way the philisophical liberalism is defined at that time, it was by definition atheist, or at the very least, deist. That is the inherent problem with it. Especially when we quote older Church documents, it is important to not so much focus on the term, but what exactly is the type of thought that is being denounced.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I will preface any answer with my saying that I don’t really think conservatism versus liberalism really matters, except insomuch as they are objects with which the Christian can steer the country to be shaped more like the kingdom of God. A tough, slow, often frustrating task. Often fruitless. But we hardly ought to let either party decide our ultimate goals. Our religion should decide our politics, not the other way around.

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions,

Ideally, yes. Practically, conservatism means telling people you’re going to do this. Meanwhile, though a finger or two might actually be doing something to help preserve tradition, an entire fist is digging into the national budget and stuffing it into their mouths like a bag of stale tato chips.

and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality,

I do not agree with this definition of liberalism. I believe it is defined as the opposite of conservatism - that is, breaking down traditional social institutions, regardless of the positive effects it may have. Liberals tend to experiment, for curiosity’s sake I imagine, but not necessarily for the sake of liberty and equality.

For example: the HHS mandate is a very liberal piece of legislation. It defies traditional understandings of, for example, birth control, believing it to be something everyone should have a right to, free of charge, on the dollar of the employer. While this certainly does break down the traditional boundaries between the workplace and the home a little more (by making our personal sexuality the business of our workplaces), it puts religious people who believed contraception, abortifacients, and sterilisations to be morally wrong in bondage to something they believe to be wrong.

Liberalism, therefore, as I understand it, is about destroying boundaries. Call it liberty, if you like. Or equality, if you like. But there is a point when “liberty” and “equality” become “slavery” and “anarchy”. I don’t think modern liberalism has approached this extreme just yet. But the results of its pushes seems to have been chaotic to the present.

then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

If we’re talking in the senses I’ve laid out right now, I would say there’s merit to that observation. Now, you probably wonder, why?

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo.

By definition, yes.

Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice.

True. There can also be no regress, either. Modern liberalism, again, is about breaking boundaries. Sometimes boundaries are good to have, and have been there for a reason. The family, for example, is a boundary that, if broken, could very well lead to the objectification of children as an accessory to be bought and sold and destroyed - rather than a gift and a privilege to be thankful for, to cherish, and to nurture because of how great a privilege it is to take care of another human being. Parenthood is an important job, not just something you can add to your resume. Good parents change the future, for better or worse.

However, if the boundaries of personhood, parenthood, and childhood change, are laxxed, or are removed, the future will also change as a result. And I can’t say it will be for the better.

In other words, sometimes flowing steam of liberalism is prudent; sometimes it is not, and the rock of conservatism is more desirable.

If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

This is not to say liberalism does not have its place; this is only to say liberalism must be prudent in what boundaries it wishes to break. Indeed, it must cease to be liberalism, and conservatism must cease to be conservatism. What we really and truly need is constant watchfulness and observance. Instead of constantly supporting change or constantly supporting tradition, we must do as the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years. We must keep those traditions that are unmistakably and unchangingly true, and we must be willing to assess the effectiveness of the rest, and act accordingly.

 

[Jaysuitical]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

 Conservatism used to mean 'considered change according to principle and precedent' rather than 'instant change in the name of human rights'. The term has been too loosely & thoughtlessly applied in the past 15-20 years, as corporations took over the conservative intellectual movement, and is represented by people who are more right-wing radicals than they are conservatives.

 One difficulty in talking about the 'successes' of the various places where conservatives got it wrong is that the successes were, in some cases, good; in some cases, equivocal; in some cases, distastrous, because, as conservatives warned, demands for instant redress don't always issue in justice, but can lead in a train of greater injustices. When I was a child, tv comedians used to tell jokes about women & wives that were appalling -- now that my friends are about to become grandparents, I not only hear teen boys & young men addressing women their age in the most vile ways, but the young women accepting it & responding with vileness of their own. This came without great gains in economic equality, since women still bear disproportionate burdens in the socially catastrophic state of the US, including men's complaints that they have too few rights. On top of a class war incited for the century before the successes of the women's rights' movement, the war between the sexes, which used to be a matter for gentle joking in comic routines, is a vicious & violent reality.

As a conservative who wandered for a long time as I watched the movement deteriorate into demagoguery and vacuity, I saw that most of the social organisms to which conservatives had appealed simply vaporize. The one natural place to repair is the Church which outlasts time, but of course, the Church’s aim is not to conserve, but to bring souls safely through the battlefields of this life into a glorious eternity with God.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Yep, most of the things the poster mentioned that were championed by the republicans and fought by the dems were when the labels were switched.

And another poster was right when he or she said that the words conservative and liberal have meant different things.

Perhaps it could be that the opposers of freedom and those who wanted to keep the African/americans enslaved were Southern Conservatives in the Democratic party?

Caucasions in the south have always tended to be conservative, no matter which political party they affiliate with.

Myth - In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. 1968, southern democrat racist segregationists became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all Dixiecrats had become racist segregationist southern Republicans

Truth - most Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. Dixiecrats were created and then when the civil rights movement accomplished, Dixiecrats returned to the Democrats. Much later, younger Southerners and the thousands of Northerners moved to the South and Republicans began to make gains

Professor of History at University of Washington, Tacoma, Mike Allen:

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democratss. Southern Democratss led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the '64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizonal Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the '64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; he was a CA colleague Earl Warren who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP.? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this, the new southern Republicans were integrationist Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

examiner.com/article/the-dixiecrat-myth

Diana Aldean was in the middle of this in the civil rights era and provides a commentary:

archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

 

[InJesusItrust]

One thing that disturbs me about conservative is that they are willing to defend bankers at any cost. Then they bring up accusations that one is socialist or Marxist to complain about the status quo. Is bailouts capitalism? Is charging interest capitalism? Is forcing a legal currency capitalism?

 

[markomalley]

Clears throat… Politely coughs - FYI - the Pope Gregory XVI encyclical condemns those most American (liberal) ideals such as freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and freedom from tyranny, and the separation of Church and state.

“…that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, …”

“…that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever…”

“…certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes…”

“Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state…”

Actually, I am well aware of that.

And Catholics should not consider that they are free to “free-think” – to this day, we are not to engage in heresy or schism, are we? We should all aspire to think with the mind of the Church.

The same applies to writings.

In order to understand this encyclical, you have to understand the historical backdrop of what was going on at the time: the French revolution, the Mexican revolution, the Portuguese revolution / civil war, rebellions in Spain and Italy.

He was condemning liberal, anti-clerical movements that, when they came in power, all severely restricted the rights of people to be Catholic. Limiting the rights of priests to dress like priests and to preach the gospel.

(Or, like the liberal rules in this country, sanctioning churches of any variety that dare to preach the gospel…those who dare to name names when dealing with immoral policies. – You are aware of liberal threats to the Catholic Church for daring to speak out against the HHS mandate, right? Or liberal rules in this country that force Catholics to violate their consciences)

(Or like the liberal rules in your country, which are forcing Catholic schools to teach liberal values when it comes to sexuality…or attempt to force Catholic groups like the K of C to accept their liberal values when it comes to homosexuality)

You were saying something about Mirari Vos?

 

[markomalley]

If you read the way the philisophical liberalism is defined at that time, it was by definition atheist, or at the very least, deist. That is the inherent problem with it. Especially when we quote older Church documents, it is important to not so much focus on the term, but what exactly is the type of thought that is being denounced.

And, if you read my post above, I discuss the historical backdrop to this.

BTW, you should not forget the Masonic influence on liberalism, as well.

The encyclical very much so applies today.

 

[markomalley]

By the way, in today’s context, it seems that those who live in “right wing” states are far more generous than those who live in “left wing” states – source, Chronicle of Philanthropy:

(click on the image to go to the associated web site)

i.imgur.com/2syD7Qf.png

Out of the top 20, only 3 of them are traditionally “blue” states.

So, perhaps,we can conclude that socialists (“liberals” as the OP calls them) are more generous with other peoples’ money, while conservatives are more generous with their own money.

 

[triumphguy]

Actually, I am well aware of that.

And Catholics should not consider that they are free to “free-think” – to this day, we are not to engage in heresy or schism, are we? We should all aspire to think with the mind of the Church.

The same applies to writings.

In order to understand this encyclical, you have to understand the historical backdrop of what was going on at the time: the French revolution, the Mexican revolution, the Portuguese revolution / civil war, rebellions in Spain and Italy.

He was condemning liberal, anti-clerical movements that, when they came in power, all severely restricted the rights of people to be Catholic. Limiting the rights of priests to dress like priests and to preach the gospel.

(Or, like the liberal rules in this country, sanctioning churches of any variety that dare to preach the gospel…those who dare to name names when dealing with immoral policies. – You are aware of liberal threats to the Catholic Church for daring to speak out against the HHS mandate, right? Or liberal rules in this country that force Catholics to violate their consciences)

(Or like the liberal rules in your country, which are forcing Catholic schools to teach liberal values when it comes to sexuality…or attempt to force Catholic groups like the K of C to accept their liberal values when it comes to homosexuality)

You were saying something about Mirari Vos?

You guys get “Liberal” upside down and back to front. I have an unclear idea of what you mean by liberal.

Liberal = free market, free trade, freedom of labour/capitalist.

And don’t you find it interesting that this document denounces the very principles on which the USA constitution is founded?

 

[triumphguy]

By the way, in today’s context, it seems that those who live in “right wing” states are far more generous than those who live in “left wing” states – source, Chronicle of Philanthropy:

(click on the image to go to the associated web site)

i.imgur.com/2syD7Qf.png

Out of the top 20, only 3 of them are traditionally “blue” states.

So, perhaps,we can conclude that socialists (“liberals” as the OP calls them) are more generous with other peoples’ money, while conservatives are more generous with their own money.

Or perhaps they have more money and get a tax write off for donating to charity?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

Your argument is flawed in the following respects-
-what is considered conservative or liberal is dependent on the social/cultural system you are citing and is dependent on the time period (both broadly and specific to a particular social/cultural system)
-it is too broad of an argument in which the only factor that really matters is the general change over time
-it equates progress or change to good and resistance to change or progress to bad
-it ignores the fact that progress or change has had real bad effects

Examples of progress being bad in regards to social justice-
-Communism and Fascism
-the rise of feudalism during the European Middle Ages
-unregulated capitalism and the Industrial Revolution

 

[markomalley]

Or perhaps they have more money and get a tax write off for donating to charity?

You can see the table to see the amount of disposable income. It is ranked by percentage of disposable income. As far as deductibility, IRS Pub 526 applies across the country. Same rules, regardless of state.

 

[triumphguy]

You can see the table to see the amount of disposable income. It is ranked by percentage of disposable income. As far as deductibility, IRS Pub 526 applies across the country. Same rules, regardless of state.

I wonder why Utah gives the most?

Which makes me wonder whether they aren’t really giving to the poor in some of those states, but to their Church, pastor and his kids’ college fund.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I don’t care what any particular political viewpoint is called.

We as Catholics are called to be outside the political system. Our Church has always done more for the poor than any other institution on earth. And always will.

I am a Catholic, first, last and in between.

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t care what any particular political viewpoint is called.

We as Catholics are called to be outside the political system. Our Church has always done more for the poor than any other institution on earth. And always will.

I am a Catholic, first, last and in between.

She’s right - all the major documents from Rerum Novarum onwards critique ALL political and economic systems equally.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I wonder why Utah gives the most?

Which makes me wonder whether they aren’t really giving to the poor in some of those states, but to their Church, pastor and his kids’ college fund.

I believe that is because many of the LDS Church’s organization are nonprofits and that qualifies as part of their 10% tithe, but don’t quote me on that.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If we accept that conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions, and that liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality, then I would propose that conservatism is generally on the wrong side of history, when it comes to social justice issues.

Consider, franchise rights, women’s rights, employment rights, healthcare rights, gay rights, racial equality, marriage rights, property rights… it is a long list. Conservatives have opposed them. Liberals have pushed them, until society accepted them.

Conservatism opposes change to the status quo. Without change, there can be no progress in the areas of social justice. If gains in social justice bring us closer to a moral world, then how can conservatism in the context of social justice be considered to be morally good?

I’d rather eschew all this Conservative and Liberal language. The truth is: we stand for Christ and his Church. She is neither Conservative nor Liberal; she is both Conservative and Liberal.

Either extreme is problematic. As Chesterton quipped:

The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.