There has always been a tension within the conservative movement between libertarians and traditional (and now social) conservatives. Libertarians tend to be against government "interference" in personal affairs, while conservatives are willing to allow government intervention to protect societal values. This tension has been around since the early days of the modern conservative movement, and was played out initially with in the pages of "National Review". This tension continues today, as noted on the pages of Instapundit and Classical Values.
I think the problem is one of perception. I generally worry about the same things that social and traditional conservatives worry about. I do worry that our culture is degrading. While I self describe myself as a libertarian, I am also Catholic. I have one wife and view that as a permanent arrangement (one woman in my life is tough enough, why do some people want more?). Other than the glass of wine with dinner, I am not running around trying to score substances. I avoid most t.v. as it is a sewer.
But I believe that much of the cause is the increased role of government in our lives. Increasing government's role will exacerbate, not solve the problem. When people began to see government as the be all and end all, personal responsibility disappears. And if you try and regulate your way to virtue, you send up with hypocrisy and depravity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
"But I believe that much of the cause is the increased role of government in our lives."
Anthony--
Much of the cause of what?
"Much of the cause of what?"
Rodak -- the cause of the decline in civil society and culture that traditional conservatives worry about. I do think in some ways there traditional conservatives over state these concerns.
Mostly though, in order to better the culture, teh answer is not government control but rather simply demanding bette. Make it worthwhile for people who make good movies and ignore the bad ones.
"Make it worthwhile for people who make good movies and ignore the bad ones."
I don't see how this makes any sense, whatsoever. A "good movie" to those who invest the considerable capital that it takes to make one, is a movie that returns the original investment, along with as sizable a profit as possible. The movies which do that are the movies that people want to pay money to see. I completely agree with you that what the people want to see is mostly trash. I, personally, almost never go to movies anymore.
That said, what do you mean by "make it worthwhile"? Do you propose to have strict government control of movie content? Do you propose to eliminate "culturally undesirable" films, and then subsidize "the right kind of people" to allow them to make films with culturally-approved themes and visuals?
This is loudly and proudly the most religious country in the free world. It is also the home of Hollywood. Cognitive dissonance uber alles.
Post a Comment