14 December 2012

Neo-Conservatism is Leftism For Uncool People

Here’s Glenn Beck:
"Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution," Beck said during a recent segment of his online talk show. "The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?"
For a guy who the wrote the book The Real America, Beck seems ignorant of the fact that, in the united states (lower-, not upper-case) marriage has always been regulated. Not by the federal government obviously, but regulated nonetheless. The reason why the government was involved in marriage was for the purpose of providing a regulatory institution separate from the church, though at the time the laws were enshrined in the various states, most marital laws were simply based on pre-existing general church laws.

This was done because, by the time the various states were forming their own constitutions, the general abiding political philosophy was that a secular state was superior, or at least more just, than a religiously partial state. Thus, some powers were taken away from organized religion and given to the state, marriage being among them.

Some more history is undoubtedly in order, but I don’t have the time and inclination for it at this point. I will simply refer readers to The God of the Machine by Paterson as a starting place to understand why the church governed marriage in the first place (hint: state corruption) and why the church eventually lost this power to the state (hint: church corruption).

At any rate, the point to dwell on is that Beck is effectively paving the way for neo-conservative support of gay marriage, much like David Frum’s coming-out last year or Ann Coulter’s joining of GOProud. Why is Beck effectively supporting gay marriage when his words might indicate otherwise? Because he’s still focused on the government.

As is clear from his argument, his focus is on the state. He doesn’t offer an alternative to government marriage, he simply says it shouldn’t be the case. Of course, this is a remarkably ignorant assertion because one can’t simply divorce marriage from the state; one must also divorce a considerable portion of the current legislation and enshrined legal doctrines from the state (like the legal tradition that spouses can’t be compelled to testify against their spouse, a legal right that is not available to gay people). Getting the state out of the marriage business requires getting the state out of the family business and includes minor details like redoing the income tax code, redesigning a ton of legal doctrines, and other inconsequential stuff like that.

If Beck were serious about marriage and culture, the best thing for him to do is to advise people to not even consult the government about marriage in the first place. That is to say, Beck should simply tell people to ignore the government and create an alternative system for themselves. But Beck will never do this. Why? Because there are too many government goodies to leave on the table by escaping the system. Sure, the government is often ghastly towards marriage as a whole, at least these days. But there are some benefits from it nonetheless, especially if you’re a woman. But Beck has nothing to say on the all the legal apparatuses built up around the government regulation of marriage, and therefore his only rejoinder is that the government shouldn’t be involved.

But really, his assertion is that the government shouldn’t be involved in choosing who gets to become married. In this light, Beck is laboring under the delusion that if somehow the government weren’t involved in choosing marital partners, there would be fewer instances of gay marriage because whoever would be in charge of whatever non-government marital oversight regulatory apparatus would somehow be conservative. Of course, Beck is not, at least so far as I know, completely retarded, so even he knows that social conservatism is no longer a powerful political force.  Thus, hen he says that the government should be out of the marriage business, he is implicitly admitting that gay marriage is going to happen. He’s conceding the fight and perhaps hoping to limit the damage.

Thus, neo-conservatism can be viewed as leftism for uncool people because it follows the exact same statist path, and panders to the same leftist philosophies. The only difference is that the neo-con is perpetually behind the times, as it were, and is constantly mocked as a result. Neo-conservatives are like the idiot of the cool group. They exist only to boost the status of cool people.

Like all token losers, neo-cons always strive to be cool, which is the one thing that ensures you will never be cool. Neo-cons always pander and apologize for all slights, real and perceived. Their position is always reactionary. As such, they will always be destined to lose to leftists, and must ultimately assimilate elsewise they will lose their tenuous hold on being cool by association.

No comments:

Post a Comment