Today is mailbag day! So, I’ll be answering your Mailbag Questions. Before I dive into those questions, I’ll be talking about a tweet of mine that went viral and why I think it did. Plus, I’ll discuss how people misunderstood what I was getting at with the tweet. Then, I’ll talk about what I really was trying to get at.
After that, I’ll dive into the three mailbag questions I have. Have a question you want answered? Let me know on my contact page or on Twitter.
“Women’s natural role is to be a pillar of the family.”–Grace Kelly
I was trying. to show that the ideal we put forth was different in the 50’s than it is today. Not only that, but it is something that we have to choose as a society. We will have to choose which we encourage and promote, because if we don’t, others will choose for us. But, I think people took it as a broad statement about the 50’s versus today, which it wasn’t. I think the reason this struck a cord is that we have a strong faction trying to undermine the family, and push us into an asexual, single adult life.
Subscribe here to keep up with the Conversation of Our Generation:
The Mailbag Questions:
- In a more Christian society, would you support the repeal of the 19th Amendment? –Freed Feminism
- In a perfect world, what would each party do to not divide ourselves to a level of easy control?
- As a libertarian, where do you think conservatives like Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton go wrong? Do you find yourself becoming more conservative or libertarian as you read them? – @TheClassicalCon
Thoughts on Question 1
I think the ladies at Freed From Feminism posed this question, and I think it’s an “it depends” situation. If we lived in a Catholic theocracy, I’d say we wouldn’t need the 19th Amendment. But, the question is if I’d repeal it, and I can’t imagine taking that away.
Furthermore, they ask about the 19th Amendment specifically, so that would imply we’re talking about under our system. If that’s the case, I’d say no. The reason is that we live under a democratic republic, and I believe that all capable adults should be able to participate in our political process. We should limit who can participate by their understanding of the system, rather than any immutable characteristics. Not to mention, if women were in a more traditional role, as I think these ladies would like to see based on our conversation, I they would bring a different perspective to how we’re governed.
Thoughts on Question 2
There are a number of things we can do to push back against the divisiveness in our country. For an in depth look, check out this episode. But, to answer the question here, I think we need to have common assumptions about the world. Or, if that’s not possible, at least be able to have discussions that get to the level of our base assumptions. If we can’t share a framework, we need to be able at least to understand others’ frameworks and how they approach problem.
Thoughts on Question 3
As I read conservatives like Scruton (since I’ve not yet read Kirk), I do find myself becoming more conservative. I had strong libertarian leanings growing up because I believe we do have to hold liberty as a primary political value in our country. We’re based on liberty, listing it as the second thing a government is to protect after life itself. But, my understanding of conservatism has deepened as I learn the perspective from people who can steelman the position. Instead of a soft and politically partisan version of conservatism, people like Scruton, Kirk, and Chesterton put forth a conservatism rooted in Christianity and philosophy.
I reacted against a Republican Party that claimed to be conservative, but seemed to just ask liberals to slow their pace. And, they often turn their back on things they should want to conserve. However, they turn toward interventionism, abdicating legislative authority, and a strong central government.