In late 2006 I wrote a counter editorial for my school’s newspaper on the rise of what I like to call “politcal correctness oppression”. Another student did an editorial in opposition to mine, arguing that people have the right to not be offended and that as a proud multiculteral society, we must be tolerant to other ethnicities and religions. Unfortunatly I never did scan that page with the opposing view; it would be good for a laugh. I also never asked how saying the word “Christmas” is offensive in anyway, even to say, Muslims. If a Muslim can’t handle hearing a Christian word then he does not belong in a country of (supposed) free speech.
Either way, I consider that editorial as my first encounter with social conservatism. By that I mean that that as a libertarian it was the first time I felt sure about something a social conservative would feel sure about.
Not all social conservatives want the government to control speech to fit the Canadian heritage mold. I would argue that most, like me, would probably prefer everyone to be culturally Canadian and value traditions but would rarely want the government involved. Instead, we prefer an independent social movement. I hesitate even using the word “movement”, as it’s more of an unspoken, gradual move toward a way of life that the conservative public feel in their hearts to be true; a weaving of the old tattered social fabric. As a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada at that time, my brushes with social conservatism had been limited to volunteering at the Civitas conference in Halifax in early 2007. The base of my editorial had been individual liberty at the time, but now I can see that it’s also an argument for Canada’s culture war movement. I still agree with my original argument for individualism – one should be able to say what ever they want to express their festive joy so long as it doesn’t harm anybody else.
I could go even further by saying that the editorial is one of classical conservatism too, à la Edmund Burke. Burke is known for arguing against change for the sake of change, and today I believe that applies to the wave of excess political correctness that’s been sweeping the West since the 90’s. Today it seems saying “Happy Holidays” is done not because it sounds better or is more clear, but because the rise of “progressive” policies creates social momentum that’s hard to reverse. Of course, reversing such policies would be regarded as either racist, intolerant, bigotted, or a “return” to ignorance. Staying true to what we know is the basis of classical conservatism, and in this case that’s exactly what I’m saying – not only as an individual of free speech do I have a right to say “Merry Christmas!”, but as a born-and-raised Canadian it feels much more “right”. In other words, it feels more natural to me to go by what I’ve grown up with rather than a more “correct” version that just makes me apathetic to the season. If that’s not classical conservatism, I don’t know what is. Here’s the editorial:
As the Holiday season rears its head and Canadian youth get ready for the end of the year, one has to wonder what the name ought to be for the upcoming semi-formal dance in many of our high schools. On one side it’s said that in order to include all types of people and religions, it should be called the “Holiday Social”. On the other hand, the majority of Canadian high school students celebrate Christmas, and thus it should be called the “Christmas Social”. The holiday season has always been centered on Family and gift giving, but that of course is not the problem. The problem lies within the fact that everyone and every thing is pushing for the change from the traditional Christmas season of the West to the new politically correct Holiday season. There is nothing wrong with individuals, businesses, or non-profit organizations using the term Holiday instead of Christmas, but when those same people tell someone else that they cannot use the word Christmas, it crosses a line.
On one side of that line, there is “being politically correct”; on the other, free speech. Using the term Holiday instead of Christmas is fine when used to include all religions and ethnicities, but telling someone that they can’t use the word Christmas because it is discriminating against non-Christians is ridiculous. “Christmas Social” does not discriminate against Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. It isn’t saying that only Christians, or rather those that celebrate Christmas are allowed to attend. It is merely saying that it is a mid school year dance during the season in which Christmas is celebrated. To the logic of those who think calling something a Christmas social is discriminatory, calling it a Holiday Social discriminates against those who don’t believe in religion – Holiday does mean Holy Day after all.
People in Canada have the right to call their special end-of-the-year celebrations anything they want. Suppressing the allowance of calling the end-of-the-year celebration what one wants is a violation of the Fundamental Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People that think as such are no better than those so called intolerant or non-politically correct citizens they talk down upon; toppling the bridge of being politically correct on to the road of free speech does not help ethnic tolerance. Does calling it the “Holiday Social” blur the realms of culture and business, or make ethnic, religious, or cultural tolerance in our school any different? Any way you answer these questions, Christmas is an official holiday whether we like it or not. It is part of our culture. Abolishing harmless parts of our culture to create a generic world is not what this school wants; but alas, intentions are unfortunately different than actions.
I’m interested to hear what the right-of-centre blogosphere thinks!
I love it. I continue and will continue to wish people a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Althought I get really weird looks when I do it in July. 🙂
Rocky
Dane:
The definition of “social conservative” is one that is so often incorrectly applied. Some use it to refer to those who strictly abide by religion or a particular conservative moral code. You expand it to include anyone who would use the state to define and enforce social morality at the expense of personal freedom.
Your definition leaves people like me as a pigeon without a hole. While I may live my life as a social conservative, diligently following a strong set of morals, I am appalled at the thought of using government to force others to live the way I do. Likewise I am disgusted by those on the left who want to use the state to interfere in my way of life, to tax me to pay for the bad decision of others, or, worse yet, render my speech, thoughts, and ideas illegal.
Does that make me social conservative, or a libertarian, or both, or neither?
Maybe I’m blind, but I cannot find where I say social conservatism means using the state to enforce socially conservative ideals. In fact, I say this in the article I wrote in late 2006:
It goes without saying that this goes for the government too. However, the government should respect the heritiage and history of its own country. Just because a new governing party is, well, the new governing party doesn’t mean all previous governments should be ignored and forgotten. That I fear is another discussion entirely though.
“Either way, I consider that editorial as my first encounter with social conservatism.”
Sorry, I misunderstood – the “encounter” was not with your opponent but rather within yourself. Were you saying that your own editorial was socially conservative?
Because it’s not – I would call your editorial socially liberal in the classical sense – you hold to the ideal that a particular holiday should be called whatever people want without any regard for the (supposed) feelings of others. Your opponent argues that social interaction should be controlled for the emotional good of the collective, which seems like social fascism to me.
A social conservative argument would be that it must be called this or that because of our heritage, tradition, or religion and shame on those who don’t fall in line.
You’re right, however I didn’t mean that the old article itself was socially conservative. Rather, I meant that as a libertarian it was the first time I felt sure about something a social conservative would feel sure about.
Not all social conservatives want the government to control speech to fit the Canadian heritage mold. I would argue that most, like me, would probably prefer everyone to be culturally Canadian and value traditions but would rarely want the government involved. Instead, we prefer an independent social movement. I hesitate even using the word “movement”, as it’s more of an unspoken, gradual move toward a way of life that the conservative public feel in their hearts to be true; a weaving of the old tattered social fabric.
Edit: I added the above text into the original post to clarify. I apologize for the confusion and thank you for pointing it out in time 🙂
Thanks Dane. If I had re-read it, I may have picked it up before posting, but as you know, most people reading blogs aren’t always that thorough.
That paragraph is nearly perfect, though. In my mind, any “progress” towards social conservative ideals must be done through voluntary means, not coercive governments.
Cheers,
Scary
social conservation,should be encouraged and every human being to follow