On "Social Engineering": Stop With The Crazy About Rick Santorum, Please

Hack Wilson has done a marvelous rant In Defense of Rick Santorum.  Like Hack, I’m sick to death of hearing the mindless hysteria about how Santorum will . . . what? Establish a theocracy? Force people to marry, make sex outside marriage illegal?  Engage in “social engineering”?

Let’s take that last point and run with it.  Exactly which law, act, amendment, government program, or executive order is not, on some level, “social engineering”?  The Civil Rights Act?  The ObamaCare monstrosity? Welfare? Social Security? MediCare? Food Stamps? The myriad tax laws that reward certain behaviors / lifestyle choices and penalize others?  The women’s suffrage amendment?  The prohibition amendment (and the amendment repealing prohibition)? Heck, what part of the Bill of Rights isn’t “social engineering”?  Our right to bear arms? Our right to freely express our religion?  Our right to free speech?

“Social engineering” has been made a ridiculous, blanket term that drives me straight up the wall.  It means simply that society is herded into a certain, desired behavior (usually with the hope that the rewards will make that behavior the norm).  Isn’t that exactly what our Founders did when they wrote our Constitution?  Isn’t that exactly what has happened in both large- and small-scale with every law that has been passed–from seat belt laws to the Patriot Act?  Indeed, even the eventual repeal of laws is “social engineering” (for isn’t “reverse social engineering” also “social engineering”?)

Everything that pols and activists and even we couch potatoes want to see happen in our government, at any level, is–to varying degrees–“social engineering.”  The war on Christmas?  Yep, “social engineering.”  DADT and DOMA, both are “social engineering.”  “Hate crimes” legislation?  Yep, again “social engineering.”  Heck, even the underlying laws against physically attacking, beating, raping, kidnapping, and / or murdering someone are “social engineering.”  Name a law, any law, and it’s probably got something to do with “social engineering”: drinking age? Check. Voting age? Check. Tax laws? Check. Burglary laws? Check.  And don’t stop there, most government regulations–“social engineering.” Political and social movements seek, by their very nature, to engage in “social engineering” (and yes, that very much includes the TEA Party). 

You get the point.

All this whinging about how Santorum is some kind of mad scientist practicing some sacred art to which only he is privy simply because he’s a moral person who believes what he believes is simply insane.  Every political ideology requires varying degrees of “social engineering,” and yes, that includes “hands off” ideologies like libertarianism and conservatism.  Take Ron Paul (please), you don’t think that it requires “social engineering” to establish his sort of self-empowered (rather than God- or government-empowered) society?  Which of your values would have to change to accept–to name just three–gay marriage, legalized prostitution and heroine, and a complete withdrawal from the world that Paul talks about?  What social or cultural changes would be required to have the sort of free-for-all, near-hedonistic me, me, me society that Paul envisions?  We’re seeing the “social engineering” required to make BO’s communist utopian vision for America a reality, and we’ve been seeing it for a hundred years as we are consciously and purposefully “engineered” into a secular, dependent, divided, animosity-filled, America-hating society.

Read about Gingrich’s ideas, about Romney’s, about any politician’s actually, and tell me where there are zero big government “solutions” that require some degree (and in the case of those two, large degrees) of “social engineering.”

As I stated in my previous Santorum post, there are plenty of reasons not to support him, but this Oh my God, he’ll throw us back into the Dark Ages with his whacky religious “social engineering” is just not one of them.

 .
.


UpdateAdrienne has written an excellent piece in response to a post at PJMedia I responded to Adrienne as follows (it’s pertinent to my point in this post, so pasting in full): 

What really gets me about all this is the utter lack of awareness that these “Moranic” views are, themselves, the result of legislating morality (well, amorality), of legislative and activist-driven social engineering. Americans didn’t always believe that everyone should have sex everywhere with whomever and the consequences were to be paid for by the state.

We didn’t always think that what is now taught in our schools–from masturbation to gay penguins to anal sex–was something that civilized, well-mannered people even talked about with anyone other than their spouse/BFF/et al. But this guy, and too many like him, seem to be horrified that there are still moral, decent people in America . . . people who have not, as they have, bought into the secular, immoral / amoral socio-cultural bog created and engineered by the powers that be.

They’ve been led by the nose to conclusions that aren’t even their own, yet they dare to point fingers? Unreal.

.
.

.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “On "Social Engineering": Stop With The Crazy About Rick Santorum, Please

  1. This is a great post! Santorum is not going to be legislating on what you can and cannot do in your bedroom. Its simply liberals' histrionics and political opportunism to promote a free-sex here, there, anywhere, anytime agenda.

  2. All Santorum has to do is say / demonstrate with conviction he is a limited government conservative first and foremost – and will therefore use the bully pulpit to persuade the country is morality is beneficial to the civil society, not use the blunt force of the bureaucracy to impose it (and all the unintended consequences that will inevitably arise). If he can do this convincingly – he will have the conservative fusion in the palm of his hands.

    d(^_^)b
    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  3. @Hack, you're welcome!

    @RK, thanks!! It's libertarian because it doesn't “hurt” anyone else immediately, so if you wanna do it, do it. Go me go! (says the Paul crowd)

    @Teresa, exactly!

    @LibertyAtStake, Agreed. It's funny how many conservatives seem to forget, in the light of their hysteria, how our government actually works. I have no doubt (absolutely none) that Santorum, unlike BO (and Newt and possibly Romney, though I'm not as sure about him) would respect our Constitution, including the limits on the executive branch.

    @JACG, I know that's what you think 🙂 We may not agree on this, but hey, what's wrong with that? Thankfully, we're not all cardboard cutouts intoning the latest propagandistic mantra as one voice.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s