[Note: This is post #4 in the Blogiversary II series.]
"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," says Texas State Rep. Al Edwards referring to risqué high school cheerleading squads. Edwards, a Democrat from Houston, has authored a bill that would prohibit booty shaking and other sexually suggestive moves by any performance group at athletic and extracurricular activities, as well as competitions sponsored and approved by school districts or schools.
But as in any case where legislators legislate, the bill has drawn its critics. Tommy Crawford from Boar’s Head Tavern, for instance, sees this as another example of politicians “doing whatever it takes to get re-elected”:
The Democrats down here [in Texas] are really pretty conservative in the grand scope of things, but they can't win anymore because all the mega-churches (suburban) vote Republican.
Republicans have convinced the evangelical churches that they can't accomplish social change without the government taking care of it through legislation. Not just legislating "moral" issues, because murdering, stealing, etc have always been regulated. Now we regulate "taste" - non-essential issues that should not be debated in the state or federal governments. These matters of taste culminate in legislation like what my local political heros are getting close to passing - regulating the type of dancing that high school cheerleaders can do. If it’s too provocative, some government guy will be able to shut down the cheerleading program. And the "conservatives" are cheering them on.
I’m not quite sure why Mr. Crawford believes the state of Texas doesn’t have an interest in booty shaking cheerleaders. After all, the individual school districts are already heavily regulated by the state and any district who believes there is a constitutional right to Break It Down can simply refuse to accept money from the moralistic state legislature.
But aside from the parochial nature of this particular issue, I believe this example provides an opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding about conservatives and our attitude toward legislating issues of morality and “taste.” While resolving disputes over the locus of autonomy, responsibility, and sphere sovereignty of institutions is essential, conservatism isn’t, as is commonly misperceived, about “small government.”
When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one. Just as physicians define bodily health as the absence of sickness, conservatives view the absence of sickness as the primary gauge of the health of the body politic. Our political objective, therefore, is similar to that of medical doctors -- eliminating sickness.
The late media critic and educator Neil Postman used this same medical analogy in describing the proper role of teachers. In his essay “The Educationist as Painkiller”, Postman proposes that educators don’t try to make students intelligent, because we don’t know how to do that, but instead try to cure stupidity in “some of the more obvious forms, such as either-or thinking; overgeneralization; inability to distinguish between facts and inferences; and reification, a disturbingly prevalent tendency to confuse words with things.”
The physician knows about sickness and can offer specific advice about how to avoid it. Don’t smoke, don’t consume too much salt or saturated fat, take two aspirin, take penicillin every four hours and so forth. I am proposing that the study of education and practice of education adopt this paradigm precisely. The educationist should become an expert in stupidity and be able to prescribe specific procedures for avoiding it.
“Stupidity is a form of behavior,” adds Postman, “It is not something we have; it is something we do.” The presence of stupidity can therefore be reduced by changing behavior. As a guiding political philosophy, conservatism plays a similar role in society as Postman’s paradigmatic teacher. Conservatives, in essence, prescribe procedures for avoiding moral stupidity.
This is essentially what Russell Kirk was getting at when he outlined his six principles of conservatism. The principle of moral order (a belief in a transcendent moral order to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society), the principle of prescription (a reliance on the “wisdom of our ancestors”), and the principle of prudence (public measures should be judged by their long-term consequences) are all means of preventing moral stupidity.
This legitimate role, however, has strict limits. Just as doctors don’t go around slapping Twinkies out of people’s hands, conservatives don’t attempt to prevent every act of stupidity in society. We recognize that every individual and institution has a specific sphere of influence and sovereignty that is delegated by God. A teacher, for example, has both the authority over his classroom and the responsibility to ensure that his pupils receive an education. Both authority and responsibility as a teacher, however, are limited to the school and cannot legitimately be extended outside that particular sphere.
Other spheres, however, such as the role of a school board administrator or state legislator may legitimately overlap the role as teacher. A cheerleading coach, for example, should have the moral sense not to prepare his students for a future vocation in adult entertainment. But if the coach (or the school district) sees no harm in teaching a fifteen year old child sexually suggestive ways of degrading themselves in front of large audiences, then state legislatures (institutions who do have the proper authority to act) should step in and break it down for them. This type of act -- the prevention of moral stupidity by a legitimate agent – is, in fact, what should make conservatives cheer.
1
Just because the syptoms of sickness are cut off doesn't mean the sickness may not still be there.
One cuts off the hand and it just comes out the foot.
The root is the issue and not the manifested result.
posted on 10.11.2005 11:15 AM2
Joe -- Good point (as usual) about conservatism not being just about small government. Conservatism is, or used to be, about a small federal government, while conservatism has never been about small government locally. Even so, we conservatives previously assumed a large and significant role for individual responsibility for living in community -- a community organized around common expectations and taboos. Just as you say the doctors do not go around slapping Twinkies out of people's hands, neither should government -- local or federal -- do similar things. The temptation to over-regulate arises from two conditions: One, individuals and institutions (e.g. churches, businesses, schools, police) fail to discipline themselves consistently with a sense of traditional community. Two, government over-regulates just because, like a dog licking himself, it can.
posted on 10.11.2005 11:16 AM3
But if the coach (or the school district) sees no harm in teaching a fifteen year old child sexually suggestive ways of degrading themselves in front of large audiences, then state legislatures should step in and break it down for them.
Cheerleaders must wear snowmobile suits at all times.
posted on 10.11.2005 11:38 AM4
Gosh, I hate to state the obvious, but Texas State Rep. Al Edwards' concern about cheerleaders "shaking their behinds" says a lot more about his own distrubed mind than it does about the cheerleaders, their advisors, or the Texas public schools. Given your statement, "A cheerleading coach, for example, should have the moral sense not to prepare his students for a future vocation in adult entertainment," I fear for you too, Joe.
It's hard to figure out your line of reasoning. Is it that men cannot see a female behind shaking without mentally undressing the girl and imagining all sorts of lustful acts? Or any girl who learns to dance something other than the minuet will end up as a stripper? In either case, that's a very sad -- and completely unrealistic -- view of your fellow citizens.
In terms of gender fairness, let's ban high school wrestling too. Those tight uniforms and the sweaty grappling of male bodies must be training young men to be male prostitutes, and just imagine what the girls watching from the sidelines must be thinking! The football rules will have to change as well. The quarterback can only take the snap from the shotgun formation, and maybe we should disallow the three point stance. The swim team? Well, just eliminate it.
Your advocacy for, to use your term, "stupid" social engineering is appalling and completely against conservative principles -- as well as any reasonable notion of common human decency.
posted on 10.11.2005 1:23 PM5
Fyi, the great Bob Somerby has some interesting thoughts today, echoing some concepts articulated by the redoubtable Pat Buchanan:
KEEPING KANSAS: In our view, the most interesting speculation about the Miers nod was voiced by Pat Buchanan on this week’s Meet the Press. Bush may not want to overturn Roe, the pundit resignedly said:
BUCHANAN (10/9/05): Tim, on abortion, I am not sure the president the United States wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. His wife does not, his mother does not. He refuses to say whether he wants to say whether he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. There are a number of Republicans, moderate Republicans, who say, "Well this would be a political disaster." I'm not sure the president of the United States wants the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Leave aside Bush’s wife and mother; Roe v. Wade has been the great GOP political organizing principle of the past thirty years. What’s the Matter with Kansas? was all about it; Roe v. Wade gives the GOP something to organize red-state voters around. Meanwhile, if Roe ever gets overturned, many centrists will be newly angry with the GOP; presumably, that’s what Buchanan meant when he said that some moderate Republicans see Roe’s overturn as “political disaster.” If Karl Rove is involved in the selection of Court nominees, this sort of Machiavellian political calculation would surely be part of the stew.
In this calculation, Bush/Rove would be looking for nominees with a general conservative profile who wouldn’t be likely to overturn Roe. With Rehnquist’s death, the GOP is down to two anti-Roe votes. Who knows—maybe Roberts and Miers were selected to help keep the count right there.
For the record, Roberts told the Senate, in 2003, that he considered Roe to be “settled law.” This summer, some observers downplayed that statement; they said Roberts only meant that, on the Court of Appeals, he’d follow Roe as Supreme Court precedent. But that just isn’t what it means to call Roe (or anything else) “settled law.” We don’t know if Roberts will vote to overturn Roe. But we’d guess that Buchanan may have it right—that these selections may be about fooling the rubes in Kansas for one more long stretch of years.
6
AndyS
In terms of gender fairness, let's ban high school wrestling too. Those tight uniforms and the sweaty grappling of male bodies must be training young men to be male prostitutes, and just imagine what the girls watching from the sidelines must be thinking!
Interestingly, I recall that the nation's self-proclaimed expert on child sexuality, Rev. Jim Dobson, recommended that fathers wrestle with their sons as a way to illustrate the difference between hetero and homosexual male-male contact.
Of course, Dobson also seemed to think it wise for fathers and sons to conduct comparative anatomy classes in the shower, so take it with a grain of salt.
Fyi, here are two allegedly Christian cheerleaders in full regalia.
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/05/03/68933668.shtml
Larry approves.
There is an interesting disconnect between the first line of the story and the picture/caption.
posted on 10.11.2005 2:24 PM7
This legitimate role, however, has strict limits. Just as doctors don’t go around slapping Twinkies out of people’s hands, conservatives don’t attempt to prevent every act of stupidity in society. We recognize that every individual and institution has a specific sphere of influence and sovereignty that is delegated by God. A teacher, for example, has both the authority over his classroom and the responsibility to ensure that his pupils receive an education. Both authority and responsibility as a teacher, however, are limited to the school and cannot legitimately be extended outside that particular sphere.
By this standard when a Government like Iran or Saudi Arabia executes women for driving a car or not wearing a veil, etc., its apparently a morally acceptable use of government authority and responsibility.
Incidentally, a teachers authority does extend outside the school. For example, a student can be expelled for using drugs, even if the drug use occurred off campus and not during regular school hours.
posted on 10.11.2005 3:26 PM8
I for one don't really like Joe's 'reruns' of old blog posts. Yea ok if he wants to give us a 'my favorite posts' thing then let him list them in a single post instead of retreading them as if they were brand new.
Anyway, one interesting idea being tossed around here and in the link Larry provided is that cheerleaders should not be 'sexual'. Why? The fact is healthy sexual attraction is part of cheerleading. I understand why taste should put the lid on over the top routines but isn't it a little silly for Joe (who just had an intersting post on why Christians should accept healthy eros) to pretend anything that might be even the slightest bit sexually attractive is 'sick'? Reminds me of the guy in Casablanka who was 'shocked' to learn gambling was going on!
Needless to say I don't think even Joe can seriously still support this silly idea of a law so I won't address the legal angle unless it is absolutely necessary.
posted on 10.11.2005 4:15 PM9
Incidentally, a teachers authority does extend outside the school. For example, a student can be expelled for using drugs, even if the drug use occurred off campus and not during regular school hours.
This is an example of gov't activity I think should be dramatically limited. You forgot to mention that students have been punished for publishing blogs even though they do so from their own computers, time, and home.
posted on 10.11.2005 4:18 PM10
Boonton - You forgot to mention that students have been punished for publishing blogs even though they do so from their own computers, time, and home.
This gets at the even larger issue of the diminished scope of rights granted to human children (of various ages) in this country, especially when those rights are weighed against the rights of parents to subject their unwilling or unaware children to all sorts of nonsense.
It's tough stuff to argue ... practical implications are too alien to comprehend in some ways ...
posted on 10.11.2005 4:28 PM11
This is an example of gov't activity I think should be dramatically limited. You forgot to mention that students have been punished for publishing blogs even though they do so from their own computers, time, and home.
Yup.
Of course, if you try to pass legislation required anti-bullying policies in place that include sexual orientation, everybody starts screaming that their religious rights are being violated.
I don't actually believe in bullying. I was never "bullied" I was physically assaulted on a near daily basis. Physical violence that would never be tolerated in adults is overlooked when committed by children. "Its just part of growing up." was the explanation I would hear if I complained. I still don't think that makes any more sense at 40 than it did when I was nine. If you want children to learn to protect themselves send them karate class. I realize it's cheaper to have your kids beat up on the class outcast, but give the guy a break once in awhile!
12
"When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure."
I must be misreading this because it appears to say that it was the libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies who were actually the geniuses behind democracy, and the conservatives were like the clueless church lady, whose reason de etre was to point the judgemental finger at an otherwise healthy "social and political structure." Say it aint so, Joe.
Conservatives, of course, would admit no such thing. They would say that it was the Judeo-Christian philosophy that gave rise to democratic government and that none of the above groups have ever attained independantly, or otherwise. These have systematically undermined free governments with the failed systems of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, Communism, and a litany of other isms and social pathologies too numerous to measure.
13
Joe writes,
But if the coach (or the school district) sees no harm in teaching a fifteen year old child sexually suggestive ways of degrading themselves in front of large audiences, then state legislatures (institutions who do have the proper authority to act) should step in and break it down for them.
We need to give this a good descriptive label: The Dirty Old Man Argument. It goes something like this: John Doe, a middle-aged man, goes to a high school football game to watch his son at left tackle, sees young women dancing and cheering, gets sexually exicited — perhaps obviously so — and is embarrassed especially as these may be the daughters of his friends and neighbors. Does he seek professional counseling? Heavens, no, he calls his state rep and demands, "Pass a law for heaven's sake!"
Meanwhile, his friends and neighbors, many of them parents of the cheerleaders, have enjoyed the game, clapped and cheered with the girls, admired their skill, and gone on about their lives.
At the next school board meeting, John Doe presents the first part of his solution. "We need hall monitors to keep these girls who are shaking their behinds in check," he declares with all the moral anger he can muster. "If they see a girl walking down the hall swinging her hips more than necessary to accomidate her forward motion, they shall suspend the naughty wench on the spot! Do that and you won't have to worry about being embarrassed at football games. The cheerleaders will get the message. And if that doesn't do the trick we can take a page from our new Saudi and Afgan friends. Those veils are just the thing, but being a modern democracy we can offer our girls a choice of colors — but only solid colors, no prints, and just pastels, nothing bright."
posted on 10.11.2005 7:25 PM14
Hey! I could use some people to post in the religion section of my forum at http://www.ryanmercer.com please come join us!
posted on 10.11.2005 7:31 PM15
On "The Dirty Old Man" argument...
There's something to be said for teaching girls (and boys) about decorum, self-restraint, and modesty, regardless of the presence or absence of lechers. Doesn't it make sense to teach our young to value themselves, and to respect their bodies by not showing every bit of them to masses of people?
posted on 10.12.2005 10:55 AM16
Bryan, whose modesty, decorum, and self-restraint do you want to advocate? One of the most shocking sights I've seen was in Heathrow airport when I passed a group of Middle Eastern men and women. Each of the women was covered head to toe in heavy robes and looked out at the world through a mesh screen. I was uncomfortably hot in my shorts and tee shirt and could only imagine what it was like for them. In Victorian times the sight of a woman's ankles caused a stir. The first women to wear trousers were scandulous, the first bikini an outrage. The Amish women near my hometown always covered their hair, as do orthodox Jews.
The way Joe has framed this issue it is all about men. They are the ones lacking in decorum and self-restraint if they think a high-school cheerleader is merely a sex object.
Young women, girls, are quiet capable of recognizing the difference between an inappropriate sexual come on and the joy of dance and the human body -- if the men in their lives have a sense of respect and do not see every female as a potential sexual partner.
posted on 10.12.2005 11:54 AM17
Just because you know that society is sick, doesn't mean that you know what the sickness is and how to fix. Knowing what something is not is only useful when it leads you toward find out what it actually is. Since as you say conservatives don't know what a healthy society actually is, they simply cannot fix anything because they don't know what to be striving for.
posted on 10.12.2005 12:47 PM18
Larry: "Interestingly, I recall that the nation's self-proclaimed expert on child sexuality, Rev. Jim Dobson..."
Well, Larry, actually James Dobson, at least the James Dobson who heads Focus on the Family, is not ordained by any Christian denomination, so your use of "Rev." in this case is faulty.
He does, however, hold a Ph.D. from USC (that's the abbreviation for University of Southern California--just in case you didn't know).
Speaking of Ph.D.s, we are still waiting for you to tell us where your *imaginary* Ph.D. came from or where you have been published. Unlike your Ph.D., the details of Dr. Dobson's Ph.D. are well known to even the most casual observer.
posted on 10.12.2005 3:34 PM19
There's something to be said for teaching girls (and boys) about decorum, self-restraint, and modesty, regardless of the presence or absence of lechers. Doesn't it make sense to teach our young to value themselves, and to respect their bodies by not showing every bit of them to masses of people?
Ohhh well let me know where this football game is that features full nudity by the cheerleaders!
I agree there's something to be said for all those things but conservatives especially should note that there's more to be said for the principle of subsidiary. Those best in a position to judge whether their girls are being pushed to be too lude in cheering are the parents of the cheerleaders themselves. Second to them is the school coach, school administration, etc. What makes this law silly is that it presumes to know better than those people 'on the ground'.
Just because you know that society is sick, doesn't mean that you know what the sickness is and how to fix.
Again I ask what about this makes society sick? Sexual attractiveness is, quite frankly, normal and healthy. It's pretentious and dishonest to pretend that it only exists in the mind of perverts and weirdos. All this is about is a question of taste and cultural norms. I guarantee you the most provakative cheer group in the US shows much less skin than you can see at a beach....let alone other cultures such as Brazil's Carnavil The 'Christianized' cheerleaders that Larry cited, if you look at the article, are wearing outfits that would have been provacative 30 or more years ago.
posted on 10.13.2005 8:15 AM20
CPI is certainly the big economic report of next week,losinj-croatia.com said Timothy Ghriskey,bmcphotoart.com chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management.linser-kontaktlinser.se The Feds beige book and some of the manufacturing numbers will be looked at as well Pendant http://www.natalia-diamonds.com/Engagement-Rings/Engagement-Rings.aspx
posted on 01.29.2006 8:08 AM