As long as I’m dredging up golden oldies on space, I might as well do one on politics as well. I’ve talked to and emailed (and Usenetted) a few “moderate” Republicans who were turned off by McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, because they thought the choice was simply pandering to the religious right, and they bought the caricature of her sold by the MSM. I don’t agree with that (I think that there was a confluence of factors, including the desire to pick off some of Hillary! supporters), but I really do think that a) he thought that she would be a reformer like him based on her record and b) he did and does have a high regard for her intelligence and capabilities, because most people who meet her, Democrats and “liberals” included, seem to.
Anyway, I really don’t understand this fear of the religious right, though I am neither religious, or “right” (in the social conservative sense). I explained why in a post about six and a half years ago. I think that it’s relevant today, and in fact wish that I’d reposted it before the election (not that the fate of the nation hinges in any way on my posts).
Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:
This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.
This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who’s also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.
While I’m not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don’t think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I’ll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I’ve ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I’d like that one back.
There are at least two reasons for this.
First, I’ve found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I’ve never run into them. That’s the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.
But the most important reason is this–while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions, and there’s good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.
This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you’re ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.
Who can be against a “living wage”? What’s so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn’t rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?–they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What’s wrong with you? How can you be against social security–do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?
To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don’t think any Democrats did.
[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it–John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]
On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they’ll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they’d actually do about it if you voted for them?
The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they’re very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they’re very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
Nothing has happened in the interim to change my views in this regard. The real disappointment was that the Republicans gave us the worst of all worlds this election–a Democrat (in terms of his populist economic thinking and his own antipathy to the free market, despite his Joe-the-Plumber noises about “spreading the wealth”) at the top of their ticket, with a running mate who was perceived (falsely, in my opinion) as being a warrior for the religious right. But that’s what happens when you stupidly have open primaries, and allow the media to pick your nominee.
I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they’re very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
Exactly. I have no problem with social conservative Christians in the GOP, because I have no fear that they would be able to implement their Calvinist-wannabe dreams on the rest of us.
The GOP doesn’t need to expel these people. They vote. A lot. But the GOP should change its emphasis from advocacy of legislating this morality to advocacy of the government getting out of people’s lives. This could be “sold” to the social cons on the grounds of “that means the government couldn’t officially preach left-wing values to your kids in school”. And it would attract more of those socially liberal libertarians who won’t vote Republican because the social cons scare them.
Calvinism is in plentiful supply amongst Democrats. They are the “elect”, and are “obliged” to show us the proper way to live.
And they’ll happily use the police powers of the state to enforce their obligations on we Lost folks.
I’ve noticed several prominent small-l libertarian bloggers essentially trying to throw “socons” out of the party since the election, on the faith that the American public at large would gladly vote en masse for whoever legalizes drugs and so forth. Overall, it reminds me of the libertarians who voted for Obama to “rub the public’s nose in socialism”, so to speak, on this wave seems nastier and more personal.
As a social conservative who *is* strongly libertarian (I simply no longer trust any government to be effective, efficient, uncorrupted, or capable of reliable carrying out things I’d like in theory to see it do), this has been a huge turn-off to me, and while I expected better from you than from them anyways based on your past writings, I’m still glad that you reinforced the point. It amazes me how being distrustful of outright legalization of certain things suddenly makes one a fascist.
The GOP conservative Christians who are willing to live and let live with full-blown atheists like me are not the problem. And it should be noted that “social conservative” and “Christian zealot” are by no means one and the same – e.g., I know some anti-abortion atheists. However, especially at the local and state level, the Republican party has been afflicted in the last 20 years with significant numbers of conservative Christians whose agenda is to turn the US into a theocracy. These are the people who must be appeased by successful Republican presidential candidates, and are why Mitt Romney wasn’t nominated – he couldn’t really convince them of his sincerity, but his pathetic brownnosing of the Christianoids turned off many of the more libertarian primary voters, especially the crossover voters in open primaries. McCain’s brownnosing was just as disgusting, but somehow it took longer to begin to stink, maybe due to the Christian air freshener sprayed his way by Huckabee – and in that window of time, McCain took the nomination. And Romney’s magic underwear almost certainly hurt, in the South especially.
I happen to believe that Bryan Lovely is probably correct that the conservative Christian wet dream of a US theocracy is not gonna happen, but when these bozos weigh down the Republican party platform with stuff like “We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards” (try being the only freethinker in that school – been there, done that, got the scars to prove it), pack local school boards and state educational agencies with “intelligent design” advocates (i.e., creationists in mufti, otherwise known as IDiots), are at the forefront of the “you don’t have anything to hide, do you?” school of civil “liberties”, bring out the atheists and nonbelievers as whipping boys (see Elizabeth Dole’s failed campaign), and in general seem incapable of critical thought…well, my gorge becomes ever-more-buoyant at casting my lot with them unless I’m convinced that the Democrats are the worse evil (e.g., voting for GWB over Gore-Al). I think the Republicans would be better off without the Christian theocrats, and would pick up considerably more libertarians-in-moderates-clothing than the Christian soldiers they would lose.
I think there are quite a few realpolitik libertarians out there – that is, libertarians with a small “l” who are willing to mostly hold their tongues on hot-button issues like drug legalization (demographics will eventually win that one in a Kuhnian paradigm shift) – that would vote for a Republican who walked it like he/she talked it on limited government, civil liberties, a sane tax policy, free markets (not, for example, the highly distorted housing market that Fannie and Freddie and their gov’t protectors Dodd and Frank created), a foreign policy based on US interests, etc. But the Republicans have to see that it is in their best interests to cast out the intolerant Christian zealots first.
Nice strawman, cthulthu.
Religon in public office was the norm, not the exception, prior to 1950. Please show me the theocracy.
Alternatively, there is a political party that agrees with you on the desirability of making the religous community divorce itself from its beliefs and exist as only a vote farm…
…they’re called Democrats. Go join.
“…Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.”
Yeah, this is why the Democrats want to control everything. Because they believe in Live and let Live. This is why the Democrats created a corral for protesters at their last two national conventions, because they believe in freedom and are idealists. Talk about straw men.
I wish, just once that someone (cthulthu) could show me the proof that ANYONE from mainstream Christianity wants a U.S. theocracy. I am a Christian, I went to Parochial Schools until 8th grade, I attend church regularly, but it’s a small congregation, Protestant Church now. In 54 years of learning, reading and contact with several different branches of Christian thought, I have NEVER heard ANYONE say they thought the United States should be a totally Christian, mandatory attendance on Sunday, everybody pray twice a day nation. That’s paranoid thinking.
If you want to see a group who thinks that ALL Americans should do as they do, think as they think, live like we say, or else, look at those idealistic, free-living, and hip folks.
Thanks for writing about this, Rand. I respectfully disagree, as I stated in my recent OpEd in the Denver Post, entitled “Why The GOP Lost My Vote”:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10976789
At least here in Colorado, there are many religious conservative Republicans who want to make abortion their top political priority. They’ve said that abortion is the ONE ISSUE on which there should be no compromise (as opposed to other issues such as immigration where Republicans could agree to disagree).
By implication, that means that other issues such as free market economics, gun rights, etc., would also be areas on which Republicans could compromise (if abortion is the ONE ISSUE on which they should not).
Furthermore, the basic logic of Christianity is at its root opposed to capitalism, pursuit of rational self-interest, and basic American values, as discussed by Dr. Leonard Peikoff in his lecture, “Religion Vs. America”:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5360&news_iv_ctrl=1225
For this reason, I believe that the uneasy alliance between religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party is increasingly unstable and may end soon.
Ryan Sager has written about this in his thought-provoking book, “The Elephant In The Room”:
http://www.ryansager.com/thebook/
I think the GOP is at a real cross-roads now. It could follow the “social conservative” agenda (and consign itself to a permanent electoral minority), or it could decide to shed that toxic influence and instead focus on limited government and individual rights (which would be an electoral winner).
If the GOP platform even said, “Abortion is a divisive issue, and we therefore take no position on it”, that would be a good step. I know many church-going conservatives who are morally opposed to abortion, but who also would respect the right of me and my wife to choose to have one if we deem necessary. I fully respect that position.
But Republicans who say, “Abortion is the one issue on which Republicans should not compromise; any pro-choice Republicans should leave the party” (such as Rush Limbaugh) are setting themselves up for big problems.
If the GOP follows that advice, then they had better get used to losing a lot more elections.
The Religious Right, only really arose out out of Democratic overreaching. Engel v. Vitale, awakened the School Prayer contingent, Roe the pro-life. First Things warned of judicial usurpation of gay marriage and other issues long before Roper v. Simmons came along. It is only to be expected what kind of new outrage the new court andadministration
brings us. Which the likes of Ryan Sager will tell us to accept.
Republicans who say, “Abortion is the one issue on which Republicans should not compromise; any pro-choice Republicans should leave the party” (such as Rush Limbaugh) are setting themselves up for big problems.
When did Rush say that, Paul?
Here are excerpts from Rush Limbaugh’s 10/24/2008 radio show in which he attacks the “big tent” approach:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102408/content/01125111.guest.html
“Good Riddance, GOP Moderates”
…We flushed ’em out. We found out they’re not really Republicans and they’re by no means conservatives, and now they’re gone. Now the trick is to keep ’em out.
…The minute you say that conservatism includes people who are pro-choice, you’ve destroyed conservatism because conservatism stands for “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.” Without life, there is nothing else here, and if we’re going to sit around indiscriminately deciding who lives and who dies based on our own convenience, that’s not conservative. Individual liberty. The essence of innocence is a child in the womb who has no choice over what happens to it. Sorry. If we don’t stand up for that person, if the government doesn’t, then nobody will. And if we allow ourselves to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they’re not conservatives.
DaveP said: Religon in public office was the norm, not the exception, prior to 1950. Please show me the theocracy.
Did you not read what I wrote? I was very clear to distinguish between religious believers who are compatible with a free society and those who want a theocracy. The latter have been around for quite a while, but have never been more than voices crying in the wilderness until the Republicans allowed them to concentrate in its local and state parties. See, for example, the Texas State Republican platform for some examples of the theocratic goals and beliefs.
DaveP also said: Alternatively, there is a political party that agrees with you on the desirability of making the religous community divorce itself from its beliefs and exist as only a vote farm…they’re called Democrats. Go join.
Where did I say or imply this? Your guilt by association argument won’t wash. If you’ll bother to read what I actually wrote, you’ll see that I took pains to make clear I was referring only to the religious nuts who want to turn the US into a theocracy; this is a small minority of the religious community, but unfortunately is one who has become very powerful in the local and state Republican organizations. As a side note, the real “vote farm” nowadays is the black vote for Democrats; for example, blacks supported CA’s Prop 8, which banned gay marriage, by a nearly 3-to-1 margin, yet they also voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Can you say cognitive dissonance?
Steve similarly just can’t seem to read words on a page: I wish, just once that someone (cthulthu) could show me the proof that ANYONE from mainstream Christianity wants a U.S. theocracy. Where did I say or imply this? It’s quite clear that I was referring specifically to the small subset of Christians who want to establish a theocracy, NOT “mainstream Christianity.” What about that don’t you understand?
And narciso writes: The Religious Right, only really arose out out of Democratic overreaching. Are you making excuses for religious demagoguery by saying “well, the Democrats made them do it!” This is known as the Stan and Ollie fallacy, i.e., “Look what you made me do!” 🙂
Finally, to Paul Hsieh: don’t make the mistake of lumping anti-abortion into social conservative; the overlap is nowhere as total as “pro-choice” proponents wish to believe.
I agree 100%. The Republican party is doomed without religious conservatives. Time to kiss and make up, and find common ground.
Cthulu,
Enough with the magic underwear already. Besides being deeply, deeply offensive to the majority of citizens of a state that hasn’t given its electoral votes to the Democrats since 1964, there’s just something creepy about this obsession with other people’s underclothing.
I see you “moderate republicans” still think that the reason you lost the election is due to the morality you think the religious right wants to impose on the rest of the world.. I’ve got news for you, all of our laws are based upon someone’s morality, generally in our country it’s Christian based…but most of us Christians only want a safe and wholesome environment to live and raise our children in…it used to be deviant behavior was practiced behind closed doors, but now it’s on display and forced upon anyone who does not have his head in the sand…I think you’ll find that if you force the moral majority out of your party (which is now happening) you won’t have much of a party left…
See, this is the kind of stuff that really turns me off. I don’t care how much backtracking you do afterwards to claim that you’re “only talking about theocrats” or somesuch… because you seem to keep implying that folks like me–who completely distrust big government–are, indeed, theocrats who want to rule over everybody.
Well, yeah… in a perfect world, I’d *love* for my particular interpretation of what God wants for us to be the complete law of the land. But humanity isn’t perfect–and therefore, just like socialism and communism, which also depend on a “perfect” humanity, a pure theocracy can never withstand the test of time without becoming corrupted and (to at least an extent) evil–in the name of good. Therefore, since I want to see a system that will preserve my faith for the generations to come, I favor small, limited government, that can’t decide a generation later to turn around and oppress my values.
I like to think that I’m not alone in this; as narciso wrote, a lot of the “right-wing Christian activists” are a result of a backlash against the destruction of the soft power that used to exist outside of government in the form of social norms. Take away the norms, and all that is left to govern behavior is the law–and for many issues, that’s a very poor, often dangerous, substitute. The result is a messy fight over who writes the laws, where many folks are deeply unhappy no matter the result.
Here is something you anti social conservatives may not have noticed. The socons are the ones that actually work phone banks and walk precincts. In three terms as a Republican Precinct Chairman I never once saw the libertarian wing of the Party actually do anything but complain.
Some elections the socoms stay home. 2008 was one of those elections. Perhaps you didn’t notice but the Pubbies lost, big time.
Now, we have a incoming Presidency that will insert their Morals(?) deep into our lives. Unlike that horrid Palin who vetoed the bill that would have barred people in domestic partnerships the right to state benefits.
Great job. I’m so proud of you.
The modern involvement of hard-core evangelical christianity in national politics comes straight from Roe v. Wade, and to a lesser extent the post 60s cultural war (which, by the way, always existed in US history but in different forms – the anti-slavery movement before the civil war is the paradigm example of limo-libs – and, remember, hardvard and yale started as protestant divinity schools, a pretty cutting edge place to be in the 1700s).
To put it another way, the folks in mississippi don’t care what the folks in massachusetts think about abortion, but they know that weirdly, the folks in massachusetts seem to have this restraining-order level fascination with what the folks in mississippi think about abortion.
If the Repubs could state that Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas should be overturned, and thereafter such social issues will be left strictly to the states, then evangelical involvement in federal politics would dissappear (as, probably, would their allegiance to the Repubs – these are otherwise Huckabee populists more akin to Bob LaFollette than Bob Dole). And the Repubs could get back to small gov individual responsibility, and have a chance at appealing to the 50% voters in the middle of the bell curve.
But the problem is that if Roe is overturned, there will be a massive battle in the federal congress to ban abortion – that is, the pendulum will swing too far. When that happens, the repubs are finished for a generation. They will win the battle against Roe, and then immolate themselves in the war over theocracy.
If I was a dem, I would pray every day that Roe got overturned. If I was obama, I would appoint supremes who would overturn it (wink wink nudge nudge). It would return the issue to national and state electoral politics, where the repubs would promply overreach wildly to the right, and my wife, for example, who has never voted for a dem in her life, would never vote for a repub again, because she believes that by and large abortion is a matter of doctor patient, and not prosecutor-prison guard.
The aftershocks of overturning Roe would give the dems a shot at the populist side of the bible thumpers in federal politics, and it would generationally destroy any libertarian allegiance to the national repub party. The republican party would become the bible thumper party, and a new non-religious centrist party would have to start, giving the dems the same multi-decade advantage that a.jackson created for them in 1828 (which advantage ended, by the way, only in a 4 year shooting war – fortunately for them with no nukes).
but this all too smart by half. So we will have them same dreary bs election after election thanks to the supremes.
EVery time the supremes decide to become congress – Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, we end with civil war and 500k dead, a hundred years of discrimination ending in national race riots for a decade and the physical destruction of every major inner city, and with Roe…. who knows.
My concern with the socon branch of the Republican party is that they’ve been the quickest to embrace the worst aspects of the Democrats– i.e., economic populism, looming crisis mentality, “if it saves only one life” arguments (these are frequently recapitulated with the moralist variation– that central authority is the only way to avert moral catastrophe), and centralized authority in general. While I’m in favor of pragmatic solutions, I think see no evidence (rhetoric yes, evidence no) that this branch of the party has any particular loyalty to small government policies.
My concern with the socon branch of the Republican party is that they’ve been the quickest to embrace the worst aspects of the Democrats– i.e., economic populism, looming crisis mentality, “if it saves only one life” arguments (these are frequently recapitulated with the moralist variation– that central authority is the only way to avert moral catastrophe), and centralized authority in general. While I’m in favor of pragmatic solutions, I see no evidence (rhetoric yes, evidence no) that this branch of the party has any particular loyalty to small government policies.
The Republican party has evolved into something I barely recognize any more. Maybe, I am more of a Libertarian, now?
I am fiscally conservative, pro-national security, pro-balanced budget, pro-small government, for individual freedoms, including the second amendment rights, can see the logic in legalizing some drugs, pro-choice (stay out of other people’s business!) pro-death with dignity (stay out of other people’s business!) but concerned about preserving the environment, improving education & health.
I try to be sensible, not extreme. I don’t fit anywhere.
Yet, I sense there are a lot of people like me. Practical people.
Guess the Republicans can choose who they want in their party, but it won’t be me as long as they keep trying to run other people’s lives and condemning others’ lifestyles, all the while calling themselves “conservatives” and claiming to be for “small government.” Right.
All I see is tons of greed and corruption, with lots of hypocrisy and
tedious moralizing going on. Concern for the unborn, but lack of concern for education and health of children. Pushing birth control as hard as they push on abortion would be refreshing & smarter.
Oops. Guess that is unlikely to ever happen. “Abstinence Only.”
Despite every study and all common sense on that topic.
As a practical person, I don’t see R’s having solutions to many of the problems we face. Do the D’s? We are about to find out.
I use to think that the right had a nominal ally in libertarianism. What this election has taught me, and the comments of Paul Hsieh above reinforce, is that libertarians are completely untrustworthy allies based upon utter irrationalism. Here they are voting for the most statist President at least in my lifetime and possibly ever all because of some fear of what may happen in the Republican party.
Let’s sum up a typical libertarian’s thinking like this: I believe in free markets but I will vote against free markets because many Republicans are against abortion and, even though they’ve never managed to implement that as government policy, I fear it to my utter being. So much so that I’ll vote for a party PROVEN to enact anti-libertarian views.
The logic of the modern libertarian. Up until one month ago I described my self as a libertarian-leaning conservative. Now, nothing close. People like Hseih have left me with utter contempt for the libertarian movement which, it seems to me, better fits a new version of it’s flagship’s motto: “Closed minds; state-run markets–all in defense of abortion.”
Further, the statement against Christianity is utterly naive and anachronistic. The matrix of Christianity had no knowledge of free markets so how could it be against them? Even today, the spread of Christianity across the political realm shows the naivety of such an argument. Of course, if you want to define Christianity by one of its subgroups, you may be on to something, but to argue from a part to the whole, well, I figure you’re at least smart enough to understand the fallacy of that argument. How in the world did such poor thinking merit a column in a major newspaper?
Oh, because it’s a newspaper and because the thinking favors the One.
Many people confuse Christianity with morality, religion with denominationalism and don’t understand separation of church and state intended by the founders.
The founders strongly avoided one denomination and Christian doctrine be their official stance. However, they NEVER intended our country to be secular and thats the war we need to wage.
The “religious right” emphasis on abortion is, as eloquently stated by DoctorOfLove, not intended to force their view on others but trying to protect thier view from being trampled by others, particularly through the courts.
In this way, abortion is a surrogate for our expectation that moral choices should be given great weight in ALL areas of life and death.
We need to fight back against Christophobia, and prosecute those who wage war on us as purveyors of “hate” crimes, because that’s what it is.
It’s fueled by political correctness, and efforts of some religions trying to eliminate Christianity from our country. We CAN NOT stand idly by.
Fight for your beliefs, be willing die if you must.
There is no “conservative Christian wet dream of a US theocracy”, and people who say that there is are similar in many respects to the 911 Truthers, who also doubtless believed the crazy suff they said.
Vigilante wrote: “Fight for your beliefs, be willing die if you must.”
If you win, do I have to believe what you believe?
In addition to pointing out that the theocracy accusations are flat out ridiculous (witness the need to redefine it completely out of shape to be able to even use it), I will also point out two other important, often overlooked items.
1. The socons did pipe down this election, as they do most elections. I went to a Sarah Palin rally and heard nothing about socon or religious issues. She talked about energy, reform, economy, and leadership. This was typical of the entire campaign, including our local Senate and House seats. The Religious Right does a lot of emailing to each other and talking among themselves, but they have not pushed for the prime places in the platform and the decision making. The prolife focus has been on fairly popular limits, such as born-alives, partial birth, and parental notification statutes for over a decade. If those Democrats you keep hearing from who claim they would vote with the GOP if it weren’t for the scarey RR were telling the truth, they would have announced that in earlier elections, when socons were louder. But we won then, somehow, so I guess the data doesn’t add up. I conclude from this that it is the libertarians who have bought the MSM stereotype, but need to blame someone else. The emotional leakage in your comments illustrate nicely how emotive rather than rational your objections are.
2. In this election, it was the libertarians who stayed home. They had been down on McCain from the start. That’s your right, and you had good reasons for being less-than-enthused with Republican performance on the budget and CFR, especially. But it’s you guys who have already left and cost us the election, and you need very badly to make that someone else’s fault. Grab a mirror. Grow up.
I don’t get the “logic”. Because some Republicans believe that abortion should be the one and only issue upon which there is no compromise, I will not vote for any Republicans. Rather I will vote for Democrats who, when given the power, will usurp my freedoms, endlessly enlarge the government and increasingly enslave me and those that I love in their version of utopia.
If that makes sense to anyone then it makes sense to me that you would vote for a Democrat, because only an idiot or a socialist would willingly do that.
Always sad to see the number of people who either can’t read what a poster said, refuse to understand it, or misrepresent it to prop up their strawmen…
As I said, I believe in small government, individual rights, and RKBA. I don’t endorse the Democrats’ positions on most issues. And I did not vote for Obama. But here’s one way I’ve been explaining it to my friends here in Colorado:
If I had to pick between living in a stereotypical extreme version of Boulder, CO (with goofy leftist politics, high taxes, onerous regulations on businesses, etc.) vs. living in a stereotypical extreme version of Colorado Springs (with a ban on abortion, homophobic attitudes, suspicion of teaching evolution in schools, etc.), I’d rather live in uber-Boulder than uber-Colorado Springs. Both places would have serious problems, but I’d feel much more at home in uber-Boulder than uber-Colorado Springs.
The Republican party has changed considerably since the Goldwater era, and not for the better. I fully agree with “s sommer” on this point. It’s not what “might” happen to the GOP; it’s what has already happened to the GOP.
Bush2’s first Presidential veto was against stem cell research, not against massive enlargements of government (such as new spending on a Medicare drug program to show how “compassionate” he was). The few remaining fiscally conservative congressional Republicans who tried to stop that Medicare drug expansion were told by the White House not to take that position, or else they’d lose funding and support from the Party.
The GOP no longer stands for individual rights and fiscal responsibility but for something quite different.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan’s famous quote, “I didn’t leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.”
(None of this should be construed as an endorsement of President-elect Obama’s policies.)
Remove G-d from your country, watch it crumble as people battle each other in the name of their multitude of gods – this value, that priority, this vision etc. America was based and built on a broad Biblical concensus of values plus a commmitment to avoid European style inter- demoninational strife. With that gone, the country declines. Athiests, like Roman pagans, have no value system that can stand up against the natural human tendancy towards decadence. “Do it if you feel like it except whatever I say is wrong” is not the basis of a civilization or even a national concensus. Throw out the religous, lose your country quickly to facism and dictatorship. Watch and see, oh “enlightened, reality based” ones. When people feel G-d isn’t watching, they do whatever they please and call it good.
The author wrote: The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they’re very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they’re very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
The problem is, they are also alienating independents and those called “moderates” who believe in everything s sommer talked about below, but will not risk the evangelicals being able to get their platform through.
s sommer wrote: I am fiscally conservative, pro-national security, pro-balanced budget, pro-small government, for individual freedoms, including the second amendment rights, can see the logic in legalizing some drugs, pro-choice (stay out of other people’s business!) pro-death with dignity (stay out of other people’s business!) but concerned about preserving the environment, improving education & health.
I try to be sensible, not extreme. I don’t fit anywhere.
Yet, I sense there are a lot of people like me. Practical people.
Citizens, may I suggest your answer is the American Conservative Party? Because you can’t be for small government if you want to use it to dictate people’s lives.
I’m a young voter who has voted Republican since I was able to 5 years ago. I value fiscal responsibility, minimal government intrusion, Post 9/11 American Foreign Policy, and the “pick yourself up from your bootstraps” mentality that the Republican party has been able to claim.
But every election I too have a hard time with the “Christian Conservatives”. I’m not afraid that they are going to turn America into a Theocracy. I AM afraid that they are going to pass laws that validate their own personal beliefs while trampling on the beliefs of others. Which runs completely counter to the Republican idea of minimal government intrusion.
I constantly see Social Conservatives fight for things that would only affect others. Abortion, Sexual Education in Schools, Evolution, Stem Cells, Sale of Sex Toys, Resistance to Drug Law reforms, Sale of the Morning After Pill in Drugstores, and Gay Marriage.
These are all things that Social Conservatives can avoid, by either not participating in them, or teaching their children what they consider right and wrong.
Instead they try to take them illegal.
Can you pro-abortion libertarians tell me exactly when human life begins? You can call yourself pro-life, but the real term is pro-death…your “choice” was to have protected sex or not! And don’t give me that line about incest and rape and health of the mother….only 1/2 of 1% of all abortions are performed for those cases…the rest are strictly birth control or convience and then we wonder why modern society has no regard for life….
Wookie wrote:
“I AM afraid that they are going to pass laws that validate their own personal beliefs while trampling on the beliefs of others. ”
This describes any law that has ever been passed, anywhere and at anytime. Please narrow your concerns down a bit. If you actually believed what you just wrote, you would be an anarchist.
Are you afraid of the religious enacting “Thou shalt not murder” into law? “Thou shalt not steal”? Which religous principles are you afraid of? Are you willing to stop passing any law if someone, somewhere disagrees?
Wookie wrote,
“I constantly see Social Conservatives fight for things that would only affect others. Abortion, Sexual Education in Schools, Evolution, Stem Cells, Sale of Sex Toys, Resistance to Drug Law reforms, Sale of the Morning After Pill in Drugstores, and Gay Marriage.”
We don’t live in a vaccum. A society that engages in the above practices and holds them to be legitimate is very different than a society that doesn’t. We all impact each other. There is a culture war in this country, that will determine if it will survive as a great nation (or maybe as a free nation at all). Fight it or lose it.
I will grant you the sale of sex toys in appropriate shops in zoned areas. That’s it.
Whai I like about Palin is that she has a religious personal agenda that does not spill over into politics.
Her political agenda as Rand and other point out is reform.
Abortion is not something that doesn’t affect other people. I was given up for adoption at birth in the 50’s when abortion was looked at with horror. Had I been a “post abortion rights” baby, I very likely would have been snuffed out before having a chance to live. Guess what I think of pro-choice, “live and let live” viewpoints? I think they are barbaric. BARBARIC.
Drug law Reform is coming.
Why? Mexico is becoming a narco State. That will put it on the table.
Did I mention that opium is financing the Taliban?
What will be required to change minds? Broadcasting the current scientific finding that drug addiction is a deficiency disease caused by genetics.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that those who oppose abortion are trying to dictate how others should live, or force others to accept their beliefs, yet we don’t seem to have this opinion on other matters of law.
Government exists for the purpose of securing our rights to life, liberty and property. In most cases, securing my right will impose limits on what others can do. Why is it okay to secure your property rights by outlawing trespassing, but even considering protecting the rights of children in the womb is viewed as an attack on personal liberty?
When people feel G-d isn’t watching, they do whatever they please and call it good.
Mike, you may need that threat hanging over your head, but not all people need the fear of God to keep them from being bad or selfish.
There are a number of religious people that do whatever they please and call it God’s will.
BTW, who was in charge of Rome when the “decline” started?
As I said, I believe in small government, individual rights, and RKBA. I don’t endorse the Democrats’ positions on most issues. And I did not vote for Obama. But here’s one way I’ve been explaining it to my friends here in Colorado:
If I had to pick between living in a stereotypical extreme version of Boulder, CO (with goofy leftist politics, high taxes, onerous regulations on businesses, etc.) vs. living in a stereotypical extreme version of Colorado Springs (with a ban on abortion, homophobic attitudes, suspicion of teaching evolution in schools, etc.), I’d rather live in uber-Boulder than uber-Colorado Springs. Both places would have serious problems, but I’d feel much more at home in uber-Boulder than uber-Colorado Springs.
The Republican party has changed considerably since the Goldwater era, and not for the better. I fully agree with “s sommer” on this point. It’s not what “might” happen to the GOP; it’s what has already happened to the GOP.
Bush2’s first Presidential veto was against stem cell research, not against massive enlargements of government (such as new spending on a Medicare drug program to show how “compassionate” he was). The few remaining fiscally conservative congressional Republicans who tried to stop that Medicare drug expansion were told by the White House not to take that position, or else they’d lose funding and support from the Party.
The GOP no longer stands for individual rights and fiscal responsibility but for something quite different.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan’s famous quote, “I didn’t leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.”
(None of this should be construed as an endorsement of President-elect Obama’s policies.)
To Assistant Village Idiot (by the way, love the handle)
I am your classic lower case L libertarian, failed catholic, and I thought Sarah Palin should have been the head of the ticket (as did my lower case l failed episcopalian wife, er, spouse).
The reason was (and I had hoped she would get the vp nod a year before her name was ever mentioned) because her performance as governor is a clear example that a person of sincere (and frankly a little off the bell curve) religious belief could in fact be an effective governor of a state full of people who are nothing like she is (including, at least by background, her husband). The fact that she ripped Exxon and BP’s face off in the pipeline deal was just proof of that. I may actually be the first lower case l voter in history who gets involved (as the poster above noted) in get out the vote efforts if she runs again (I think she should not take ted’s job – she will stay in the national limelight anyway and Henry “Hanky Panky” Paulson has so screwed up the economy that the next prez will not be anyone currently or soon to be holding a federal job – note to hillary – run as fast as you can for gov of ny, where you should have been from the start).
But here, my evangelical friends is the nub of the problem. Organized religions have both a very real and pronounced carrot, and a very real and pronounced stick. The carrot is the undeniable historical fact that the ordered, disciplined, and self-denial-ed lifestyles that religions encourage are the most reliable way to organize human existence towards some reasonable degree of happiness (leaving out the weirder elements of islam and the whole polygamy thing).
However, the stick seems to be an unavoidable and unwanted side effect, which is, if you don’t join us, or even worse, stay with us once you have joined us, we will beat you to death with a stick. The buddhists seem to be the only ones to have avoided the stick, and they are a little too hippie dippie for modern industrial society (and fake japanese buddhism doesn’t count).
So you sing the praises of the carrot, and Chris Hitchens screams the terrors of the stick. And you both studiously ignore the valid point the other is making.
So if Huckabee wins in 2012, do I have to go to the newly erected Donnie and Marie Re-education camp in Orem, or can I stay here in Connecticut being a sinner?
How’s this for a deal. We overturn every supreme’s social policy ruling from the 60s on, griswold straight through lawrence, and we both agree that the feds confine themselves to asphalt and ammo, and the states handle the homos, wacky weed and the evils of drink and all that stuff.
I sit here in connecticut with my full time working wife, working hard, paying taxes, not attending church ever, drinking too much guiness and martoonies at night, with the wife toking the occasional doobie.
You sit in alabama talking in tongues, twirling snakes around your head, and secretly driving your teenage daugters to atlanta occasionally where abortion is still legal. For that, er, bible camp, er, yeah, that�s the ticket.
You on the one hand, correctly point north and say “that is where the sinners live.” I, on the other, forget you exist while watching belichek beat the snot out of some team while enthusiastically cheating, because hey, I actually like belichek’s style, including the enthusiastic cheating. A clever, thoughtful dude, in a totally souless way. This is his best season yet.
We both agree to drop bombs on weirdo foreigners every so often just to remind them we can.
I don’t bother you, and you don’t bother me. How about it? I have no problem with carrots, it’s that whole beaten-to-death-with-the-theocracy-stick thing that sets me off.
By the way, my youngest sister is a homo. And I, her oldest (of many) brothers am giving her away at her wedding next summer in england to be held, with extreme intentional irony, on July 4. And I voted for Palin (not, I should note, McCain). And I told her. And I’m still in the wedding. And I also told her that civil unions is as far as I am willing to go, because an ordered legal life is fine with me, but the gay marriage thing is just you and your friends flipping the bird at straight society, and remember, we were all going to mind our own business?
Oh, and abortion isn’t murder, abortion is securities fraud. One year probation, $10,000 fine, and you lose your medical license for 5 years, mostly for being stupid enough to get caught. Just like a stock broker prosecution. I want to see protestor signs that say “Abortion is Securities Fraud, Abortion is Securities Fraud.” None of you actually believe abortion is capital M life-in-prison, lethal injection Murder. At least I hope you don�t.
The debate over abortion is not a debate over morality, when life begins or any other theological or philosophical question. The debate over abortion is a debate over the scope of government power, and weirdly, the left and the right leap over the fence right past each other without even feeling the breeze on the way. It�s a debate over the use of police, prosecutors, judges and prisons. Period. And the folks least helped by secular government, the religious, nevertheless want to blindly invite the government into their business. You know what happens when you do that? Roe v. Wade.
Up to lung viability – no government power. After lung viability – no mommy power. i.e., you snooze, you lose. Although I have no problem with 50 state solutions – probably 10 with total bans, 5 with partial bans, and 35 more or less the way it is now. The only ones who will be inconvenienced by that result will be evangelicals, because it means they will have to drive that much farther to get abortions for their daughters (hope that oil prices stay low, eh?). I, on the other hand, am almost certainly going to live out my life in one of the 35 (although I do have my eye on Tennessee).
You are against abortion? Then like Sarah Palin at age 42, and my sainted mother at age 42, you don�t get one. And the homo I mentioned, the successful london based computer consultant, the one I am standing in for next summer, assuming Obama doesn�t blow up the world before then, is the result of that 42 year old decision. Oh, and mom was basically a commie, but at the same time found it inconceivable that anyone would actually have an abortion, including herself, at 42, with a whole host of kids already in existence.
Damn, the world is a complicated place.
The Standard Conservative is good on values, national defense, and fiscal responsibility.
Coalitions are ruled by those most ready to bolt at things they don’t like.
Socons don’t get it. The Leave Us Alone Coalition has left the party.
A look at how Parliamentary Democracies operate is rather instructive. They make up their coalitions post election (I like our way better – you actually know what you are voting for), but the same rules apply.
So Republicans either decide that they can live with “Leave Us Alone” (LUA) – and we will leave you alone or they can say ala Limbaugh – my way or the highway. I guess the LUA voters have decided some travel is in order.
cthuhlu, maybe it wasn’t me you were referring to, but I think I understood you pretty clearly. Someone using the terms Christianoid, disgusting, wet dream, and idiots isn’t really in a good position to claim that he dispassionately evaluates what his opponents are saying, now, is he? Look to yourself, sir; you are more transparent than you think. It is usually a liberal trick to put more energy into the cleverness of the response than into its accuracy. I would hate to see it begin to infect the libertarians as well.
More general: when you redefine terms like theocracy and stem cell research to make things sound worse than they are, it’s a tacit admission that they wouldn’t sound so bad if you described them accurately.
Accept that the Republicans are a full-bore conservative party, enjoy the electoral victories this brings,
Have you been following the election returns from ’06 and a week or so ago?
The deal is that Cultural Socialism is no more attractive to me than Economic Socialism. (despite that I voted straight Republican – others may not be so dedicated) The socialist impulse – government can fix your problems – economic for the Democrats, moral for the Republicans – is not viable. One need only look at the failure of drug prohibition. It in fact has prohibited nothing. It has only determined the source of supply. Criminals. And this result has accrued with something like 85% to 95% agreeing with or acquiescing to the law.
My belief here is that there is no place in government for morality in the absence of evidence of concrete harm to others. This includes recreational drug use, prostitution, gambling, or moral attitudes like a so-called “regard for life” (hint: passing a law won’t create a desired attitude).
Richard, you wrote:
Can you pro-abortion libertarians tell me exactly when human life begins? You can call yourself pro-life, but the real term is pro-death…your “choice” was to have protected sex or not! And don’t give me that line about incest and rape and health of the mother….only 1/2 of 1% of all abortions are performed for those cases…the rest are strictly birth control or convience and then we wonder why modern society has no regard for life….
So what’s the problem with the “pro-death” stance? Here’s how I see pro-abortion.
1) With a strong pro-abortion stance, the State loses a major excuse to interfere with the life and decisions of the mother.
2) Just because it is murder, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
3) I see the anti-abortionists as trivializing the burden on the mother. Meanwhile, I don’t see the unborn as having strong rights. So yes, abortion for the “convenience” of the mother can in my view outweigh the unborn’s right to life.
Having said that, I see no reason not to throw this back to the state level with the overturning of Roe vs Wade. By allowing each state to decide, we can see if there really is a problem with “no regard for human life” by comparing the performance of the various states to see how well they do.
mike, you wrote:
When people feel G-d isn’t watching, they do whatever they please and call it good.
I think this is a common cliche of religious propaganda. That people who don’t share their beliefs are somehow less righteous and ethical. The dirty secret is that most people who participate in religion don’t believe, or at least vary from official dogma in significant ways. Yet they don’t do whatever they please. One needs more than beliefs to do what they think is right. A society that supports them in their beliefs and punishes those who do wrong, that’s what encourages people.
Further on, you wrote:
This describes any law that has ever been passed, anywhere and at anytime. Please narrow your concerns down a bit. If you actually believed what you just wrote, you would be an anarchist.
Are you afraid of the religious enacting “Thou shalt not murder” into law? “Thou shalt not steal”? Which religous principles are you afraid of? Are you willing to stop passing any law if someone, somewhere disagrees?
There are other reasons to support laws against murder and theft than because of some arbitrary moral code. The prevention of deliberate, obvious harm to others is a significant issue that can be addressed through law.
vigilant, you wrote:
The founders strongly avoided one denomination and Christian doctrine be their official stance. However, they NEVER intended our country to be secular and thats the war we need to wage.
I consider “what the founders thought” to be a disease of thought. It’s real easy centuries later to invent a fiction that so happens to support your beliefs. Here’s my take. First, there was even then a wide range of religious beliefs. I’m sure a considerable portion of the people of the time as well as the “founders” would consider current society undesirable due to its somewhat more secular nature. Yet others, for example Franklin and Jefferson would probably would approve.
Second, the range of beliefs held by US citizens is far greater now than it was in those days. Why hold the US to a conservative belief set that doesn’t reflect the citizens of the country?
Third, there is no war here.
The “religious right” emphasis on abortion is, as eloquently stated by DoctorOfLove, not intended to force their view on others but trying to protect thier view from being trampled by others, particularly through the courts.
Roe vs Wade does not force you to have an abortion.
In this way, abortion is a surrogate for our expectation that moral choices should be given great weight in ALL areas of life and death.
Your expectation is not justified.
Assistant Village Idiot said (amongst other screed): when you redefine terms like theocracy and stem cell research to make things sound worse than they are, it’s a tacit admission that they wouldn’t sound so bad if you described them accurately.
Please go back and find where I mentioned stem cell research in any way, shape, or form. (Hint: I didn’t.) And I didn’t redefine theocracy. From the very fine dictionary on my Mac: theocracy – a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. Where did I redefine this?
I agree that I was abrasive in the terms I chose to describe the Christian religious zealots. That was a bit of hyperbole – “some of my best friends are Christians” – but was chosen deliberately for my original post. Seems to have touched a nerve…
As for Big D, where did I say or imply that you were a theocrat? I specifically stated that I had no problem with the position you took in your first post.
Back to R’lyeh for a while…
Abortion has been with us for at least 2,500 years. And despite the moral taint ascribed to it for those 2,500 years it persists.
Might there not be some social utility to the practice? A real conservative approach to the question would have to consider what that utility might be and show how the proposed regime would deal with the loss of that utility.
cthuluthu,
you said, and I copy,
“…significant numbers of conservative Christians whose agenda is to turn the US into a theocracy.”
I asking you where they are. I’m not seeing them in ANY Christian groups I’ve been around for my entire life. You said it, I simply want to know where they are.
As a “religious conservative” I would like to reassure the libertarians that I don’t want to drag you in to church kicking and screaming (it scars the children). I do think that you would be happier in the long (eternal) run if you did but that’s up to you and God.
As for “legislating morality” I do believe that abortion is murder but I also know we lost that argument and have a lot of convincing to do before Roe v. Wade can be overturned. I can be patient.
Embryonic stem cell research was never made illegal, it just lost some government funding. NO usable therapies have been developed from embryonic lines. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have been used successfully.
I do not want a “theocracy.” I want to worship in the way I believe to be correct and do not want the government to be part of my church (or yours if you have one).
The “Leave us alones “are going to find that busybody “for your own good” liberals are not going to leave them alone.