« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Principles vs. Politics

I am into principles, not politics.

So maybe I don’t belong here, even though I love the posts and feel at home.

Principles trump politics in my book.

Am I naive?  Of course.  I’d rather be naive than cynical.  Cynical means you see injustice and accept it.  I do not accept injustice.  I am prepared to be offended.  And to attack injustice.

I know this is a political site.  I respect that.

I make a call to principles.

What principles?

– respect human life

– uphold the Constitution

– elect principled members of the House and Senate

– make the U.S. as it was in 1960 (minus Jim Crow laws)

– enact federal legislation that is good for the American People.

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • Scope

    I love your very simple list, however, it leaves much room for varying ideas of the principles you list. I’m very curious why you chose 1960 as the time period we should go back to. I have many reasons for dreaming about those old days, but, I would love you reasons for that particular year.

    • Viet71

      Grew up in small town, N.E. Illinois.

      It was a wonderful time. Sock hops. Football and basketball games.

      Principled teachers. One of my classmates was an Illinois state wrestling champion. Went on to become Speaker of the House. Denny Hastert.

      Lots of good, principled kids and teachers.

      • Scope

        A time when we weren’t taught to worship earth above humanity. I don’t know if you will agree with this, but, a time when moral values, and, the difference from right and wrong were clearly defined. A time when you suffered a red butt if you didn’t show respect for the elders.

        Thank you for this diary, where ever it goes. I appreciate your diaries, and “most” of your comments. LOL

  • rbdwiggins

    and the parents knew that no matter where in the neighborhood their children ventured, a concerned eye and a helpful hand was always just around the corner or across the street.

    • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

      ……that waste of carbon would be a pile of goo on the sidewalk, no questions asked, nor quarter given or mercy shown.

      Today, a similar pile of human debris is the ‘Safe Schools Czar’.

      Yep, we’ve come a long way, baby.

    • Viet71

      It was wonderful.

      • rbdwiggins

        They had to keep close watch on me. The whole block was covered with Red and Silver Maples, and there was a “forty-foot” Magnolia right outside my second-story bedroom window…

        But that was before the cultural revolution, when God was still part of the public discourse.

  • JadedByPolitics

    stand on PRINCIPLES? because I know for a FACT having been here quite some time that they do! and human life is the very FIRST PRINCIPLE that all FP’rs MUST have. I am just curious what exactly compelled you to write this diary. I think you will find that a MAJORITY of Conservatives at Redstate stand on principle!

    • Viet71

      That’s why I’m here, Jaded.

      • JadedByPolitics

        which is why I questioned it because the diary seemed a little like a jab and I knowing what you have written and commented on could not jive the two pictures in my head :)

        • Viet71

          Let’s say I meet someone.

          If, after awhile, I find that person is sleazy and corrupt, despite wearing expensive clothing and flaunting a fancy college degree, I’ll walk away, regardless of that person’s political affiliation.

          On the other hand, if I find the person to be principled, I’ll dig deeper to try to get to know her or him better — again, regardless of her or his political affiliation.

          That’s all.

        • Viet71

          on abortion. It is WRONG.

          Here’s the problem: When abortion was mostly illegal in the states — take the 1950s — a lot women got abortions anyway.

          Some women, who had money, went the D and C route.

          Poor women or teens often went the coat hanger route.

          It’s impossible to stamp out abortion.

          I’d like to see Roe v. Wade (1973) overturned and the debate over abortion returned to the states. The debate today would be far different from the debate in 1970, when Roe commenced her lawsuit. It would be impossible today for any fair-minded person to ignore current pre-natal medical technology.

          • Scope

            if the states, that have passed (mostly by ballot initiative) a ban on same-sex marriage, would also share the same success with the abortion issue. 29 states have banned same sex marriage, and it is written into the states constitution, and, another 19 states have passed bans, but have not included it in their state constitutions. That’s 48 states, whose voters have said no. Even liberal CA said no.

            I believe that same-sex marriage is mostly a moral issue. Mainly the conservative wing, of the Republican party have argued against abortion, based on moral values and principles. The argument has been made that the Constitution protects life, from conception to natural death. As you stated, when Roe v Wade was decided, pre modern technology, there was the perception that, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, that the fetus was nothing more than a mass of cells, which was not viable life. Obviously, the religions that believe that once a child is conceived, it is a gift from God, and is not to be violated, was not considered. Now, we have scientific proof on our side, particularly with the gains in ultrasounds and DNA.

            I agree that Roe v Wade will most likely never be revisited in the Supreme Court. I am becoming more and more convinced that the issue should go back to the states. As you said, abortions will never stop completely, but, if the abortion issue was put on state ballots, I believe that many of those same people that said no to same-sex marriage, would say no to legal abortions. Sure, the most liberal states, such as NY, would likely still have legal abortions, and many will travel to those states for abortions. But, if those same 48 states said no to abortion, or even 30 states, the incidence would necessarily be greatly decreased, which at this time may be the only way to move forward on the issue.

          • mbecker908

            I ever read, but it’s gotta be way up there.

            Why you could say exactly the same thing about homicide or robbery. Laws don’t stop them either. Of course it’s “impossible” to stomp out abortion and rich people will always have options that the rest of us – especially the poor – don’t. That is a statement that pretty much cuts across every subject or issue in life. Your analogies are so broad that they are self-defeating.

            You are comparing a few thousand criminal acts (abortion pre-73) per year to 1.5 million or so legal abortions per year since. Stalin would be proud of you.

            And your conclusion that The debate today would be far different from the debate in 1970, when Roe commenced her lawsuit. It would be impossible today for any fair-minded person to ignore current pre-natal medical technology. simply ignores the reality of the left. After all, they argue that it’s not about “the fetus”, it’s about about “choice” thus prenatal medical technology is not an issue. That thing, prenatal that it is, is not a “person” and “the woman” who’s infected with it should have the right to be free of it like any other tumor.

          • mbecker908

            on abortion. You’ll never get it back to the states for more than a moment. Send it back to the states and at least one enterprising and conservative state legislature will pass legislation declaring a fetus to be a human being at (or very near, but at a specific point) conception. Since that fetus is now, by legal definition, a person it is entitled to IT’S Constitutional rights to due process and that will go back to the courts.

            Abortion is a battle that will not be over. The right sees protection of the most innocent as not just a moral issue but a Constitutional issue as well. We also have an understanding of history and remember what happened when Hitler declared Jews to be “non-persons”. The left protects only voters who have no understanding of anything beyond self-interest. And that goes for fools like Stupak and the Bishops as well.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You can’t stop murder either, but we still pass laws against it.

            Laws don’t prevent crime, they give us the means to punish crime.

          • Achance

            Certainly “some” women got abortions. Some got them in “back alleys,” some, I suspect a very few” used a coat hanger, and some significant number of better off women got them from their own doctor with the sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” that the rich always have.

            I do think the debate would be very different today and it would involve a different population. Lots of movies notwithstanding, sex in high school was anything but the rule in those days; girls under 18 rarely had access to the pill and were deathly afraid of getting pregnant. Boys under 18 had some access to condoms, though not always easy access, and were deathly afraid of shotguns specifically and making girls pregnant generally.

            Ms. McCorvey (Roe) is the poster girl for more than abortion. She makes a pretty good poster girl for the breakdown of the family and its results. She was a child of divorce and alcoholism who married the child’s father when she was only 16 and left him while she was pregnant with that child because he was violent towards her. You can find that story most anywhere and at most any economic level today except the marriage part; today they would be unlikely to be married, they’d just be “hooked up” or living together. That was still an uncommon life story in the early ’70s back before half the marriages ended in divorce and the other half in death. In the early ’60s less than 5% of births were to unwed mothers – and that was WITHOUT relatively easily available abortion. Today it is near 40% and that is with over a million abortions a year.

            By the ’70s you had the perfect storm of lots of women in the workforce, “no fault” divorce, easy availability of the birth control pill, and a popular culture that was starting to celebrate promiscuity. I remember when “Deep Throat” and “Behind the Green Door” were showing in name brand theaters in Atlanta and were the talk of the town. These days the act that Deep Throat celebrates isn’t even considered sex by most teenagers.

            I “grew up” in the late ’60s and was a long-haired, dope-smoking musician, so I had and took the opportunity to roll around with a fair share of Susie Creamcheesees and Quicksilver Girls. While they were “easy,” they were mostly quite restrained sexually and by the standards of a decade or so later they would have been considered positively dull and uptight. These days high school girls are routinely doing things that only porn stars, and only a few of them, were doing at the time of Roe. And, no, I don’t have first hand experience, but I did just raise two boys through their teenage years and I’ve both talked to them and caught them in flagrante delicto a few times.

            So, I don’t know what the discussion would be like today. I think only the AIDS scare has kept abortions from being even more common since AIDS has somewhat increased condom use. That said, people have figured out that if you stay away from junkies and people who hang with junkies, you aren’t likely to get AIDS if you’re a heterosexual, so that ring in the wallet isn’t as common as it once was. Unprotected, both in terms of disease and pregnancy, sex is the rule and the ocassional abortion just seems to be the cost of “doing business” to a large segment of the population. A goodly percentage of the people I know have hustled daughters off to Seattle. Nobody even thinks about the forced marriage anymore and some huge percentage of those white-gowned brides are either pregnant or there’s a baby on grandma’s hip while the bride walks down the aisle.

            Anyway, I don’t see how this toothpaste is going back in the tube. The Country has become so sexualized, marriage and family have become so unimportant, and there is so little stigma attached to out-of-wedlock pregnancy or having an abortion that I don’t know what you do if you oppose abortion and the culture that underlies it. I pounded on my daughter and my step kids that an unwanted child would wreck their lives. I never had any issues with my daughter, though I’ll admit that if she had become pregnant while still dependent on me, we’d have been on the next plane to Seattle. I had a few unpleasant conversations with angry parents over some of the boys’ activities, especially the older one who seemed intent on having sex with every living woman to which he was unrelated, but try as we might, Grandma had the baby on her hip while the stepdaughter walked down the aisle. I guess that we should just congratulate ourselves for the fact that she ultimately did get married and even married the kid’s father. She’s even still with him – I think. Actually, she and her kids are here with us right now and I’m not exactly sure when she’s going home and I’m not asking her or her mother any questions, I’ve just been working on my boat and drinking a lot!

            The issues that underlie abortion are so deeply ingrained in the culture that if abortion were made illegal, there really would be a surge in illegal and unsafe abortions. If a state were to make abortion illegal, people would wear out the road to the next state where it was legal. Before long, states would be advertising abortion vacations and would become havens like Nevada once was for marriage and divorce and Thailand is for sex with children, well sex generally. Maybe that’s OK as the “federalist” solution, but I can’t think of anything short of Taliban-like measures that are antithetical to American life that would get to the underlying issues.

          • redneck_hippie

            I believe the rise in fundamentalism in our churches is one small beginning of what must be the strong call to educate our children and raise our families. The decline in our national strength is scaring large numbers into getting involved politically. Even as great a cynic as I, looks forward to putting things to right. Won’t happen in my lifetime, but, as Reagan’s epitaph in Simi Valley reads,

            ? I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life. ”

            With the advent of ultrasound technology, our fight is gaining ground, so I agree with Viet on this. Women (and especially girls) need a waiting time to allow counselling on adoption. Abortion must become an emergency-only solution with a clear delineation between life of the mother and inconvenience of the mother. If a mother’s mental stability is such that she is incapable of going through with the pregnancy, she needs to be given the option of proper level of psychological treatment for her to do so. What could be more shameful and psychologically damaging than the lifelong realization that one took an innocent life?

            I strongly advocate the federalist stand. My cynical side wonders how soon the congress will pass a law to force doctors to perform abortion whether they like it or not. If they can try to make a pharmacist dispense the morning after pill, they can do anything.

    • Scope

      and you are correct that front pagers must be pro-life. There are many commentors that are torn anywhere between pro-life and pro-choice, and, anywhere in between. You’ve read the comments and see. With the comments, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus.

      Also, what exact principles has everyone bought in to? I’ve read everything from soup to nuts. Some like yourself, and me have adopted a traditional philosophy, but, you and I have seen comments that span the spectrum from A to Z. Could you take the commentors and put them in a group A or B?

      • JadedByPolitics

        ABORTION and RIGHT off the bat anyone who sees that it is WRONG is RIGHT in my book and is the reason I stay here. The differences politically are so SMALL as to be un-noticeable such as Erick with Rand but that pick is in keeping with this PRINCIPLE that the party elites or as WE call them the National GOP hate Rand so much there must be something good in him and all the others they immediately dismiss who are RIGHT of center and while I disagree with him on Rand and ONLY Rand I get where he is coming from and he has been FEROCIOUS in his fight against them and their dismissal of Conservatives and I RESPECT that!

        All in all though they are all PRO-LIFE and that PRINCIPLED stand for all of these years without budging is what makes this the ONE true place for Conservatives.

  • Brian Hibbert

    On the surface, I agree with your sentiments and have a simple list of principles that yours fit with. My core principles are:
    1. Individual Liberty
    2. The Responsibility that comes with that liberty
    3. The rule of law applies equally to everyone.
    4. People have a right to OWN things and do as they please with the things they own.
    5. A government is necessary to protect the first 4.
    6. Government that grows beyond that which is necessary becomes tyrannical.

    Given that, I’m also a realist. I understand that the mess we’re in right now was built up through gradual progression and is not going to be undone overnight (barring a complete collapse of our society which I hope to avoid). I also realize that I can’t get anything done without getting a large percentage of people to agree to help me. That’s where politics comes in. I don’t really like Scott Brown’s voting record and don’t agree with some of his ideology. However, he will be more likely to help me achieve MY goals than the Democrat party cog he was running against. Therefor I gleefully support Scott Brown.

    In Illinois, I worked to get someone other than Mark Kirk on the ballot for the Republican nominee. I didn’t win and didn’t get a person who agrees with my views on many subject for the nominee. However, he will be more likely to support MY views than Alexi Giannoulias so I’m going to let politics trump my principles. Yes I could find a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate who more closely match’s my views, but that person can’t win and can only steal votes from Kirk to insure Alexi Giannoulias wins. So I’m going to support Kirk for Senate in Illinois.

    So while Politics doesn’t trump Principles, I have to work with the situation on the ground rather than the situation as I would like it to be. The situation on the ground means I have to support some people who don’t agree with my core principles, but are closer to them that the other side is. At the same time, I’m trying to recruit more conservatives into the party as precinct committeemen so that NEXT time I get a better candidate on the ballot.

    I would prefer to be able to move things back to freedom overnight, but will accept a gradual improvement in its place. We have to build our movement to win the country back. Building is an incremental process.

    • redneck_hippie
  • redneck_hippie

    Cynicism is step one in defeating the current tyranny. Understand the democrat party as a whole is a destructive force. Brian, above, and vast numbers of the people can see that our opposite party is stalking every freedom remaining to us, one by one, by one, and will not stop until the freedom is choked from everyone, D, R, L, or I.

    I was a registered independent in Illinois in 92. The election of Clinton that year is indelibly recorded and I will never support a third party candidate in the general election again. When someone is unable to attain the nomination of a major party in a primary contest, they are ipso facto not going to win election in the general.

    It is great to be accepting of people who have various party labels if they are voting with us on core principles. If they choose to vote candidates in third parties in the general election, they are fools. It takes one to know one is so right in this case. And there were millions of fools who voted third party in 92 and put Clinton in the White House.

    Stand on your principles in the primary. To vote for a less-than-ideal candidate in the general is a compromise. But I’d rather compromise than lose the kind of freedom that is disappearing every day since the pretender took his throne.

    Pick a side, people. Pick a side.

  • Viet71

    n/t