Modern day SoCons — by which I mean the “social conservative” movement of the last 40 years or so — are essentially *reactionary* — the whole movement started as a reaction to the progressive march to remake society in their own image without recourse to such niceties as “persuasion” and “legislation”. The left sought to remake America via judicial fiat, which reached its final straw with the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

Since then, almost EVERY action by the SoCons has been in response to — e.g. push back against — attacks on society by the left.

Including, I point out, the arguments since the November elections such as Daniel’s TruceTalk(tm). It’s the libertarians who are asserting (a) there is no SoCon strain in the Tea Party phenomenon; they are COMPLETELY libertarian and fiscal in nature (not true, according to most polling), and (b) the Republican gains were WHOLLY attributable to candidates’ fiscal stands, and the only effect of social issues was to cause those candidates who espoused them to lose (also not true; they conveniently omit the role federal abortion funding played in the opposition and outrage concerning ObamaCare).

Taking the false premises (a) and (b) together, the libertarians then state: the GOP must move away from social issues that we don’t like, in order to win elections.

Strangely, they said the same thing in 2008. (and 2006, and 2004, and 2002…their assertions never change, only their reasoning. It’s almost…religious). Also, they are studiously quiet when it comes to the disastrous performance of the CA candidates: who had questionable bona fides on social issues, but claimed fiscal conservatism (e.g. candidates after a True Libertarian’s own heart)…and lost.

No, acat, it’s the libertines who object to the concept of Ordered Liberty that are the aggressors in this intra-party fight; Daniel’s prescription is unilateral disarmament on the part of the SoCons — and you call fighting back against this aggressive move to push SoCons out of the GOP “caterwauling”…you seem a bit confused as to the definitions of “offense” and “defense”.

First, libertarians are FAMOUS for cutting off their nose to spite their face. As the joke goes, for every libertarian there are three different definitions of The True Libertarian Philosophy. Pointing out minor practical matters like the necessity of coalitions to, say, win elections has never persuaded True Libertarians. So, arguing that a libertarian push to rid the GOP of the SoCon taint is electorally foolish…is not the same thing as saying it isn’t, currently, being attempted by them.

Second, as you say, a truce is an agreement to halt offensive operations. But my point was that the SoCon Right has RARELY engaged in offense; it’s been almost totally defensive since its inception. So…since a truce requires two sides, I would think Daniels would be better served asking for a truce from the Liberals and Libertines…but they have no intention of laying down arms and he knows it. Therefore, telling the SoCon right to do so is simply unilateral surrender. And everybody — Daniels and you included — know it.

Third, the T.E.A. acronym came AFTER the onset of the Tea Party phenomenon. The tea parties were kicked off in February 2009 with Rick Santelli’s on-air rant, that responsible homeowners should not be forced to bail out their irresponsible neighbors. It was less a tax argument — since even then it was obvious that any Homeowner Bailout(tm) would be funded by Chinese borrowing — than it was a MORAL argument concerning responsible behavior, the importance of prudent personal financial behavior, and the inadvisability of the MORAL hazard created by unending and universal bailout fever. Santelli harkened back to the 1773 Boston Tea Party — which, true, was itself a reaction against the Tea Tax — but the “Taxed Enough Already” acronym came months later. And, I always felt, was a bit contrived — like those college football fans who retrofit the broadcasting network’s callsign (Anyone can Beat Charlie Weiss, for an anti-Notre Dame example). However, the initial impetus of the modern tea party was more anti-spending (bailouts — TARP I, TARP II, TARP Jr, Government Motors; “stimulus” spending like the Porkulus bill; then ObamaCare) than it was truly anti-’tax’ per se. The iconic graph that freaked everybody out was this one: to close this “deficit” I don’t think the Tea Partiers were advocating HIGHER taxes…

The War On (Some) Drugs is not new. It was started before the turn of the last century (e.g. 1900) by Democrats, KKK members, and Progressives (aka eugenicists, the same lovely folks who backed abortion in order to exterminate “undesirables”) — and was aimed at exploiting racist fears of freed slaves who, if they were allowed certain drugs, “couldn’t control themselves” around white women. Even today, the War On (Some) Drugs is a bipartisan effort — some of the strongest Drug Warriors are hyper lefty Democrats. (Or, look at CA: the lefty Prison Guard union is BIG in favor of drug laws and three strikes laws, even when republicans (!!!) want to loosen them: because it means more jobs and higher salaries for prison guards)

About media: until 1952, films were considered commerce not art, and were subject to strict censorship. Even after that, the Production Code (Hays Code) continued to govern film until 1966. The FCC has LONG regulated the content of broadcast media (remember Carlin’s “seven dirty words” case from 1978?). However, over the years there has been RELENTLESS push to coarsen the content of all media (film, music, and broadcast) which has largely been “successful” even in the face of these long-standing (and constitutional, according to SCOTUS) efforts to retain some decency. A PG movie today would have been R just 25 years ago. Many of today’s R movies would have been X (or NC-17 if it existed) 20 years ago. And the content of the networks’ 8pm broadcasts would not have been allowed until after midnight 30 years ago. Once again, the SoCons are *reacting* to a remorseless push by the libertines, who believe that liberty /isn’t/ if it is restricted in any way. (This view of “freedom” would be unrecognizable to the Founders, who respected the principle of Ordered Liberty).

On each of your other points, such as gambling and pr0n, in each case the SoCons were reacting to FEDERAL judges overtuning STATE law. By federalizing these issues, it is the judges who violated the Constitutional order, by removing what was a state issue from state control — and forcing the SoCons to (a) pursue federal legislation, or (b) seek to place more traditionalist jurists on SCOTUS to return these areas to state control.

Here’s a fer instance: SoCons want to overturn Roe v Wade — which would have the effect of returning the issue to the states. Sure, they also want to, at the state level, then persuade and legislate to restrict the practice. But NONE of that is possible right now: so the only area left is federal action (pushing for pro-life justices — and lower court judges; and then passing ‘test laws’ to trigger court cases in the hopes that one of them will reach SCOTUS and allow for RvW overturn. These laws *must* be federal — because otherwise the accompanying court cases would simply be thrown out in state court on jurisdictional grounds, without ever allowing a ruling on substance — which could then be appealed up the federal chain).

So, when SoCons pursue this entirely reasonable approach — given the corner they’ve been pushed into by the onslaught of judicial overreach and leftism — you call that “offense”.

Yeah, I think you guys are both confused by the term.

He said it. He meant it. He just didn’t realize what kind of ****storm it would provoke, and then regretted it. “I’m sorry you were offended” is not an apology, and “walking something back” doesn’t unsay it: you can’t unring a bell.

And, as we all know, there is nothing so permanent in Washington DC as that which is described as a “temporary” measure.

So, no, I buy neither Daniel’s initial statement of a “temporary” truce, nor his later attempt to backtrack on his gaffe (Gaffe: (n) when a politician actually says what he really thinks).

moral vs pragmatic == tastes great vs less filling; Who put the peanut butter in my chocolate/chocolate in my peanut butter. The thing is, it started as “why are we doing this; it is bad and wrong AND ineffective” and quickly added “and how do we pay for it; if you borrow, that’s stealing from my great grandkids; if you tax…you kill the economy”. We didn’t see the first T.E.A. acronym until the 4/15/09 tea parties (given the nexus with Tax Day it was pretty obvious) but prior to that we had the whole argument about Tea Parties vs Tea Bag(ging) etc…

Chance of success: it’s not that I fear the anti-socon wing will be successful in SILENCING the socons. It’s that I fear the anti-socon wing will be vocal enough to convince SoCons that the Republican party — with whom they are quite ticked off already — continues to want their votes but will not countenance their views except in a patronizing, lip-service-only manner. If the SoCons are already taking the specific policy action(s) desired by the libertarians and fiscal conservatives — e.g. focusing on tough fiscal policy — and the anti-socons keep haranging that these same socons need to shut up about issues of dear importance…

If the libertarian types successfully convince the SoCons that anti-socon-ism represents the core of the GOP establishment, the SoCons will not go silent — but they will consider the GOP irremedially broken. What happens after that is a mystery — but it will be VERY VERY VERY bad for the GOP and the Country as a whole.

I don’t want that. You don’t want that.

So…Republican libertarians and fiscons should treat SoCons and their views with respect instead of condescension (thanks for your vote on our shared fiscal issues, now please go back to church and be quiet like good little children) — ESPECIALLY as the SoCons are currently occupied ALREADY DOING exactly what you want, for Pete’s sake. Focusing on fiscal sanity.

I specifically couched my discussion in terms of the modern social conservatives, whose origins lie in various factors of the 60′s and 70′s: objection to the licentious nature of the hippie left, associated with the Dem party, the social “progress” imposed by the Johnson administration, and the later post-Watergate congress, and other factors, which in turn led to the rise of Reagan Democrats and what we NOW recognize as the social conservative faction of the Republican Party.

Prior to those events (which were coincident with a purge of conservatives generally from the Democratic party; Scoop Jackson is no more), conservatives — including Temperance agitators going back to 1800 — were on both sides of the aisle.

Twice you have attributed to the modern socon wing of the Republican party “sins” that far predate them (and applied equally or even more strongly, to members of the left): the WCTU and the temperance movement generally, and the War On (Some) Drugs. Try to focus: the phenomenon of an active, social conservative movement aligned almost entirely with only one of the major parties is relatively new, and really only began in the time frame mentioned — and got its kick start with the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

With respect to DOMA: Section 2 merely states that if one state ratifies gay marriage or any other variation, OTHER states are not required to recognize it as valid. This seems to me a perfectly valid federalism issue: if CT votes to legalize gay marriage — or one single activist judge in MA does — why should that affect the laws and social contract of GA or TX? The argument against DOMA is basically: the most left-leaning voting block in the entire US — or the most out of control state judge in the entire US — has de facto veto power over EVERY other state legislature, referenda, or population.

Section 3 of DOMA does, in fact, establish the one-man-one-woman rule for *federal* purposes (primarily SS benefits and tax code issues). We could fight over that section, sure: you might even get a federalist compromise where “if it’s recognized by the state of primary residence of the individuals in question, then that’s good enough for federal purposes”…but the “repeal DOMA” brigade wants to get rid of both clauses, AND impose a “whatever floats your boat” rule-that-is-no-rule-at-all on the entire country. By legislative effort if they must, but by judicial fiat if they can.

How is that “federalism”?

Now, even Section 2 raises a question of DOMA itself vs. the Full Faith and Credit clause:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

To wit: does the first part mean that DOMA doesn’t qualify as a “general Law prescrib[ing]…the Effect thereof”? But the specifics of this argument are way WAY off-topic in this thread. The relevant point is: being against DOMA is a really bad choice for arguing “I’m for federalism unlike you statist socons”…because DOMA, at least section 2, is in essence an examplar OF federalism in action.

This is where socons are critical of “federalist” libertarians: in many cases, you’re simply NOT. You’re libertine: you don’t REALLY want to return power to the states (where we can then fight about the role of the state govt in these issues); you’re perfectly happy with a federal decision imposing YOUR view — “it is morally wrong for any govt to interfere in any marriage contract between consenting adults” nationwide, and Pbbbbh to federalism.

If you want better ground on which to fight against socons, support DOMA and fight the FMA.

Or don’t — and, as libertarians are wont to enjoin socons, take your own advice: and focus on fiscal issues please. You know, where we agree…instead of picking fights.

“History is a wonderful teacher” indeed. I might as well blame modern libertarians for the actions and policies advocated by the Anarchist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Yet, even though the official Libertarian Party and many of its key people in the last 100 years trace back to those movements, it’s out of bounds to criticize Libertarians as pro-anarchy (yes, yes, I know: in the 1850′s libertarian MEANT anarchist, but modern day anarchists are upset at the appropriation of /their/ term by what they call minarchists and pro-dope capitalists; there are many subtleties here. But subtleties don’t appear to interest you, at least when it comes to Social Conservatives’ history).

So, somehow I’m ignorant of history for objecting to a smear of modern Social Conservative Right as — in one instance — pro-alcohol prohibition, when (a) history shows that the prohibitionists were on both the right and left (or were 75% of the states and 2/3 of the Senators and Reps of the time all Modern SoCons?), and (b) my point has been that the MODERN social right has been motivated by the actual (or perceived, if you want to pretend) march to the left of the culture, made possible by the Gramscian project (perpetrated by the left using cultural AND political arms). And if anyone is trying to impose new bans on common substances, it’s the nanny-state left and not the social right.

Sheesh. Modern Social Conservatives are *different* than these various past movements, being motivated by a deliberate attack on traditional institutions and mores, an attack expressly designed to bring about a collapse of social order. It’s Cloward-Piven applied to society, rather than government. Since many — not all, but many — libertarians are just libertines in drag, they agree with this approach. However, it’s antithetical to Conservative (in the general, non-Social meaning) philosophy, which considers tradition in many ways to embody the collected wisdom of five thousand years of historical experience, and not to be trifled with lightly, just because Bob wants society to put an official stamp of approval on his relationship with Fred.

Furthermore, it is objectionable for libertarians to characterize the marriage argument as religious. Sure, many SoCons are motivated by religious belief — and many might not be able to articulate a different argument. That doesn’t mean one does not exist; picking the weakest argument of your opponent instead of stronger ones is just as much a rhetorical fallacy as a strawman argument is. So, one stronger assertion of the SoCons is that stable societies have evolved over the millennia and have settled on a normative standard corresponding to monogamous cross-gender marriage as the most effective in performing the fundamental task of any successful society: self-perpetuation of that society by ensuring for the production and rearing of children likely to continue the pattern. (The only moral component of this argument is the definition of a “successful” society as “one that lasts” — e.g. self-perpetuates. ‘Course, it’s hard to define as “successful” one that does not!) In any case, this argument boils down to “it’s dangerous to the continuation of society to muck about with what works”. Naturally, this argument is hurt by the evidence of falling birth rates even in such normative marriages; the counter-argument is the Gramscian attack on marriage via no-fault divorce laws and deteriorating sexual mores (e.g. the relative lack of opprobrium directed toward those who violate their marriage vows) is responsible for this effect, not normative marriage itself.

Yet, because you agree with SOME of the goals of the Gramscian left, you want the social conservatives to fight only on cultural ground — where given the 50 year late start, is the socon’s weaker position — while our libertine opponents fight on both cultural and political ground.

Finally, the parallel between Prohibition and DOMA…jeez, where do I start? First, Prohibition was approved by 3/4 of the states…and 2/3 of the *popularly elected* Senators (since this was after the 17th), and 2/3 of the House reps. In a representative democracy, when government enacts something via legislation by majorities THAT strong…you might consider that the cultural argument had already been “won” — at least, until the costs that could be imposed by a lawless fringe became apparent. The speakeasies, moonshiners, rum-runners, and gangsters were always a small minority (especially compared to a 3/4 statewide majority) — but the imposed costs made the 21st amendment pass by similar majorities just 13 years later.

DOMA…was passed in 1996 by majorities in both houses and signed by Democrat President Clinton in response to a *judicial* decree in Hawaii in 1993. Again, it was the Gramscian left, pushing a libertine agenda to undermine traditional societal institutions, that federalized the issue POLITICALLY. Yet, from your mountaintop you declaim that the opponents should only be allowed to persuade culturally and…what? Convince that judge to reverse his own ruling, 17 years later? THEY made it political. The SoCons merely fought back.

But it is quite apparent that, in your mind, all ills of our Constitutional Republic are to be laid at the feet of the Social Conservatives. The nihilists and libertines — supported by “libertarians” — are never at fault; those mean old socons are always the aggressors. Sure. Whatev.