So it’s best to just stop trying. They’re not (general rule) social conservatives and that's OK. But the lesson to be learned from these arguments is the further proof of why SOCIAL issues do matter. At heart, social issues are about a natural moral law, the natural moral law, like any natural law is about truth.
When a social conservative sees a politician willing to call a truce on truth - he knows he is dealing with someone willing to call a truce on truth. And that is really all we need to know.
I don’t have the time to do the leg work - but I will bet anyone a crisp $100.00 bill. That if you take the voting records of every Republican in the house and senate, cross referenced with those who are outspokenly pro-life, - you will see an overwhelming trend that the squishier they are towards social issues, the squishier they are towards fiscal issues, size of government issues, and power of government issues. I am willing to bet, if we used an honest scale, it is by at least a two to one margin. Good recent examples are Murkowski who recently suggested we back off Planned Parenthood, the Jr. Senator from MASS, the party changing Specter and Christ of Florida, the traitorous endorser Dede Scozzafava. It’s not that some of these people aren’t capable of being conservative on certain issues; it’s more that they will go any way the wind blows, because truth is relative to them. I am not saying we don’t need some of them or that every district can elect an all around conservative. I am also not saying that you don’t have some great socons who are lousy fiscally, etc and not worth voting for. I am saying, I bet there is a pretty big general rule that could be discerned showing socons to be the stongest overall cons. I am saying on the national level, there is no excuse for pandering to the moral relativists.
Back to the “truce is OK” crowd. Here is what I have seen in the last few months (again as a general rule).
1. No matter how many times their parsing of the truce and more truce comments are exposed - they keep trying to inject new meaning to Daniels statements that isn’t supported by fact or logic.
2. No matter how many times it is pointed out that nomination of judges simply isn’t the only social issue that occurs in national office, they will continue to argue that it is.
3. They will continue to simply ignore the truth that “a truce” is exactly what the left wants and has always wanted on social issues. Just keep your mouth shut and let us continue to attack the truth by every deception known to man. That is all the left asks of us, and so there is no such thing as a truce. Whether you call it a freeze or a pause or a reset or a hyper focus - it all means surrender.
It is precisely because they are not social conservatives that they cannot see what the social conservative sees in these areas. It is precisely because the truth is malleable that they are able to make these arguments which seem so ridiculous to us. To see someone touting the moral courage of a man who wants to call a truce on the taking of millions of innocent lives each year because “at least he is not pandering” riles us up in the same way we want to argue with the pro-abort who touts the moral courage of the late term abortionist for providing women’s “reproductive health”.
But they cannot see the problem with their logic, so they are largely immune to proofs against it, and they will repeat the same unpersuasive arguments ad nauseum.
But as Daniels thwarts RTW and endorses Lugar, some of them start to drop off the bandwagon. Why, because in the real world a person doesn’t have to be a SOCON to have a decent chance of maintaining their convictions in other areas - fiscal, size of govt. , defense, etc. It’s why I would never suggest exclusion of non-socons from the party, or the discussion. But, while it may be possible to be and vote “conservative” in every area but social conservatism, it is much much harder for the non-socon politician to maintain those other convictions in the face of the Washington Culture trying to mold them the other way. Because the truth is malleable, and Washington is quite the meat grinder.
So year after year, election after election, we get talked into socon squish’s because they are great in some other tenet of conservatism. Then we wonder how they could govern so differently once they get to Washington. Maybe we can’t convince everyone to be a socon. But maybe we can demonstrate that they are never going to get integrity out of someone willing to call “truces” on abortion. Of course we might lose some closet single issue voters, who pretend social neutrality but actually place the right to abort over all other issues. But, I don’t think there are that many of them, and I think we can do without them.