for the last 50 years, it has been the cultural left that has been the aggressor in every social conflict in this country. I’m sure the social conservatives would be happy to call a ‘cease-fire’ on social issues — if the left would guarantee a similar cease-fire.

But I don’t see that happening.

So, what you’re really arguing is the same old “shut up, sit down, and go to the back of the bus, you gap-toothed inbred snake-handling socons, and abandon the field to the relentless march of the social left”.

Who were given the following choice in Massachusetts: allow gay couples to adopt children from your orphanages, or be prosecuted for violating a new law. That is, the MA govt was “pushing their morals” on a private charity: “We believe gay adoption is such a huge societal good, that we will happily put you in jail unless you comply with our moral judgement; never mind that whole ‘religious freedom’ thing. Our way, or else.” There was cheering from the left when Catholic Charities closed its doors rather than violate their own principles. Never mind the poor kids. It’s all about the left’s march.

What about the moral judgement involved in the abuse of the Endangered Species Act? Identifying new “species” whose entire habitat consists of 1.3 miles of a certain river, whose members are indistinguishable from “sibling species” in the stretch downstream? And using these pseudo-species to shut down farms and impoverish families? (It’s NOT a case of “saving an entire species” is worth “unintended” harm — because it’s not a species at all). This is “we value [snail-darter-subspecies#27] over humans”. That’s pushing their values, their “morals”.

Or the moral judgement that Universal Health Care is worth any harm to (a) the medical industry (b) freedom (c) privacy (d) solvency? It’s “good” so we must do it. That’s a moral judgment.

Pay closer attention; every program on the left is framed in terms of a moral imperative. Tell me again who is “pushing their morals”?

The biggest example used against the Right, BTW, is abortion — but look carefully at what started the ball rolling: Roe v. Wade violated any kind of sound legal judgement, separation of powers, and federalism, to institute universal abortion on demand in all 50 states. The companion case Doe, as later interpreted, expanded that to “without restriction”. The Right has been fighting a rearguard action for 35 years simply to — what? — restore Federalism. Overturn RvW and return the power to individual states. And if you think our judicial selection process is dysfunctional, you can thank (a) the Court’s overreach in social areas, and (b) Ted Kennedy’s Adventures in Borking. If the Courts had just stayed the heck out of it, an honest look at history forces me to concede we would probably have ended up similar to where Europe is today: legal abortion with significant restrictions over minors, and late term. Individual states would vary in the details, much like different countries on the Continent vary. But we would have gotten there without all the acrimony and disastrous effects on our body politic, and horrors like partial birth abortion (“He’s still breathing? Well, just put him in the sink over there…”)

Or, take gay marriage. It’s the left-owned state court systems — with one exception — that have changed existing law by judicial fiat (MS was especially cool: the MS Superior Court issued an ultimatum to the Legislature: legalize gay marriage within six months or we will. Nah, that whole “separation of powers” thing is so passe’). At best, the Right has tried to restore the principle of “a government of the people” by getting referenda and amendments passed — by supermajority popular vote — in individual states. Prop 8 passed in LandOfTheLeft California, for God’s sake; this is not a fringe “rightwing” issue! And DOMA is the essence of federalism: we don’t care what NH does, as long as it doesn’t affect GA.

You want “pushing your morals”? Look to the Left; the religion of earth-worship and Gorebal Warming Hysteria (it’s important to increase mercury content of American homes — I mean, ban evil incandescent light bulbs). It’s evil to drill for oil. It’s immoral to build nuclear power plants. It’s wrong to drive a (non-electric) car. Dietary sin laws: tax tobacco. ban transfats. tax cola. tax ice cream. ration health care by weight. C’mon, man: the Right — even the oh-so-scary “Religious” Right — are absolute pussycats compared to the Left.

I didn’t mean to imply that you, personally, were a leftist. You made it pretty clear you were libertarian, of either the little-l or big-L stripe. What I was objecting to, was the conventional stereotype that the “Right” or even specifically the “Social Conservatives”, were “pushing their morality” in any meaningful way (as in, imposing its dictates where they had not held sway in the past).

The SoCons are absolute pikers compared to the Left.

And the reason I inferred that you were presenting that old canard was the construction of your sentence: “people who keep trying to push their religion and morals on me” contrasted with “latte drinking, patchouli-smelling, Birkenstock wearing hippies” in fiscal areas. If the second group, the hippies, were on the left, then the obvious conclusion is that you perceive the first group to be on the right (with big-L/little-l libertarians in the gloriously rational middle, natch [/sarc]).

And as an aside, even big-L libertarians “push their morality.” Only the anarcho-libertarians (an admittedly small group) take the philosophy all the way to its logical conclusion. Most libertarians acknowledge the need for some government-imposed guidelines in certain areas, enforced by the nation-state’s monopoly on the lawful use of force, to prevent chaos and regulate market interchange (contract law? physical crime — when your fist does, in fact, intersect my nose? etc). The moral choice made by these libertarians is: in what areas, and how far, do they wish to allow government to intrude? Some lean toward the left (govt regs of corporate and market behavior), some lean toward the right (regulation of individual, interpersonal behavior incl. contract, family, and inheritance law). But those “leanings” away from pure libertarianism are driven by their individual judgement of what is “right” and “good” according to their values. That’s the very definition of “morality”.