« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If Social Conservatives Are Silenced….What Then?

By: lineholder (Diary)  |  November 21st, 2010 at 02:24 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Disclaimer: This diary post is not intended to express the views of all individuals who profess to be social conservatives.

Most of the social conservatives I know respect and appreciate traditional values and principles, such as honesty, integrity, truthfulness, sincerity, generosity, courage, dependability, reliability, trustworthiness, faithfulness, self-reliance, personal accountability, prudence, wisdom, perseverance, hopefulness, patience, forbearance, loyalty….the list of values and principles is long, many beyond what I have listed here. Each of these principles can be displayed in human behavior, i.e. they are elements of strong, positive human character development. Each of these principles is also directly associated with underlying moral and ethical values based on absolute standards rather than relative standards.

I’m going to ask those reading this diary to stop for a moment and genuinely think about the kinds of principles and values that I’ve listed so far. Regardless of what the public opinion might be of social conservatives in general, do these principles when applied to human behavior play a positive role in our society as a whole? Yes, they do, regardless of whether the situational context is in education, military, business, political or just plain old everyday routine events that occur in our lives on a day to day basis. Do social conservatives have exclusive rights to these kinds of qualities and traits? No, these character traits can be developed and exhibited by anyone who chooses these principles as a basis on which to live their lives.

Do social conservatives always succeed in measuring up to these absolute moral and ethical standards? No. There are many occasions in which we can and do fail. This is where the principle of personal accountability comes into play. Personal accountability involves looking at our actions as objectively as we can and evaluating these actions against an absolute standard of moral behavior. We hold ourselves accountable first and foremost regarding our success or failure in meeting those standards. If and when we fail to meet these standards, we have to hold ourselves accountable for that failure, admit this failure to ourselves, and if necessary, openly admit this failure to those around us so that we can set the record straight and move forward in the direction of restoring trust and confidence. Failure is always a test of character where we have to evaluate where our priorities have been, where they should have been, how we lost focus on those absolute standards, what things may and/or may not have provided temptations or distractions to us that influenced our actions, and then dig deep into the hearts and minds of who we are, gathering our strength and courage to move forward past that failure with renewed vigor.

Hopefully the comments that I’ve made so far provide an explanation about the kind of mindset and viewpoint that social conservatives may have and how this influences their actions.

In the situation our country is facing, I’m hearing many things about the conflict that exists over issues such as abortion and the status of traditional marriage. These are important issues to social conservatives in general, and I do understand these concerns. But to be genuinely honest, I’m far more concerned about the amoral mindset and lack of personal accountability that is being displayed by so many individuals who have been elected into public office.

The word “amoral” quite literally means “without morals”. A person who has an amoral mindset or viewpoint does not take moral or ethical considerations into context in evaluating how they should respond to situations. There are no definitives of right versus wrong, good versus evil, truth versus lie, etc. that exists in their thought processes. Dishonesty, deceitfulness, theft, perjury, embezzlement, illegal activity, betrayal of trust, misuse/abuse of authority along with many other things are “deemed” to be “acceptable behavior” in their own minds. There is no need for personal accountability where an amoral mindset exists because nothing about their own behavior is ever wrong for them to do.

These are our leaders, in positions of authority over us, and this is the kind of behavior that is being displayed. This presents a major issue for a lot of social conservatives, myself included. To what extent would I willingly to choose to follow the lead of someone who displays both an amoral mindset and a lack of personal accountability? I won’t. Regardless of the example that may be set for me in their attitude and actions, it would go against everything that I believe to be honest, right and true to conform to an amoral mindset and to adapt to an attitude that is totally lacking in personal accountability. I may find myself in situations where I am forced against my will to submit to the laws implemented by individuals who have this kind of mindset, but I will not WILLINGLY choose to follow their lead and neither am I in the least bit likely to PROACTIVELY support the policies they put into place.

There has been a lot of discussion lately with a primary emphasis being placed on silencing the voices of social conservatives. Okay, so I know that there are plenty of people in our country who have developed the attitude that traditional values are “archaic and conventional” and it is abundantly obvious in the comments that they make that they have a significant amount of disdain and contempt for these things. But are we as a society really to the point where this kind of attitude has developed into so much of prejudice and bias that these individuals can not see from an objective point of view how maintaining traditional values and principles in our nation contributes to the strength of our country as a whole?

If the voices of social conservatives are silenced…what happens then? What does this nation become? Will we completely and totally lose any and all moral compass in our society? Is this what the majority of people in this country would now choose for generations yet to come? Has any consideration been given to what the consequences of it might be if these values and principles are eradicated from our society?

As both a Christian and a social conservative, I am responsible for my own behavior. I am honor-bound by my own beliefs and convictions to do what it may be within my means to do to protect and preserve some semblance of absolute moral standards within my own realm of existence. The day may come when millions of voices, including my own, are silenced, but today is NOT that day. The time has NOT yet come. So for today and as many days as the door of opportunity remains open to me to do what I know beyond any shadow of doubt is RIGHT for me to do, then I will choose of my own accord and my own free will to do the best I can with what time I have.

I take comfort in this thought…that “With God, all things are possible”. What I may fail to achieve, He can succeed in doing, in His own way and His own time. Above and beyond all else, my hope and confidence lies in His strength and wisdom, far more than my own.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Read Chesterton

    but we do hold the keys to the vault of Traditional Values. And Traditional Values are the real mortal threat to the statist “march through the institutions.”

    G. K. Chesterton called Tradition “the democracy of the dead.” He meant that to say our ancestors get a say in how we do everything from celebrate holidays to marrying and having children. The statists have turned the idea of Tradition on its ear by assigning actual votes to actual dead people while flushing their claim on Traditional Values down the toilet.

    • lineholder

      We’re the gatekeepers and guardians of this element of our society.

      And you are right in saying that it is their “mortal threat”.

  • aesthete

    as a social conservative, but who agrees with many of their preferred ends, the problem for me is one of means: more specifically, is the coercive power of government the appropriate means to facilitate the ends favored by social conservatives? Far from wanting to silence social conservatives, I (and many others) fear that using government to promote socially conservative ends is not only using the wrong means, but also leads to ends that social conservatives themselves would not approve of: just as no country has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity, no nation has ever policed its way to morality. Can you blame us for seeing utopian schemes like the War on Drugs, and not noting the obvious parallels between it and the War on Poverty or other utopian leftist schemes? Putting the state in charge of public morality requires wresting this responsibility from God and believers, and putting it in the hands of the serial incompetents and crooks who head our government. Even if we could eschew all of these concerns, vesting government with these powers only sets the stage for a later use of these powers against our own system of beliefs later on.

    I don’t want anyone to shut up: au contraire, I would like to see the church take a greater role in society. IMO, that is not facilitated by government taking an active role in societal outcomes.

    • JSobieski

      I don’t think that proposition is true. I say that as a social conservative.

      I humbly suggest that both sides of the divide focus on actual statements (providing actual links) than characterizing what the other side says. Otherwise, the discussion will degrade in ways that benefit nobody.

      Some are unduly paranoid that the conservative movement is telling social conservatives to get at the back of the bus.

      Some are unduly paranoid that social conservatives are going to imprudent and blow everything.

      Neither proposition has any merit to it in my view. The number of the paranoid are small. Lets not write diaries on addressing the nuts.

      25% of the country thinks 9/11 was an inside job. At this point, it is a horrible waste of time to write diaries addressing that 25%.

      I posit that the same logic applies to the 1-5% of the conservative movement who is induly paranoid on the role or lack of a role that social issues will play in the movement as the 2012 elections approach.

      • lineholder
        • JSobieski

          The title of this diary was designed to attract attention and to cause people to start yelling at each other.

          This is the equivalent hypothetical as asking your spouse “assume I have had an affair” and being surprised that a fight insues.

          There are for pressing non-hypothetical questions out there to address.

          Your hypothetical question hits one of the most tender fissure points in the center-right coalition.

          if I was a leftist, I would raise this issue over and over again to cause division. I know you are not a leftist, but I would suggest thinking more deaply before pouring gas on this fire again.

          • lineholder
          • JSobieski

            but I have said my piece.

    • lineholder

      of exactly what many social conservatives are concerned about. We don’t want government vested with the powers to define moral or ethical issues either.

      The comment made above by Read Chesterton is very much so true…Traditional Values are the “mortal threat” to statism.

      It goes like this…statists are basically predatory by nature. They play on weaknesses and vulnerabilities. They manipulate these things, both in society and individuals, in an effort to accomplish and achieve their own goals.

      Traditional Values are directly associated with absolute moral standards. If and when a person chooses to live their life by those standards, they are more inclined to develop strengths in their character rather than weaknesses.
      The strength of character in the individual contributes to the strength of character in the nation as a whole and to society as a whole.

      The development of specific qualities and traits that are associated with Traditional Values leaves less points of weakness for statists to “get their hooks into” so to speak. On this point, those of us who seek to protect and preserve Traditional Values present a very real threat to statists.

      Even if the situation were such that the leaders in office had the highest of moral and ethical values, I would still question it to the hilt and then some to what extent they should attempt to legislate morality.

      In this particular case, when these leaders exhibit LOW moral and ethical standards, under no circumstances do I want them legislating morality because they will develop policies filled with weaknesses that statists can easily exploit.

    • acat

      The quote is variously attributed.. my research says it’s Gerald Ford…

      “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”

      Mew

    • chamberD

      “I don?t want anyone to shut up: au contraire, I would like to see the church take a greater role in society. IMO, that is not facilitated by government taking an active role in societal outcomes.”

      Let me state at the outset that I oppose compassionate conservatism and the statist projects of George Bush to overlay society with moral fixes to prop up our decaying culture.

      At the same time, it is also true that government has a role to play in promoting a healthy and stable society and one morality over another — it’s part of its chief job as protector of the people. For example, when congress crafts tax law that grants financial incentives to single men and women cohabitating while penalizing married couples, then government is ACTIVELY endorsing immorality. When the courts demean marriage by ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, the government is imposing immorality, its “morality,” its statist, politically correct concept of what is moral. RoevWade, another example of government sanctioning immorality: sexual license and murder. Hate crimes, yet another attempt to quash the work of the church — whose work you say you endorse — in the name of some new-fangled and superior right over the freedom of religion: tolerance and fairness.

      It is not possible for the government to govern and not have a bias, either toward statist libertinism or traditional ethics. At every turn the government is imposing one morality over another; it’s not intellectually honest to say otherwise; everything has moral implications: food safety, speed laws, and so on. So stop with the imposing of morality nonsense.

      Indeed, it is not only the role of government that is at issue, but the GOAL of government that conservatives of any stripe need to come to grips with. Could it be that the goal of government these past 100 years has morphed into a control regime to transform America, deform America, into a system of centralized power the antithesis of its original form?

      aesthete’s implied libertarianism imagines that people are somehow naturally virtuous, perhaps innately so, and that left to our own devices we won’t descend into anarchy or slaves. This is foolish thinking. Society’s pathologies arise from a breakdown of standards, standards that reflect the reality of human nature. Libertarianism touts limited government, but by its very nature invites the intrusive government it scorns as society crumbles and the state must grow to compensate.

      As far as this government seeks to impose a utopian scheme on the nation, so far does it seek to destroy us.

      • aesthete

        but as always, I go back to fiscal conservatism: a 100% free market will never be completely realized. Does that mean that we should give up on attempting to reach that ideal, given if it will never be realized in the real world? Of course not: the countries closest to the free market ideal are those that do the best for their citizens, and it is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Those countries that have given up on the free market ideal altogether (or that never held it as something worth praising) do worse both on liberty and prosperity metrics. Likewise, those countries that give their citizens wider latitude and discretion for how to behave in the social sphere (and I count the US among those) are also the ones that do better morally, and which handle social upsets better. It is perfectly consistent to oppose “hate crime” legislation, asymmetrical tax schemes, Roe v Wade (which is not an exclusively socially conservative issue), and government-granted gay marriage without also supporting media censorship and standards, bans on pornography and gambling, government-subsidized marriage, and the War on Drugs (all measures that restrict personal liberty). To say that it does is just as silly as leftists who say that being against redistributionary schemes requires that you side with “the rich” receiving government largesse, instead.

  • acat
  • lineholder

    I went to work this afternoon and thought about some of the responses that I received to this diary.

    I do genuinely believe what I have written about traditional values and the underlying association with moral and ethical values to be the truth.

    I really REALLY love this nation and its people, even though there are times when I absolutely despise some of the behavior that is displayed.

    RS does and always has focused primarily on political issues. I’m the kind of person who focuses more on moral and ethical issues. I’m nuts about human character development and think it is one of the most fascinating subjects on the face of this earth.

    I don’t fit in here per se, and I’ve always known that to a certain extent. But the reality of how great the chasm is between political issues versus moral and ethical issues didn’t really hit home before as hard as it has this afternoon.

    I want to see if I can find a group of people who are of “like’ mind on the same kinds of issues that I believe in so strongly. Perhaps if I find that place, we can brainstorm a bit, toss ideas back and forth at each other, identify options, possibilities and alternatives of what we can do, whether it is as individuals or working as a group, that might encourage development of strong, positive moral and ethical character traits again in our nation. Maybe.

    RS isn’t that place.

    But I want to let everyone at RS know how much you have influenced my life during the months that I’ve been associated with this site. I’ve learned SO much here and I will always be thankful for that.

    • JSobieski

      There are plenty here who love a good philosophical or moral discuss. Birdmojo (now banned) and I had a remarkable conversation a couple of years back about the valid purpose of law, and what moral standards should be enshrined in law, and which moral standards were best of not being enshrined in law.

      If you want to have a great philosophical discussion, lets have one.

      Just don’t title the diary ” what if X group was silenced” when there was a big hullaballoo just a few days ago on whether there are goups that want to silence social conservatives. Its a partison title for what you intended to be a more college dorm philsophical discussion.

      You couched the title diary in political terms when it easily could have been written in non political terms.

      Titles like “What are we without morality” or “Can society do good when if the people in it cease trying to be good”. None of those titles would have generated any of the heat this diary generated. Frankly, until now, I thought you were intentionally picking at a scab that hadn’t healed from last weekend. Now I realize that it was unintentional.

      You (apparently inadvertantly) took an relatively philosophical discussion point and titled in reference to various allegations of center-right civil war between various factions of the center right movement.

      That is no reason to leave. That is simply a reason to more accurately title a a diary.

      What types of immorality (if any in your view) should not be legislated away? I would be interested in hearing your views.

      • Finrod

        Active discussion is a good thing, it’s part of what keeps us from becoming a static echo chamber like what often happens on the Left. The side effect is that sometimes we end up generating just as much if not more heat than light, which is off-putting to some people.

        But if we can simply agree to disagree agreeably, we will be stronger for the discussion. Most of us can learn things from each other; good ideas can stand up to criticism, and bad ideas will be exposed. That will make us all stronger as a result.

    • Scope

      and then some to see you leave, though I can understand why you feel as you do. It is unfortunate that when the words “socon” or “morality” are involved, it seems that just a few come out with their rifles loaded. This isn’t the first diary to evolve into chaos on the issues, and, I’m sure it won’t be the last. I believe that there are many many here that would love to engage with you on a topic of great interest to you, but, most refrain from saying anything so as to remain out of the line of fire. It’s sad when a diarist must spend the most of his time defending his words/thoughts/ideas/opinions rather than have a healthy civil exchange. If you posted in favor of Progressivism or Liberalism I could understand, but, you haven’t.

      If you find another site which covers the issues near and dear to your heart, please come back and link it. I’m sure there will be many others that will be interested in expanding their horizons.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    What I mean is, being self-described Anything-Conservative is no different from Indian-American, Irish-American, African-American, Arab-American, and so on and so forth. We have Social-Conservatives, Fiscal-Conservatives, National Security-Conservatives, and Compassionate-Conservatives and so on and so forth. It implies SPECIAL INTEREST simply by existing as a descriptor where none should exist.

    Whatever happened to being plain old Conservative when it encompasses all of the above and more?

    • acat

      That is, there are conservatives who would resist change when change is necessary and prudent, and there are conservatives who call for change when change is merely fadism.

      What’s going on here is the real, live, without-a-net working out of what change is prudent and what resistance to change is imprudent.

      And, like the creation of sausage or law, it’s not always pretty.

      Mew

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        of wanting to shut them up. Not everyone is gifted with a full measure of tact. I’m one of those so un-gifted.

        I have concerns about social issues, too, just like those who call themselves social conservatives, but I don’t believe focusing on them will help us as much as a return to our Constitutional form of government. If social issues take precedence over everything else, it will only prolong the tug of war with progressives.

        John Adams once said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        So, it would seem the answer to social conservatives’ concerns, as well as those of others who call themselves some other kind of conservative, would be to focus on the Constitution rather than any particular social issue that happens to be in the current news.

        Change is inevitable but not all change is desirable; not when it moves people from being a moral and religious people.

        • acat

          libertarians, most of whom are agnostics or atheists.

          It’s also not clear what to do with people who are religious, but not christian – bhuddists, jews, hindus, muslims, etc. etc.

          Are these the “moral and religious people” John Adams means?

          And if not, is the constitution able to work when they’re present? Because even in Adams’ time, there were atheists and musselmen and jews around…

          This is the principle problem I have with “social-conservatism” – everything is reduced to a moral, or a religious basis… and for those of us who stand apart from your religion, it seems a little … off-putting.

          Mew

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            everything said above shouts special interest and assumes all within a particular group, “libertarians,most of whom are agnostics or atheists” , all want exactly the same thing. And then you throw in “”bhuddists, jews, hindus, muslims, etc. etc.” and assumes that all who call themselves Christian want exactly the same thing.

            What would you have different?

          • acat

            I am not saying “special interest”. I do not know why you would be hearing that, unless you’re somehow sensitized to “special interest” claims.

            What I am asking is what, in your mind, makes up the “moral and religious people” of which you speak?

            Because, on the face of it, this may describe the bulk of the conservative movement, but it is divisive to say it describes the whole. Nobody likes being called something they’re not, eh?

            Mew

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C
          • acat
          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            yes.

            You’re quibbling. Like Vassar’s some-time-back diary on the Tribbles, quibbles are a similar “animal.”

            And it is the quibbles that have brought us to where we are now.

            This did not happen overnight. It didn’t happen in a century but more like 1 1/2 centuries. Maybe longer.

          • acat

            because what I get out of it is that each is entitled to work out his or her life in their own way, each respecting the rights of others, without having the majority trample the minority down.

            If you look at the structure of early government, it is quite clear that there were differences, but that they were put aside in the face of a common opponent. There’s a lesson there, eh?

            Another lesson – let decisions be made at the lowest level. Thus, States couldn’t establish religions, and people were free to relocate from a State where they were a poor fit to a State where they were a better fit.

            What I’ve seen quite often is that my “quibbling” gets me a seat at the kiddie table. I don’t object to this as I recognize I am in the minority – but it is counterproductive behavior to a group looking for allies.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            I’m glad you brought this up, because this is the heart of the matter. Our problem in America is that various special interest groups have worked separately to cast Normal as the establishment of religion.

            This has gotten so out of hand that groups whose deviance is proved by actual science have convinced people that the government’s refusal to cater to them is the establishment of religion. One example of this absurdity would be states paying for prisoners’ sex-change operations.

          • notalibertarian

            That was the principle — in addition to religious objections to slavery — that mainstreamed the abolitionist movement. But, while liberals are very fond of invoking the Deism of some of our founders, they are less interested in looking to see if the rights they fight for are actually found in the Natural Law those Deists deferred to. (Which is probably why support for the sciences was included in the Enumerated Powers.)

          • JSobieski

            Bork provided a great explanation of this in an interview once.

            Bork is a legal positivist, that is to say that as judge, he would never look to “natural law” to decide an issue.

            Natural law is aspirational—it shapes judgments about whether or not we would vote for a particular policy given the choice. Natural law influences the politician and the voter, but not the judge or the executive.

            Thus, many founders believed that slavery violated natural law, but that nonetheless slavery was legal.

            To do otherwise is to abridge self-government through dictatorship of those in black robes.

          • notalibertarian

            to create new rights and laws and judges using Natural Law to resist the political pressure to create new rights and laws out of thin air. I would be surprised if Bork disagrees with this.

            I am making a case — although not necessarily focused on the judiciary — that the Constitution has been twisted out of its meaning because American society — our schools and universities specifically — no longer values Natural Law. Because Natural Law is no longer considered a uniting source of truth or knowledge — a decider, if you will, it has become a free-for-all, and functioning society is being shut down because everyone’s opinions and beliefs and cultures and lifestyle choices are of equal value.

            I don’t really understand your comment about the founders, who probably had to incorporate slavery into the Constitution to accomodate slave owners. Could you expound?

          • JSobieski

            Neither would Scalia. Both are legal positivists (as am I).

          • notalibertarian

            apes with people (there was a claim about giving human rights to an ape in Europe somewhere) and placing them in the same category as men gained traction, Scalia and Bork would refuse to invoke Natural Law to dismiss the case? If not, on what grounds would they dismiss it?

          • JSobieski

            If the federal government enacted a law that said that apes have to be treated a certain way, both would enforce it even though it was stupid.

            Both have repeatedly said that it is not the job of judge to rule on the sensibility of the law, only whether the law is constitutional.

            Not sure how a law could even be written to place apes in the same category, but lets look at a few ideas:

            census—the constitution speaks as to who counts, so counting apes would be overturned in that respect

            In other instances, they would enforce the law.

            Neither would EVER invoke Natural Law to make a ruling.

            Both are legal positivists, which is what we want in judges. Google their names and the phrase “positivist” or “positivism” and you should get some good links to read.

            Bottom Line: if the law violated a provision in the Constitution, they would make the corresponding ruling. Natural law would never be cited. Stupidity is not grounds for declaring something unconstitutional.

          • notalibertarian

            The scenario I’m using does not involve a federal law. It would involve a civil case, in which lower (nutty) courts have humored the plaintiffs by hearing their cases. What then?

          • JSobieski

            Any civil lawsuit is either going to be based on diversity jurisdiction ( state law issue between people of different states) or a federal issue (federal regulation, law, or constitutional right).

            A federal court has no jurisdiction to hear a case if there is no diversity jurisdiction and there is no federal issue in dispute.

            The specific law or statute matters. There is no such thing as the generic nutty cause of action.

            So if there is a federal statute being misapplied (for example, a law that prohibits certain cruel acts to animals), then a legal positivist will follow the law.

            If the situation is a cause of action under common law, then the legal positivist will deal with the underpinings of the precedent with respect to that cause of action.

            Every civil lawsuit in federal court has to assert one or more causes of action that are based on something. A legal positivist will address the causes of action appropriately.

            You are asking me to respond to a hypothetical that has no underlying facts to it. Put some meat on the bone, and I will respond.

          • notalibertarian

            Let me change the scenario. On what grounds do you think these judges would uphold something like Prop 8, where one side claims its Constitutional rights are being infringed by the state’s limiting the definition of marriage?

          • JSobieski

            which is silent on the issue of marriage.

            So a legal positivist sitting as a Federal judge would say that Prop 8 does not violate any constitutional prohibition.

            A legal positivist sitting as a California judge would say that the California constitution was duly enacted.

            No reason to cite Natural Law on any of this stuff.

          • notalibertarian

            what is to stop the plaintiffs from asserting that hetero marriage is a religious (Judeo-Christian & Islamic) concept, and that the State is giving preferences to religious people in reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples, and discriminating against non-religious people who do not agree? I mean, if “God” is viewed as the establishment of religion, wouldn’t “God’s” concept of marriage be an establishment of religion as well, or do legal positivists not believe that “God” is the establishment of religion?

          • aesthete

            contradictory when it comes to a proper reading of the Constitution: the 9th and 10th all but assure that the federal government’s infringements on negative rights are enumerated and in almost all cases follow a process (4th Am). In practice, Clarence Thomas is much closer to originalist thought than Scalia (we don’t have Bork as a point of comparison, but I daresay that he would be very similar to Scalia on many points). Thomas is much less afraid to upset longstanding precedent or popular decisions than Scalia appears to have been, and is more logically consistent as a result (which makes me wonder how dependable Scalia will be regarding an overturn of Roe v Wade, but that’s a concern for the future, not for now). In practice, the fact that negative rights are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution makes the overlaps between legal positivism and textualism quite significant.

          • JSobieski

            Scalia and Thomas often come out on the same side of the issue, but one embraces natural while the other would avoid ever citing it.

            I don’t think legal positivism makes one more respectful of precedent. Scalia’s positivism is very much grounded in textualism. I think there is no question that Bork is far more similar to Scalia on this point than Thomas, although in terms of end results–the differences are minor.

            I do think that legal positivism is more consistent with self government. While legal positivism may make it a bit more likely for some fascist dictator to take over the country, I don’t view the SCt’s job to be focused on stopping the Hitler scenario–that’s our job as the general population. To obtain that power, the SCt would become a threat to self government in and of itself.

          • aesthete

            is that they tend to abdicate the role that the Supreme Court has served since John Marshall: that is, as a decidedly un-democratic institution that serves as a vanguard against democratic tyranny, not with their ideas on legal positivism. Even at the federal level, Bork and Scalia have justified decidedly un-Constitutional programs and policies on the basis of precedent and popularity (Scalia was on the wrong side of Gonzales v Raich vis a vis Constitutionality, as an extreme example). I don’t really blame this respect of precedent on textualism, originalism, or positivism, but it is odd that the two judges most associated with the philosophy have been more apt to suspend said philosophy when it conflicts with stare decisis or other concerns.

            There is nothing wrong with legal positivism per se, but it does seem to me that the differentiation between it and natural rights theory when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution is minimal, given the explicit wording of the 9th and 10th Amendments (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, for that matter). Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m sure one of our legal eagles (probably GC) will be around shortly to explain how horribly wrong I am :)

          • aesthete

            Thomas, despite being lauded as a natural rights theorist, is really more a textualist: his opinion on Lawrence v Texas was more in line with what a textualist or an originalist would say than what a natural rights theorist like Hugo Black would have written (I agree with Thomas in that ruling, btw).

          • JSobieski

            is based on the passage of time. He said as much explicitly in numerous interviews. I think Scalia thinks similarly, but obviously cannot be as up front about it as he is a sitting Justice.

            There is a difference between overturning a financial program in which people have been paying into it and relying on it for decades, and an overturning of the program in the early years of its existence.

            Frankly, in a system of self government, the US Supreme Court has not business in 2010 of overturning SS a program established under FDR.

            Note that Row v Wade is different from SS on a number of grounds:
            (1) no justification for reliance – no buy in
            (2) no acquiescence by society at large (in contrast, what percentage of the US considers SS to be unconstitutional)
            (3) Undoing an error on what is allegedly constitutionally required (Roe) is different than undoing an error of what is constitutionally permitted–In Roe the Court is fixing its own mess, with SS the Court is fixing our mess

          • aesthete

            In the case of #1, however, SS (per the Supreme Court) is a redistributionary tax. I agree that the general public doesn’t see it that way, but legally speaking, the program does not require that government return anything to citizens. (IOW, I’m not sure how sturdy #1 is as a legal argument, however nice it is as a moral one.)

          • JSobieski

            and being a legal positivist doesn’t make necessarily make anyone a great judge. Nor does it prohibit errors. It is however more humble than other judicial philosophies.

            It is about calling balls and strikes, and not thinking that you are or should be the focal point for people in the stands.

            Legal positivism is ultimately grounded in the idea of self governance, which is why I embrace it fully.

            However, it is also the reason why somone like Bork would say that the SCt should not overturn Social Security at this point. It is a program that has essentially been validated by the acquiesence of the citizenry.

            Ultimately, that logic can take you down some dark places. However, under a self-governance framework (albeit with Constitutional safeguards that can slow things down), it is ultimately the job of the citizenry to prevent dictatorships.

            Any other office so empowered would simply become the likely source of the tyrrany.

            The irony is that I tend to agree more in terms of outcomes with Thomas, but in terms of philosophy/approach, I side with Scalia/Bork.

            One insight to consider: The Founders were all grounded aspirationally at least, in terms of Natural Law. However, the Constitution involved compromises, such as with regards to the issue of slavery. The Founders believed that slavery was contrary to Natural Law, but nonetheless allowed its legality as a compromise.

            Philosophically (dorm room discussion) we all prefer the ideal goal versus the messy practicality of actually having both self-governance and Constitutional rights. However, subservience to Natural Law can too easily become subservience to those who profess to be experts in Natural Law.

            Liberals have their own version of natural law—-its called progressivism.

          • aesthete

            Ultimately, I can’t agree with any philosophy which would make Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al Constitutional, but I would agree with a philosophy which interprets the law as it was intended, and not as the justice would prefer it.

          • JSobieski

            several decades now.

            The constitution has de facto been amended.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • acat

            Seriously. The State should not be paying for anything more than basic health care for prisoners, especially lifers. It is our responsibility to see that they’re fed, clothed, and sheltered – and that’s the end of it.

            I have no interest in providing prisoners with sex change operations. I arrive at this because that’s not covered by “fed, clothed, and sheltered”, not because they’re somehow “abnormal”.

            I’m also not interested in the government doing any catering to special groups. Minimalist, one-size-fits-all government works just fine for me. Everyone paying the same tax rate, everyone registering for the same draft at 18, etc. etc. Special exceptions must apply to the disabled, as they cannot function in society.

            Additional exceptions for certain groups including the armed services, law enforcement officers, teachers (but not school administrators), emergency workers, and religious leaders may apply because all of the above contribute directly to the health of society.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            Some level of healthcare must be provided for prisoners. You cannot not provide healthcare for prisoners in a decent society. So someone has to decide what reasonable healthcare involves.

            The point is that you, regardless of your religious beliefs, should care about “abnormal” because you are having to pay for those operations because “abnormal” no longer matters. “Abnormal” has been marginalized as the establishment of religion.

          • acat

            … is to separate the discussion of the goals (providing health care as opposed to elective surgery) from the discussion of how we arrive at those goals.

            I do not arrive at “prisoners should not receive elective surgery” because of some discussion of “normal”, rather I reach that goal because I don’t intend to pay for an “elective” just because someone is in prison. Let ‘em get out of prison, get jobs, and earn the money to pay for it, just like everyone else.

            It is possible for two people to reach the Chic Fil A in a shopping mall by different paths – one enters through one store, the other through a different store or maybe the loading dock. Their experiences are different, but they end up in the same place.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            the belief that men should be required to use men’s restrooms and women should be required to use women’s restrooms is just an opinion, and it doesn’t matter that you and I agree (although I don’t mean to presume that you do) that this is elective. All public restrooms will have to be restructured.

          • acat

            There’s no (good) reason for a man to use the women’s restroom and vice versa, most of the time. If the line for the women’s is unusually long, I can see making an exception instead of a mess, but .. that would be a non-normal situation.

            I am saying that the definition of normal is subject to change over time, and that different people can have different reasons for their understanding of “normal”, just as they can take different paths through the mall.

            In my opinion, it’s a waste of time to try to make me accept your “normal” lock stock and barrel, just as it is for me to make you accept mine.

            However, since we are all in this together, it is a valuable use of our time to find where our understandings of normal align, and to work toward common goals.

            This does not start with saying “All normal is defined by God”. This starts by saying “women and men should use their respective bathrooms, unless an unusual situation is present”.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            to accomodate transvestites (CO & ME?), so that they can use the restrooms of their choice. The rationale is that transvestites have a very good reason — and should therefore have the right — to use the opposite genders’ restroom.

            P.S. Have you noticed that you talk about God in our discussions way more than I do? Why is that?

          • acat

            We were specifically told that “one of the new call center people may be dressed inappropriately for the bathroom you’re in, it’s okay, please be polite.”

            It seemed kind of odd to me – it’s a statistically small enough group that I’d expect either they could be given the key to the executive washroom (it’s private, and unisex) or use a “family” bathroom if available (also gender-irrelevant) …

            I’d also suspect that if a transvestite with female plumbing used the men’s room I wouldn’t notice… although I would be concerned if a transvestite with male plumbing used the ladies’ …

            Mew

            p.s. perhaps my direct references are due to the number of indirect ones in others’ posts?

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            got stuck on differences as if there’s some magic legal formula other than the Constitution that would safeguard those differences.

            Yes, indeed, there’s a lesson there. Did you learn it?

          • acat

            is that SoCons are very quick to say “you’re stifling me!” and “I won’t shut up!” .. but are equally quick to silence those who quibble.

            If that’s not the lesson you were referring to, then perhaps you’d explain what you meant?

            Mew

          • powertothepeople

            there are a small group on both sides that want the other side to shut up and back off. The majority of us are passionate about our beliefs, stand for them at every chance, but for the most part, neither group wants the other gone as we know it takes us all to beat the dems.

            But both sides can become quite animated. Debates will become heated because both sides want to be right. But a ton of people need to quit reading into these debates. We are grown adults who need to have thicker skin because there will be harsh words thrown and even insults. People will act as if they know it all and everyone else is stupid. But this is how debates work here and everywhere else. But at the end of the day after the words are finished, most on every side know everyone else is needed to complete the ultimate goal which is to beat the dems, period!

          • acat

            and I’ll agree to pretend I can send anyone to the back of the bus, but I will expect the same courtesy in return.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            Here’s another quote from Adams that will answer your question:

            “The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful creator, preserver, and father of the universe, the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, without a revelation, could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.”

            – Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, Jan. 21, 1810

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            He was raised a Congregationalist (Calvinist) and had early interests in the ministry, but eventually he became a Unitarian. The Christian religion as he understood it denied the divinity of Christ. A social conservative (in the classical sense of wanting to preserve existing social customs and seeing the value of social mores and norms), Adams saw the social value of the Christian religion, but he was not an adherent per se. (He said quite a few profoundly anti-Catholic things, but that’s neither here nor there, because it didn’t influence his political views.)

            As he grew older, he became increasingly skeptical of dogma, and in a letter to Jefferson, a year before his death, he wrote, “That there is an active principle of power in the universe, is apparent; but in what substance that active principle resides, is past our investigation. The faculties of our understanding are not adequate to penetrate the universe. Let us do our duty, which is to do as we would be done by; and that, one would think, could not be difficult, if we honestly aim at it.” In other words, he accepted the existence of an organizing deity, but he denied that humans could know anything about it beyond its existence and that the most important thing is follow the Golden Rule.

            More germane to politics is this quote: “I mix religion and politics as little as possible.”

            And from the Treaty with Tripoli (Authored by Joel Barlow in 1796, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, and signed and proclaimed by Adams): “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

            That said, Steph, I agree with your assessment that a return to Constitutional government will solve a good deal of our social ills, as many are (in my opinion) caused by incentivizing bad behavior.

          • powertothepeople

            like the old liberals who proclaim the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state.

            By the way, you do not speak for us Christians, modern or not, evangelical or not. And we are smart enough to understand that the verse judge not lest……..refers to not judging the ultimate place of a mans soul so we would not “decide” whether or not Adams was a Christian.

            Come to your own opinions, leave us out of them. And stop acting so pious and as if you speak for all of us Christians as I assure you, you do not!

          • acat

            For, according to what you believe, on the last day each man (and woman) makes an account of their own life.

            I disagree with you regarding religion. I agree with you, for the most part, regarding abortion. Can we work together on this, or not?

            That’s what I’m trying to figure out – are the group of SoCons here sufficiently flexible of mind that you can see allies or fellow travelers, or are you demanding that I be “just like you” to have a right to speak?

            Mew

          • powertothepeople

            My response was directed towards Greg?s assertion that he can speak for Christians, not you or your beliefs.

            But since you raised the issue that I have stayed out of for the most part, here is my opinion on the whole matter.

            I would be considered a socon, maybe even a far right socon. I will not shut up or sit down because some group asks or tells me to, I feel morals is a big part of politics, I will always support people who are strong enough to place social issues as a main part of their platform, etc. But at the same time, I understand that the republican party is made up of many beliefs and as long as the others do not try to pull our party towards liberalism, they are just as valuable to the party as I am. I am willing to never tell them to shut up or back off as long as they give me the same respect.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            I’m not an evangelical Christian anymore (I converted to Judaism some time ago), but I used to be quite devout (youth minister volunteer, member of the Presbyterian Church in America, etc), and I have a fairly good grasp of how many evangelicals view individuals whose views are heterodox.

            For example, many evangelical Christians deny that Latter Day Saints are Christians. I don’t say this to be provocative, but because as far as I can tell, it is a statement of fact. We can all remember how this was a bit of an issue for Romney a few years ago. Here’s a Christianity Today article on the subject.

            Latter Day Saints are a non-trinitarian religion with some heterodox theology, and many Christians consider Mormonism a cult. Adams was far more heterodox than the LDS, denying that Jesus was divine at all (whereas they teach that he was divine, but not part of the godhead). I find it very implausible that a majority of evangelicals would consider a Unitarian who said that humans could know nothing specific about God a Christian.

            Again, I’m not trying to offend. Adams was a heck of a statesman, and we are fortunate beyond words that he was one of the founders. He just wasn’t a great example of a Christian thinker, as most people understand Christianity today. (Perhaps instead of saying most, I should say many, as clearly, you seem to be an exception, power.)

            Sorry, again, for causing any offense.

          • powertothepeople

            so no need for you to ever apologize. I can get as salty with the words as anyone if I feel provoked. I am simply addressing your poor choice in words. You keep stating things you could not know.

            Even in this post you state because you once “was” a christian and were around a few of them, you have a good grasp on how they view things. Lets look at that for a sec shall we:

            Lets say you have met 100,000 evangelical Christians and talked to half of them on a deep enough level to know how they view things. That gives you the insight on 50,000. Now lets add another 50000 that you have read or hear their world view. This brings your grand total up to 100,000. That is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the number of evangelicals just in this country alone. So if those numbers are correct, you know the view of less than a percent of the rest of us. So the reality is, you do not have a grasp on how the majority of us view things. And to say otherwise is taking a ton of liberties.

            And since this is not a Christian forum, I will not get much into the rest of your post. But I will say this. If you claim to be a Christian you are held accountable concerning your beliefs and teaching by the Bible. If a group claims to be Christian but teaches things that are not biblical, they are not a christian group. David Koresh claimed to be Christian, yet claimed to be god. He may have claimed to be a christian organization, but he was not a part of us. Same would apply to the mormons. LDS, etc. They have a right to believe what they want to, but they are not in the christian group. You can not teach things that go against the Bible then turn around and claim to be Christians. Same would apply to the Jewish faith. If I claimed to be a practicing Jew and a Rabbi, yet taught things that are in clear violation of the Jewish faith, would I really be a Jewish Rabbi or a heretic? The answer is heretic and the same applies to our faith. many claim it but few actually represent it.

            Adams may or may not have been a christian, but most of us will not judge his soul as God does that. If he was actually saved at one point in his life, fell away and lost his faith, he is still saved. Just as you for some reason have walked away from the faith, if you were actually saved at some point in your life, it did not go away, you simply walked away. If you were not saved, then you were never one of us and were simply performing the actions. Either way, it is not my place to judge your soul, only God can do that. Same applies to Adams!

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            Making the sort of blanket statement that I did about any religious group is a mistake. Thanks for your correction.

            And I understand what you mean about not bring able to know the nature of an individual’s salvation. Attempting that is never a good idea.

            I was referring to the doctrine that he professed, especially in his latter years, and how it did not meet the minimum doctrinal requirements of the Christian religion (i.e. the divinity of Jesus). While we cannot make metaphysical judgments, we can make doctrinal ones, and I failed to make that distinction.?

            Thanks again.

          • powertothepeople

            that based on some of his writings he was either a lost man or had fallen from the faith.

            There are many things Christians can disagree on and still be a part of the faith. They are called gray areas. Some say drinking anything other than wine is wrong due to the bible talking about fruit of the vine and avoiding hard drink while other say that we are free to drink as long as we abide by the rules such as do not be a drunkard, do not be under the control of anything(influence or tipsy) and do not do anything that will cause another to fall or that damages your testimony. People argue about loss of salvation. I believe as do most theology experts outside of the pentecostal one, that the Bible is very clear salvation, true salvation is a permanent gift. While it is a dangerous teaching to teach it can be lost as it causes those who listen to believe they are worthy enough to earn it or keep it and makes it to where they live in constant fear they have lost their salvation which leads to eventual spiritual lethargy, this is not a point of contention that would exclude one from the faith.

            But when it comes to the virgin birth, one way to heaven, one God, Jesus is God, etc, these are set in stone tenants of the Bible one must believe to claim Christianity. A person does not have to believe it, but if they want to be a Christian and to be a part of our group, they must believe it. If a person does not believe Jesus was and is God, he died for our sins, and he is the only way to heaven, then they believe something that is not Christian.

            So you are right, many of his later teachings were not in line with the Bible. I hope he simply fell away and became bitter near the end. But if he was simply stating what he always believed and there never was a true belief in Jesus Christ, I hate to say I will never meet him in heaven. But only God knows his souls resting place and his words do not define that.

          • notalibertarian

            For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn afrom the holy commandment delivered unto them. II Pet. 2:20-21

            Not that I want to turn this into a doctrinal thread, but just sayin’.

          • powertothepeople

            and a verse that is often misused to throw out the theory salvation can be lost.

            Peter was referring to False teacher and their followers who had grown weary of the worlds “pollution” or moral contamination and had sought refuge in the church, but had done so on their own terms. You have to refer back to verse one of this chapter to get the scope of what he is referring to. They heard the true gospel, moved toward it, but then rejected it. This is apostasy. Other similar scenarios are Heb 10:26,27 Their end is worse than those who have never been exposed.

            I would be happy to provide you with more than enough Biblical evidence that shows true salvation (and the key word there is true) is a permanent gift which can not be lost or given back. We would need to exchange emails in order to do this as I do not believe we should turn this into a sunday school. I would love to hear your belief and share mine.

            But anyways, back to the topic………..

          • streiff

            you can’t provide that evidence because it doesn’t exist. If it did exist there wouldn’t be a disagreement between theologians and denominations on the subject.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Probably just as well on this site.

          • streiff

            are really annoying to those of us who do.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
          • powertothepeople

            on the matter between most legitimate scholars. Where you get the argument is when you add a certain branch of the faith in.

            So yes, evidence is clear and easy to understand unless you have been already influenced by a part of the faith that also believes in other things most Christians do not.

            Side Note, you may chose not to believe a certain way, does not mean there is not evidence to the contrary. There are people who still to this day believe OJ did not kill those two despite all the evidence, does not mean he did not do it or that evidence does not exist.

            Again, since this is not a Sunday School site, I will stop with this topic, but am more than willing to provide a lengthy piece I wrote for another site that lays out the argument/evidence for permanent salvation when it was genuine to begin with. And am more than happy to read an opposing view and their evidence.

          • streiff

            appeal to authority is a logical fallacy not a debate technique. Since it is impossible to know “genuine” salvation or the outcome after death your entire argument is based on your reading of Scripture.

            Dismissing hundreds of year of systematic theology simply demonstrates your own lack of understanding of the subject. And dismissing thousands of Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and Methodist theologians as not legitimate actually marks you as a lot less than serious.

            I don’t have a particular dog in this fight but I’m simply not going to allow nonsense like this to go unchallenged. In the early days of RedState I had a couple of morons insist that Christ was crucified on a Wednesday, contra the Gospel of John and two thousand years of traditional Christian belief, because they’d decided that was necessary for a Sunday Resurrection.

            You are entitled to believe whatever doctrine you wish. You won’t use this site as a place to proclaim that doctrine to be the only true reading of Scripture.

            If you have a problem with this then you need to change sites because this isn’t negotiable.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            in Christianity, then either your view of “Christian” is very limited, or your knowledge of the doctrines of the different denominations is very limited. Either way, this is hardly settled doctrine, and isn’t even considered to be essiential by most.

            There are very good men on both sides of this debate throughout the ages who certainly all have a better understanding of theological issues than I. That said, it doesn’t mean I don’t have a position, but really, this isn’t the place to have this debate.

            I’d recommend you do a lot more research before you say things like this. It’s clear you need to expand your knowledge in this area.

          • notalibertarian

            Happy Thanksgiving!

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            wasnt written in pencil

          • powertothepeople

            I am in total agreement with your comment and expressed that above. True salvation, and the key word is true, is a permanent gift that can not be lost, taken, or given back.

          • Goldwater_Conservative

            into an arguement but do feel very strongly on the topic and thats how I believe based on my understanding of the Bible and the attributes of God.

          • powertothepeople

            My response was directed towards Greg’s assertion that he can speak for Christians, not you or your beliefs.

            But since you raised the issue that I have stayed out of for the most part, here is my opinion on the whole matter.

            I would be considered a socon, maybe even a far right socon. I will not shut up or sit down because some group asks or tells me to, I feel morals is a big part of politics, I will always support people who are strong enough to place social issues as a main part of their platform, etc. But at the same time, I understand that the republican party is made up of many beliefs and as long as the others do not try to pull our party towards liberalism, they are just as valuable to the party as I am. I am willing to never tell them to shut up or back off as long as they give me the same respect.

          • notalibertarian

            He may have become a Unitarian, but it should be pointed out that the Unitarians of 200 years ago were more orthodox than Unitarians of today.

          • acat

            You’ve made it quite clear that if I don’t believe what you believe, I’m a second class member of the coalition.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            I think the actual problem here is that your views are not as mainstream as you want them to be, and they are not as mainstream as you cast them to be.* That makes you a second-class citizen only to the extent that you cannot force the coalition to accept your vision, because the majority doesn’t agree with you. (I mean, I personally think rock music is a destructive cultural force in the world, but I don’t go around lecturing people here about it, because I realize that view is not widely shared.)

            Whether intentionally or not, you are engaging in the same kind of astroturfing the left usually engages in: insisting that the majority view is somehow the minority view to marginalize your opponents and syphon off weak or unengaged people to your side. This “air of inevitability” strategy only works if no one calls you on it. So I’m calling you on it.

            *http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/christie-if-elected-will-ban-gay-marriage-nj

          • acat

            …to me views which I do not hold, and actions which I have not performed.

            I don’t know who you’re used to arguing with but you have this very sensitive trigger when it comes to someone who challenges your social views. Now I’m “astroturfing” ? Now I’m “marginalizing” you? I think not.

            I have specifically acknowledged in our conversation that SoCons are the majority. What I want to know is what the minority role is, and whether you as a SoCon are willing to put aside differences on some issues and work together.

            What I’ve gotten in return is a bunch of garbage, where you’re apparently arguing with a person not present and trying to force me into their role so you can proceed.

            Based on this conversation, I conclude you’re not interested in working together. Happy Thanksgiving to you.

            Mew

          • notalibertarian

            Acat, you haven’t been “challenging my social views”. You have been claiming that my refusal to remove my social views from the conservative movement are going to shatter the coalition. I don’t know what you’ve been arguing about, but that’s what I have been arguing about. I hope this clears this up.

            As for my overall view, I am not interested in working together if working together requires me to acquiesce to sexual radicalism falsely cast as some kind of new civil rights struggle. I am, however, interested in debating the pros and cons of policy and ideology with people with whom I disagree, like yourself.

            A very Happy Thanksgiving to you too, acat.

          • acat

            is common ground.

            And now we have. We both celebrate Thanksgiving. (hey, it’s a start)

            Mew

          • janis

            me, acat, that John Adams knew full well that other religions and beliefs existed in America at the time he wrote his remarks. He did so in the full knowledge and belief that Christianity was the religion that governed and informed the principles and values espoused in our new form of government.

            You’ll notice that his remarks did not include the phrase or qualifier, “….unless and until some atheist or agnostic objects.” We are a nation conceived and founded upon the bedrock of Judeo-Christian beliefs and moral values. To move away from those is to make us less than the Founders and the Constitution would have us be. Because we have done just that for so long, we find ourselves in the position we are in now.

            One of those moments when you have to stand up and count for something. That you and others may not share those values or beliefs matters not a whit. What counts is that those of us who DO must do so with that much more emphasis to counter those who want us to water down our values so that they won’t be uncomfortable.

          • acat

            He has some other Adams quotes that contradict your conclusions.

            Mew

          • janis

            does not change the things that he espoused at the Founding.

            Acat, the problem is that social conservatives are asked all the time to moderate their positions in order to accomodate those who believe otherwise. We are asked to accept or condone behavior that we believe is immoral and destructive to the fabric of this country.

            We cannot both believe and condone at the same time. If you believe that something is wrong, then that is what you base your behavior upon.

          • acat

            SoCons do not have the votes to go it alone.

            I am not asking you to condone anything. I am, in fact, in agreement with you on a number of issues.

            I am not asking you to moderate your positions, and I am specifically not telling you to shut up.

            I am telling you that I have some specific quibbles with your positions, and asking you whether we can work together on other issues while acknowledging that the quibbles exist, or whether we can try to find mutually acceptable ground on those quibbles.

            And yet, this earns me (not you) a place at the back of the bus.

            Mew

          • janis

            And we can acknowledge the “quibbles” as you put it. I consider them to be more than mere quibbles. But as to whether we can find mutually acceptable ground on those issues, that would be doubtful. Your position is that some things are acceptable behavior and mine is that some things are not. What possible common ground could exist between those positions?

            But what I can do, and what my beliefs command that I do, is to hate the sin but love the sinner. As to your insistence that you must always go to the back of the bus, it is not those who tolerate or favor gay marriage/civil unions, or a range of other moral choices who are constantly being pointed out as Bible-thumping rednecks, it is the ones who try to live by their faith who are so named.

            My choice for much of this is Federalism and letting the power to decide much of this reside within the states.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            It’s get too crowded, the bus will tip from that unbalanced weight – and who will drive the bus? :)

            (Though, better in the back than being thrown under, I suppose…)

            If we just work together on areas of common agreement, agree to disagree on other areas, and stop worrying about what outsiders will think, we’ll be a lot better off.

            We need to figure out how to get along before we try convincing others to get on our bus too.

          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            NT

          • acat
          • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

            Each individual must advocate for those issues that matter, using all available means–reason, emotion, faith, philosophy, etc. If an individual is convinced that something is wrong, then she has a moral duty to oppose it. For people who believe that a fertilized egg is a human baby, for example, it is necessary that the blastocyst, zygote, fetus, etc have the rights fully accorded to other human beings. For those who think that the cut-off point is later (whether it’s at a certain number of weeks, the presence of a certain amount of brain matter, consciousness, etc), there is a different point after which the being has the rights accorded to all individuals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

            In other words, if you have a foundational belief in when human life begins (whether this is informed by faith, reason, or a combination of the two), then you have a moral duty to pursue laws that would restrict of eliminate the destruction of life after that point. Everyone on the right is, to some degree or another, a social conservative (at least regarding a right to life), using a different set of underlying assumptions to come to different preferred laws, based on different understandings of when life begins.

            On issues like gay marriage, DADT, etc, I think that the situation is more complex, but it’s not likely that this conversation will change any minds on those things.

            As far as history and the faith of the founders, a lot of the debate is unnecessary because it is built on flawed ideas about law, the Constitution, etc. As far as I can tell, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Adams were, by varying degrees, essentially deists. Others say that they were Christians. Which one is true is sort of irrelevant.

            The legal structure that they set up was designed to give religious flexibility to the states while avoiding an established national religion. My first discussion/debate after joining RedState was related to the First Amendment, Christine O’Donnell, and Intelligent Design, and we discussed a lot of these issues there.

            The original meaning of the First Amendment was pretty clear, that there was to be no establishment of a national religion and that religion should be exercised freely. Where things went wrong is when Hugo Black started mucking about with the original intent of the Founders. Once law crosses over into historical mind-reading, things go awry.

            Regardless of the Founders’ religious beliefs, what matters is what the laws meant when they wrote them. That’s what originalism means–the original meaning of the laws, not the original intent of the men who wrote them. The Founders were pretty careful not to include anything religious in the Constitution itself (which is why there’s no mention of God, only in the Declaration), and it can be better understood as an enshrinement of Enlightenment values, a continuation of English tradition, and an extension of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 than as a Judeo-Christian document.

            Using counterfactual claims to establish or bolster an argument weakens it in the long run (A good example is the common claim that Washington was a devout Christian, when he rather pointedly wasn’t). I think that reliance on the philosophers and Christian-ness of English tradition makes for a much more solid argument for explaining the meaning of the Constitution. Most important, of course, is how it was implemented, especially in the early years.

            (I get the feeling that I just rambled, and I’m not entirely sure that I made sense, but I hope so.)

          • acat

            And it’s important to understand history so we don’t have to repeat it.

            Mew

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …most of the commenters aren’t very good readers. I have that problem as well.

    Next time, we’ll put out a dragnet to make sure you get a more fair reading.

    But for what it’s worth, this is an important subject, which needs to come up time and time again. An it needs good arguments to be put forward. I’ll try to be more aware.

    • lineholder

      I got an email from RS. It basically had the effect of waving a red flag in front of a bull (the bull being me). Very shrewd, gentleman. Very shrewd and very effective.

      I’m still here, for better or worse, we’re in this one together.

      • texasgalt

        nt

      • Scope

        you made my day. I would have missed you, and your important views.

      • JSobieski

        nt

      • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
      • aesthete
  • Finrod

    Nobody on our side is wanting to ‘silence’ social conservatives, as much as you may want to misread things to martyr yourself.

    There is a time for all things, and to everything there is a season, as Solomon put it. Right now, the Democrats have put us on the road to ruin, and the voters very clearly stated that they do not want us to keep going that way. Marco Rubio understands: the voters did not give Republicans a mandate, except to get us off the road to ruin.

    We cannot do that if we concentrate on social issues in the upcoming Congress.

    The Democrats would like nothing more than to fight with us on social issues while we continue down the road to ruin, because they can stop us from making any substantial progress there (they hold the Presidency and a majority of the Senate), meanwhile ObamaCare and exorbitant spending will continue because we’re not doing everything we can to stop them.

    And then in November 2012 the Democrats will make the argument that the Republicans are just as bad as they are, and they’ll be right– because we didn’t do what the voters elected us to do, which is to make a U-turn from the current policies. Voters won’t turn out with any energy, and the labor unions will steal the elections for Democrats again, and any chance we have of making any changes, either on social issues or on overturning ObamaCare and ruinous spending, will be gone.

    Is that what you really want? Because pushing fights on social issues now will do exactly that.

    Please, save the social issue fights for when we have more control of Washington than we do now.

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

    that is leading to a circular firing squad. I agree with two fundamental propositions, one of which you yourself put forth:

    (1) Nobody (or virtually nobody) on our side is wanting to ?silence? social conservatives.

    (2) Nobody (or virtually nobody) on our side is saying that social issues are of THE primary importance in the 2012 elections.

    I think 99% of RedStaters would agree that we should not look for fissures on these issues, that we should not look for excuses to be inadvertantly insulted, and that we should not waste our advocacy skills telling other people that their priorities are wrong.

    If we do that, we can ignore the remaining 1% and all of the internal squabbling which accomplishes nothing.

    People should advocate for the positions they care about. They should not advocate for other people on the same team to give up the positions that are important to them.

    We all need to collectively chill out on unintended implicit interpretations of what people are saying. Otherwise, RS is going to become a nightmare in relatively short order.

  • lineholder

    Personal accountability has become a MAJOR issue in our society. You can deny that all you want to. That’s up to you.

    But if want to see some degree of financial sanity restored in our economy, particularly in regards to the usage of public funds, then you will at least be open-minded about the part that a lack of personal accountability can play. Here’s an example:

    A coworker is pregnant. I was genuinely happy for her, until I heard her reasons for getting pregnant…she and her husband are having a tough time financially so they decided to have another baby so they could draw more in welfare benefits!!! This is her ONLY reason for having this child!

    Yeah, now where is the personal accountability in this scenario????

    How about a female who definitely has plans to be sexually active. She has access to all sorts of programs where she could get FREE contraceptives, but she won’t exercise enough of personal accountability to march her rear end into a doctors office somewhere and do this. Then, when she finds herself pregnant, she wants to get a publicly-funded abortion?

    Or how about any person who engages in unprotected sexual activity with more than one partner without taking any precautions at all to protect their own life, but then when they find out they have full-blown AIDS they want their extremely expensive health care services to provided for them through public funds???

    We have social programs that could accomplish and achieve many things, but they have become bloated, outdated, ineffective and nonproductive. What’s more, individuals in our society have been encouraged primarily by our government to take these social programs for granted and to exploit them to the hilt.

    I disagree with THESE things. I think THESE things very badly need to change.

    You can get ticked off about it all you like that there are moral and ethical implications involved in each and every one of these scenarios, but it isn’t going to alter the reality at all.

    They are what they are.

  • Scope

    and are doing all they can to tear the SoCons apart.

    http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/7164595.html

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I agree with Finrod.

  • Finrod

    Everything you say here is your opinion.

    Everything Erick says here is Erick’s opinion, for that matter.

    Am I wrong? Then point out where I’m wrong. I’d love to think that newly-elected Republicans will be able to wave a magic wand and win any fight they enter into in the new Congress, but I’ve seen too many Congressional fights to think that. It is my opinion that we will do better on social issue fights if we pick a time where the battlefield is to our advantage, rather than just rushing in now.

    You’re quite welcome to hold a different opinion, but I’d like to see your reasoning, instead of just dismissing my views as an ‘opinion’.

  • Finrod

    .

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

    Which part do I reply to?

    The part where you say conservatives aren’t being told to be quiet in favor of the libertarians?

    Or the party where you tell conservatives to be quiet in favor of the libertarians?

  • lineholder

    are going to overlap with social issues. The primary reason for this is because so much of public funds is invested in paying the costs for social programs.

    What would you have them to do? Avoid the issue altogether???

    Look, I would LOVE to see Republicans take the lead on this by starting to reevaluate the effectiveness of ALL of our social programs. Some of them are necessary. Some of them aren’t. Get the bloated, ineffective programs out of there. Then go back through and start establishing objective quantitative benchmarks for how funds are used in the remainder of the programs that exist AND provide oversight to make sure this takes place.

    BUT when it comes to the part that personal accountability of the individual citizens plays in the usage of funds, that DOES go back to the moral and ethical standards of the individual.

    Look at the example I stated below. I hope that you will see what I’m really meaning by that statement.

  • Scope

    current or incoming are on the radar for the incoming Congress? You seem to be arguing that “social issues” will be the downfall of the Conservative movement if they take up those issues. What promises, legislation or anything else are you referring to?

    The problem I am having is that no one that I know is promising to legislate on any of the social issues, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research etc. You seem to be in the camp that only wants to warn anyone in the Republican party that they dang well stay away from those issues, when no one that I know has brought them up. Are you making a mountain out of a mole hill, as well as some others here?

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
  • aesthete

    To elaborate a bit, I think that the national mood is such that certain socially and culturally conservative goals could possibly be realized: border security is the big one, but I imagine that we could make some inroads in school choice on the state level, removing the federal government from education, defunding “arts”, defunding abortion providers, etc. Barring border security, however, I highly doubt that they will be able to make any inroads on issues that will expand the reach or power of the federal government: there’s not nearly enough trust for that, and it will be seen as overreach on the part of Repubs.

  • acat

    For while I am a conservative who is opposed to abortion, I’m apparently not conservative enough on gay marriage* and I suspect my views on firearms would offend a few as well.**

    I want to live under a government that will, for the most part, just leave me alone. I certainly don’t want to shut anybody up, so much as I want to open ears and minds and get people to see that we could be allies.

    Mew

    * Government has no business in a religious ceremony – government should immediately become “marriage-blind”, and anyone wishing to join a registered “domestic partnership” granting any remaining tax and benefits purposes just has to fill out a form of no more complexity than a 1040-EZ.

    ** Mandatory NRA-style firearms safety class in 5th or 6th grade for *every* kid, all states will issue concealed carry permits to their citizens provided said citizens take a re-certification of some sort at reasonable intervals.. “An armed society is a polite society” – RAH

  • Scope

    Ron Paul supporters, the site has already descended into a nightmare. Even EE himself posted an article negatively addressing the Libertarians, but, I guess the site people have opened their minds up so much that some brains have fallen on the floor. It seems that one of the biggest positions that RS has taken is they support pro-life, at least for front pagers. I don’t know for sure, but, that has seemed to change.

  • lineholder

    The title of my diary was actually meant more in a theoretical context…a “what if” so to speak. My opinions are my own, and I even put a blasted disclaimer at the beginning of the diary.

    It definitely has set up some backs, hasn’t it? Talk about getting on the defensive in the blink of an eye.

  • JSobieski

    You seen some pretty intense arguments on this point.

    People on both sides are looking to be slighted. Please, no more gas on the flames?

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

    Your disclaimer was quite inadequate:
    “Disclaimer: This diary post is not intended to express the views of all individuals who profess to be social conservatives.”

    Speaking for ALL social conservatives isn’t the issue. The issue is whether or not there is a significant voice of advocacy telling social conservatives to shut up.

    This diary is fueling a fire that should be extinguished, not flamed.

  • lineholder
  • JSobieski

    Duh?!?!?

    If there was a productive point to this diary, it was achieved by others not you.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    If you do, that’s a big part of your problem right there.

  • aesthete

    I think that a large part of the problem is one of definitions: social conservatism has meant anything from stopping the government from facilitating poor lifestyle choices (something that every libertarian on the planet would agree with those SoCons about), to church lady-like bans on private poker games, gambling, drugs, liquor, etc. More clearly delineated definitions for both sides would help tremendously in this discussion.

  • JSobieski

    I am against anyone telling anyone else to sit down, shut up, and abandon the issues that matter to them.

    The focus needs to be on repealing Obamacare and getting the government under control.

    Otherwise, all these other issues will become academic when the government becomes 50% of the economy.

    P.S. I agree that smart tax reform would do a lot to ease pressure on many social issues.

  • lineholder

    Are there people who are sensitive to the idea of addressing the underlying moral and ethical implications of some of the issues are country is facing honestly and openly in a straightforward manner? Yes, and it frightens the dickens out of them. They get horror images in their minds of government gone beserk with legislating morality.

    There are also those of us who aren’t in the least bit intimidated about the discussing the good, bad and pure ugly of what exists in our society, JS. And I happen to be one of those people. We’re realists to the hilt. We have no illusions at all about human nature. It doesn’t bother us one bit to talk about these things. We don’t do it to get on other people’s nerves, set up their backs or see them get on the defensive. I guess I can understand why it might, but that isn’t our intention.

    If those who are of a mind to do so can act in a way that raises an awareness regarding personal accountability issues, it is possible that this could bring about some POSITIVE changes in our society, and these changes could influence how public funds are being spent.

    Can you agree with that statement? And do you understand why the underlying moral and ethical implications involved in a lack of personal accountability can present a problem, for all of us?

  • lineholder

    contribute to the battle our country is facing IF we are allowed to address issues such as personal accountability honestly and openly.

    Think about battle tactics, putting people where THEIR STRENGTHS LIE.

    It’s not about exclusivity…this is where our strengths lie.

  • Scope

    While many here claim that no one is asking anyone to “shut up” about Social Conservative policies, they are mostly telling the diarist that he is being inflammatory with this diary, and, he should just shut up about it. I’m beyond being surprised by some.

    Good diary line holder, I applaud your positions and efforts.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    We may be interpreting things a bit differently, but I don’t think that most of the responders have said that. After some back-and-forth, JSobieski wrote, “What is the point of raising needlessy inflamatory hypothetical questions?” which is pretty conversation-killing (and slightly contradictory to his earlier statement: “People should advocate for the positions they care about. They should not advocate for other people on the same team to give up the positions that are important to them.”

    Finrod asserted that focusing on social issues is a tactical mistake. The “martyr” language is unhelpful though.

    Compared to some diaries in recent days, I think that this one is pretty polite and well-intentioned. We should all heed the admonition to be respectful, or be banned. A deep breath or two (and maybe a prayer for those who pray) before clicking the POST COMMENT button is probably a good idea in general.

    If we don’t form a stronger party, leading to the election of better candidates, who would comprise a governing majority, then all that we write on here is an exercise in vanity, time killing, or both. (This is something that I wrote about yesterday.)

    By the way, you make good points in your diary, lineholder. You should check out A Conflict of Visions or Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell.

  • JSobieski

    If someone is asking SC’s to shut up, provide a link and a specific quote. Otherwise, all you are doing is needlessly dividing the center-right coalition needed to repeal Obamacare.

    To deny that certain topics can be handled in an inflammatory way is silly. If challenged, I am sure I can easily do so.

  • JSobieski

    The idea that someone is either telling them to shut up, or that someone is being accused of telling someone to shut up.

    Sensitive issues require sensitivity. You are surprised at the reaction towards your diary. I am not.

    That is why I did not recommend it.

    If you want to “raise awareness” do it in a way that is less inflamatory.

  • JSobieski

    People should argue FOR the positions that they want to advocate

    People should NOT argue that anyone else shut up or suggest that a meaningful number of people in the center-right coalition are arguing for some group to shut up, either from a martyr position (they are telling us to shut up) or from an aggressor position (if X doesn’t shut up, we all lose).

    Nobody should be silenced.

    There is not a credible argument to suggest that any branch of conservatism is being silenced.

    Suggesting to the contrary is inflammatory, and results in all sorts of needless and stupid argument.

    However, if people want to poke sticks at each other while Obamacare gets another day more entrenched, go ahead. I am apparently unable to convince anyone that they should journey together until certain forks are reached in the road.

    So in the interest of mischief and a desire to avoid hypotheticals, I am willing to over the Thanksgiving holiday, find THE MOST inflammatory quotes I can find that will kick up all sorts of flames on RS. Maybe that will satisfy people?

    We are in a circular firing squad. I suggest that we all bulk up with larger ammo. Lets leave a smoking crator that people will talk about centuries from now.

  • acat

    my moral compass and yours do not point to the same place?

    If so, then .. we don’t have an argument.

    If not, then …

    Mew

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

    What front pager do you think isn’t pro-life?

  • Scope

    are they all vetted for their pro-life positions?

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

    We only require front page editors be pro-life. Promoted diaries, and guest writers, do not have to be pro-life.

  • Scope

    because some have questioned your approach?

    If people have conflicting opinions, they are stupid and needless arguments? Hmmm.

    Have you seen anything that the far left has been trying to orchestrate in the name of Social issues?

    http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/7164595.html

    You seem to be fighting against anyone defending Social Conservative positions, while the left has had a concerted effort to destroy Social Conservative positions, Should we ignore their push? It is much more loud, invasive, and destructive than anything any Republican/Conservative groups can do. Because the Progressives push to destroy the SoCons, and because they have had that goal in mind for many years, some damn someone has to take a position against their movement to destroy the SoCons. It seems that you take that movement very lightly, and, not something we should hold a strong position on. The economy is very important at this time, but, by recent polls, for whatever they are worth have come out on the side of the traditional SoCon positions.

    Where in the hell are you coming from? and, more importantly, whose side are you on?

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    What I meant to say is that no one had quite crossed the line, and only two individuals had even voiced negative opinions. Both of you were taking about political tactics and the need to be realistic about what the GOP be able to accomplish.

    I phrased it indelicately, perhaps because I was typing it on my iPhone, in the car with five of my children, waiting for a sixth to get back to school from a field trip. Sorry. My bad.

    Things were well over the line on the diary over the weekend (in my opinion), and there was some seriously inappropriate language flying around. That’s what prompted me to write an entry to remind people why we are all here (similar to your ObamaCare comment, JS). Most of us need to be better at in-group amity (with a large, center-right coalition) than we are with out-group hostility (with anyone outside a particular faction).

    We all share a similar outlook and legislative agenda, and unity will help to strengthen it.

    I suspect that the part of our brain used for political beliefs is close or similar to the part used for religious beliefs, and that both are closely tied to the release of chemicals (eg oxytocin, adrenaline) that rev us up and make us more trusting or touchy based on whether people are respectful to our beliefs, in agreement with them, neither, or both. This is why we should be diplomatic, especially with allies (Plus, it makes us look better). I’d love to see a good neuroscientist tackle it with an?FMRI.

    At any rate, sorry for any offense caused (same for you, Scope). And for rambling. I do that a lot. Thanks.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
  • JSobieski

    However, I also someone who is both socially conservative and economically very libertarian oriented.

    If you can show one example of where I have ever attacked a socially conservative position, feel free to enlighten me.

    I have NEVER supported an anti-life position, a pro-gay marriage position, or in any way argued that families are not the bedrock of society.

    I am on the side of defeating Obama and saving the Republic. Which involves keeping the coalition together.

    I am social conservative.

    I am for a limited federal government that only exercised enumerated powers.

    I have spent just as much time here getting people to back off attacking social conservatives as I do getting people to back off attacking fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives. You just don’t pay attention. In particular, I have complimented the pro-life movement for its principled stands and acknowledged that without pro-life volunteers at election time, there would be virtually no volunteers on the R side. I have repeatedly noted that fiscal conservatives who are not pro-life tend not to volunteer a lot of their time. I have also repeatedly warned fiscal cons that pro-life is the largest single issue voting block in the US, far larger than free trade or supply side tax cuts.

    Agreeing to disagree is fine. Insinuating that that there is some significant movement to shut anyone up is simply incorrect, and bad for moral.

    I am trying to keep the lid from blowing off on certain issues, but if people insist on starting circular firing squads, I can’t stop them.

    One thing you have failed to notice in our years here at RS, is that we agree 99% on policy positions and disagree 99% on how things are articulated.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    If people would stop telling others how they’re “damaging” the cause and remember where the real damage is originating, we’d all be a lot better off. And our blood pressures would stay lower too.

  • Scope

    SoCons, but, it has been unmistakable that your idea of defending them has been to ask them to “be quiet” about their issues. You have reiterated that position with saying that the diarist has been inflammatory with respect to his words in the diary. Can you allow people to have their own opinions, whatever they are, without attacking the messenger, because you have other ideas or methods of approach? When anyone articulates his opinions/positions they need not go through the grinder of appropriate political correctness, according to just a few. Some say tomato and some say tomatoe. I don’t see the value in your approach to lineholders post, weather you agree or not. It seems to be the same as another diary that attacked spelling and grammar, obviously those here at RS, while having not bothered to proof the post first.

  • JSobieski

    What I am against is treating people who AREN’T saying that as if they are.

    Do you understand the difference?

  • JSobieski

    i.e. that social conservatives should “be quiet”.

    I have no choice but to assume that you are either arguing in bad faith, or that you have zero reading comprehension.

    How many comments have I written in the past seven weeks that could best be summarized as:

    “nobody should be asked to shut up about anything”

    or

    “how about a truce on truces” – a clear criticism of Daniel’s truce comment.

    I am specifically arguing against why you accuse me of doing. Frankly, I am used to that tactic when dealing with marxists. Its sad that I encounter that with you.

    While I am trying to keep the peace, I am NOT trying to do so at the expense of any point of view. You on the other hand seem eager to divy up Republicans into as many splinter groups as possible. Frankly, I don’t recall Reagan every saying X or Y shouldn’t be at CPAC.

    Are you at all interested in actually winning the country back?

  • JSobieski

    on this site, you really should refrain from just making stuff up. Maybe even admit you have no evidence to support what you say. I

    I hurts the credibility of the site the more folks just put words in other people’s mouths.

    What I have said is that people should focus on the issues that they care about, and not be dissuaded by the priorities of other people.

    if you need me to break this down into simpler words that you can understand, I will look for my second grade dictionary if I can find it.

  • notalibertarian

    that social cons CANNOT stop fighting the gay agenda while progressives continue to fighting like mad to get it through. Social cons cannot help the fact that gay activists continue working feverishly to advance their cause in the middle of a financial crisis any more than we can help the fact that Iran is going nuclear in the middle of a financial crisis.

    This agenda is like single payer — once you establish all this as a “right”, there is no turning back, no matter how disasterous it is.

    JS, you asked somewhere above for evidence that people are trying to shut social cons up. I don’t know if this counts, but here is what I observed that led me to register and start posting here last week:

    It was shocking to see CPAC not only include GOProud at its conference last year, but BOO and SHOUT DOWN the pro-family guy behind that microphone who had the sense to object. I watched as various social lib websites all discussed what a “jerk” the social con behind the mic was, realizing that libertarians had purposely flooded CPAC that year so they could overwhelm the social cons, and put on a show of force.

    And after reading the letter Joseph Farah sent to Ann Coulter that was written from a Christian perspective to another self-described Christian, I could not believe the extent to which social libs (along with Ann herself) focused on what a “jerk” (there’s that word again!) the social con was.

    Combine a backdrop of breathless, specious exit polling analysis claiming that social conservatism blew our Senate chances (Hello, Carly Fiorina?)
    with
    this habit of calling the social cons who protest that their movement is being diluted “jerks” (in lieu of discussing the actual disagreements)
    and
    one gets the impression that social cons are being told to shut up.

  • acat

    SoCons are a minority of all voters. Outside of the South, y’all cannot win elections without allies.

    This is not an insult. This is not a “cheap slam”. This is a fact. If SoCons go one way and Libertarians and FiCons go another way, y’all are a regional party at best, and electing a lot of Liberals elsewhere.

    Mew

  • Finrod

    I’m not against engaging those on the other side when they make a push on social issues from the other side. Otherwise I’d be just recommending surrender, which is pretty much never a good idea. What I’ve tried to express opposition to is the idea that we should go on the offense on social issues, in this Congress.

    Think of it as a kind of ‘don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes’-type strategy. Let the Left waste their time starting a fight, then clobber them. And, of course, be vigilant in hunting down the ways the Leftists try to sneak their priorities into federal legislation and the like. Those kinds of fights are almost always wins for us.

  • aesthete

    Here’s video:

    If any fiscal or social conservative behaves so boorishly and combatively with fellow conservatives of a different persuasion, that person is also a jerk. That has nothing to do with “silencing” anyone.

  • notalibertarian

    and refusing to allow the movement to be comandeered by a clever, vocal minority (who gets a lot of publicity and helpful spin from the media) within the movement.

    I’m not sure where you are getting your facts, but here’s an interesting NPR article on a recent Tea Party Movement poll:

    “So, first, it’s an overwhelmingly Christian group. 81% identify as Christian, and nearly half (47%) say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement.
    Secondly, it isn’t libertarian, it’s much more socially conservative, with 63% saying abortion should be illegal and only 18% in favor of gay marriage.”

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/05/130353765/new-poll-tea-party-overwhelmingly-christian-and-socially-conservative

    I certainly don’t begrudge you sharing your views on things, but for you to imply that opposition to gay activism is somehow shutting the movement down — repeating this “southern” line in the process — is overplaying your hand. (See: Gay Marriage Voted Down Just About Everywhere — even ‘Outside The South’)

  • acat

    I am starting to wonder if it’s on purpose.

    Look, let me try this at its’ simplest. The political parties are coalitions, they’re made up of groups who don’t agree on everything, but agree on enough that they can work together.

    No one member of the coalition, not the Tea Parties*, not the SoCons, not the Libertarians, not the Unions, not the voting-bloc minorities can go it alone and actually win outside of local elections.

    However. What one member of the coalition can do is to shatter the coalition.

    I respect that we disagree on this, but even here, we’re a lot closer together than any liberal you’d care to name.

    I won’t go pissing in your corn flakes, but I will ask that you quit pissing in mine. I am not asking you to change your beliefs about gays – I am asking you to leave it alone and focus instead on what we can agree on.

    Mew

    * and by the way, last time I checked, the Tea Parties were about reducing the scope of government – and had attracted people from all across the spectrum who agree on that point. If the SoCons have since driven out opposition, that’s kinda sad.

  • notalibertarian

    Well, you’ve certainly made your requirements clear, yet again, apparently without realizing it. I don’t think I’ve misunderstood you at all, actually.

    Which leads me to wonder, Do you spend equal time at HotAir’s website complaining to Allahpundit that he needs to stop shattering the coalition? Because he’s doing a whole lot more coalition-shattering than I am.

    Political parties are coalitions — that have platforms. You equate my opposition to the other side’s attempts to eliminate part of the existing platform with “shattering the coalition”. I’ve attempted to show you with actual facts (like marriage referendums) that it isn’t.

    We have one side that’s all about keeping the status quo: marriage, DADT. That means NOT CHANGING ANYTHING. Then we have another that wants to change things. Things that by your standards have nothing to do with fiscal issues. And which side do you blame? The side that doesn’t want to change things.

    In reality, the most efficient thing you could do to address your own concerns is to pressure the ACTUAL minority — fiscal cons who are agitating for the gay agenda — to “leave it alone”.

  • acat

    because it’s no longer possible to have an actual conversation over there. They’ve been overrun with concern, drive-by, and other types of trolls. One cat cannot make a difference.

    I recognize that Allahpundit is a conservative of a different type – northeastern-urban, to be specific – and that there were issues he and I would never agree on. Just as you and I will never agree on certain issues.

    The difference is Allahpundit stayed engaged, didn’t cut and run, and wasn’t deliberately offensive. where the events at CPAC that you’re talking about – someone deliberately offending part of the coalition from the podium last year, and this year a group pulling out are … well, offensive and divisive. They are, in other words, apples and pine cones. They may both grow on trees, but even a 3 year old can tell ‘em apart.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    you don’t read HotAir much anymore(?), and possibly don’t understand what I’m objecting to. I still go to the site for info on other topics, because they seem extremely good about staying on top of other issues.

    My point about HotAir is that the site has been openly campaigning for All Things Gay for over a year now. This isn’t about aggressive commenters. It is the people who run the site. They are often extremely biased in what news they post and what they ignore. Talk about unnecessarily focusing on divisive issues, Ann Coulter’s fight with Joe Farah about her GOProud appearance was kept at the top of the site for three days. The fact that Ann ended up spending much of her speech complaining about the gay-activist part of their platform wasn’t reported much, if at all.

    If conservatives are supposed to be focusing on things they agree on, HotAir certainly hasn’t got the message. As a matter of fact, HotAir is a very good example of social libs who are playing cutthroat politics in a time of crisis to marginalize the opposition to gay marriage. It’s become a propaganda organ for atheism and gay rights.

    Look, I think we both know that discussing what people should be talking about is kind of a waste of time. I only began commenting in this thread because I felt JS was ignoring some things.

    Fare ye well, acat.

  • acat

    Because you disagree with Allahpundit?

    Hot Air has always been more of a news aggregation site, focusing on news of interest to Conservatives of all stripes. At one point, about the time Captain Ed joined Hot Air, it was possible to have a conversation in their comments – but the comment section is a victim of their success. I do still read some articles there, but I haven’t seen anything worth reading in the comments in months.

    None of this is shouting you down, though.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    you will see that my point in bringing up HotAir to you was not about silencing people. It was to show that your complaint about “coalition shattering” is misplaced. You are focusing your blame on the wrong side, ignoring all the agitation coming from the fiscal cons.

    One of the examples I used of the pot-stirring going on among social libs did involve silencing, however: When people shout down a speaker at a conference, that is silencing. When people defend the ones who silenced the speaker and demonize the one who was silenced, that is an endorsement of silencing.

    First, you melodramatically warn me about shattering the coalition (I have never seen a poll showing that gay rights are a deal-breaker for fiscal cons the way you keep claiming. I have only seen polls showing it is a low priority. Do you know of one that supports your view?). Then you ask me to”leave it alone and focus instead on what we can agree on”. Then you insist that “None of this is shouting you down” (“this is all in your head, NAL”). Please stop taking points off for me taking what you write seriously.

  • acat

    Since “gay rights aren’t a deal-breaker” and “the fiscal cons agitating for the gay agenda are a minority”, and “SoCons don’t want change”, that means it’s fine for SoCons to be offensive to potential allies.

    Because that’s one way to read you.

    Look, I’ve told you that I don’t follow your religion. I don’t accept your moral judgments, and my take on the CPAC shout-down is that the guy was deliberately being a jerk, spouting off to score points for himself, using CPAC to puff himself up.

    Mew

  • notalibertarian

    Apparently the event was full of “jerks”. The pro-GOProud “jerks” were either much more vocal or greater in number than the people who agreed with the guy behind the mic (how much booing came from the pro-family people when GOProud spoke?).

    What is noteworthy is that, even while visibly shaken and upset, this “jerk” attempts to lay out a logical explanation of his point of view over the booing.

  • aesthete

    about his work with ACORN. He “change[d] the subject” to lay into CPAC for bringing in a group, many of who’s members were in attendance. Booing didn’t start until he said he was going to “change the subject”. Next time GOProud or Campaign for Liberty’s speaker decides to lay into social conservatives when he’s supposed to be speaking about something else, all the while condescending to his audience, offending the organizers of the event, and accusing attendees of becoming his “enemies”, let me know: I’ll have exactly the same opinion regarding those people.

    Just so you understand: criticism of Ryan Sorba is as much damage control for social conservatives (99.9% of whom are perfectly wonderful people who don’t deserve to be lumped in with this jackwagon), as it is anything else. It is not an indictment of the movement as a whole, but rather an indictment of one particular bomb-throwing, loud-mouthed jerk.

  • notalibertarian

    and CPAC was supposed to be a conference about William F. Buckley Conservatism. Ryan did not present what he was supposed to present and the CPAC organizers didn’t present what they were supposed to present. Both stepped out of bounds — Sorba changed the subject, and the organizers changed the platform. Sorba was loudmouthed and the organizers were underhanded.

    Removing social conservatism by including people who openly FIGHT social conservatism (unlike Freedomworks) — is a change in CPAC’s platform. At least they waited until Buckley was dead so he didn’t have to watch it.

  • aesthete

    Neo-conservative, libertarian and paleo-conservative groups have populated the hallowed halls of CPAC for quite some time now — given that, groups that are leaving CPAC now are being awfully selective about the deviations that they tolerate. Concerning this guy, you’ll either see the jerkiness or you won’t.