Back in January, I posted a piece in which I discussed one of Wilhelm Roepke’s most important contributions to economic thought generally and the defense of the free economy in particular. I wrote: I think his greatest contribution…was his response to something that the Marxists highlighted as a failure of capitalism. They argued that one of capitalism’s injustices (if not its chief injustice, in fact) was that | Read More »
[Reading list here.]
It’s been said that “whoever marries the spirit of this age will be a widower in the next,” and I couldn’t agree more. Of course, the implication is twofold: That one must first identify what, precisely, the spirit of one’s age is, and having done that, to fight it. Doing that is certainly not likely to win a person any popularity contests, but I suppose that’s | Read More »
In my time teaching American Government to high-schoolers, I’ve noticed one glaring fact: My kids generally understand a lot of the whats of our Constitution by the time they get to me, but not very many understand the whys. They’re quick to grasp, for example, that we have a federal government with three separate branches; what takes longer to grasp is why we have a federal government structured | Read More »
The proposition that money has had a corrosive effect on the American political system is one that hardly needs to be defended. However, the notion that campaign finance reform could–and should, I think–be a “conservative” issue is probably a little more debatable. The thing is, as the Constitution stands today, there’s really not much that can be done about the influence of money in politics. | Read More »
I’ve followed quite a few exchanges over the issue of same-sex marriage lately–and been a party to more than a few. One thing I’ve noticed is that aside from the “equality” meme, one of the most common questions asked of traditional marriage supporters by both same-sex marriage advocates and advocates of “marriage privatization” alike is, “Don’t you see that same-sex marriage won’t affect you? So, | Read More »
It seems sometimes as though diagnoses of “what’s wrong with America” are a dime a dozen. We’re not free enough, some say; we’re not moral enough, others say. We don’t follow the Constitution, but should; we do follow the Constitution, but shouldn’t. We’re too obsessed with equality; we’re not obsessed with equality enough. And so it goes. At the risk of being tiresome, I’m going | Read More »
There are a lot of misconceptions about conservatism; one of the biggest concerns our belief in a free economy. Those on the left say we’re motivated by greed, a desire to protect a privileged socioeconomic position (if we’re members of the economic elite), or a false consciousness that blinds us to our oppression (if we’re not members of the aforementioned elite). Always, they say, our | Read More »
Here’s my analysis of and response to something that was in my Facebook news feed, via Capitalism Magazine: Marriage has been defined as heterosexual only because of religion. Period. Incorrect. Biology may have a little something to do with it, too, you know. In other words, marriage has been defined as heterosexual because marriage is fundamentally about procreation, and since only heterosexual couples can procreate, marriage | Read More »
If you’ve been following the discussion surrounding the GOP’s post-election “Autopsy” report, you’re probably aware that many are urging the party go a bit more libertarian on social issues. Case in point: Jack Hunter’s latest piece at The American Conservative, “Libertarianism for Social Conservatives.” The subtitle of Hunter’s column expresses his thesis: “From abortion to the drug war and gay marriage, decentralization is the only answer.” Since | Read More »
Via NRO: [Dr. Carson's] entry into the race to replace [Democratic Sen. Carl] Levin could galvanize conservatives across the country… Absolutely it would. I don’t live in Michigan, so I wouldn’t be able to vote for the guy, but I’ve no doubt that Dr. Carson is just what the GOP (and the country in general) needs. At a time when the chaotic implementation of Obamacare | Read More »
Let me begin by being completely honest: Of late, I’ve really been wondering whether it’s time for social conservatives like myself to come up with a Plan B, since it seems that the Great Marriage Debate may very well end unfavorably for us and has contributed to an erosion of support for the GOP to boot. And of all the Plan B’s that I’ve considered, | Read More »
Last Saturday, NRO’s Andrew McCarthy wrote a piece entitled “What Rand Paul Misses,” wherein he accuses Sen. Rand Paul and Co. of “messing around with the Constitution in a manner we will come to regret.” McCarthy’s article (which you can read here) merits serious consideration, and I urge you to check it out if you haven’t done so yet. McCarthy’s piece is of value partly | Read More »
I don’t have much to add to all the talk about Rand Paul’s filibuster a couple of days ago; nor do I have a lot to say about the responses of Lindsey Graham and John McCain to said filibuster. But I do want to take a second and put in my two-cents’ worth about this comment by Sen. Graham: “I think it’s paranoia between libertarians | Read More »
At NRO, Lee Habeeb and Mike Leven recently posted a piece entitled “The Moral Case for Conservatism.” As I read their post, I found myself nodding in agreement with virtually the whole of what they had to say. One thing in particular, though, I thought worth sharing with you all, and that’s this statement: The fact is that the Left doesn’t have much faith in | Read More »
Last week, I mentioned Willmoore Kendall’s observation that, for some reason, conservative ideas tend to do better in smaller constituencies (giving us an advantage in congressional races), while liberal ideas tend to do better when put to a nation-wide vote (giving them the advantage in presidential races). Therefore, I argued, maybe it’d be smarter for us to prioritize and focus first on gaining and maintaining control | Read More »
I’m no expert on electoral politics, but I’m starting to wonder if we conservatives have been focusing on the wrong thing. I’ll explain. If you’ve never read the late, great Willmoore Kendall’s essay “The Two Majorities in American Politics,” you should. In that piece, he grapples with what he calls the “unexplained mystery of our politics: the fact that one and the same electorate maintains in | Read More »
I’ve been reading some posts over at ThinkProgress on a variety of things, and I just want to air a couple of my thoughts: One: They’re definitely masters of propaganda over there. I mean, how could anyone not think Bobby Jindal is going to screw up the GOP (and by extension, the rest of the country), when you see this picture and headline coupled so nicely? | Read More »
I began thinking about a topic for today’s diary a few days ago, and was heavily leaning toward a critique of Obama’s Religious Freedom Day proclamation and/or his second inaugural address from a socially-conservative vantage point. Then came January 22, the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Pondering the tragedy of abortion led me to this question: As a country, we’re facing some serious economic and | Read More »
Last Friday, I argued that it would be ill-advised for the GOP to jettison social conservatism. Mind you, I wasn’t arguing that social conservatism is the whole of conservatism, just that it is, I think, the key to everything else. Fix the family, and you’ll go a long way toward defeating progressivism more generally. So, given that the GOP is going to keep pushing a socially-conservative agenda, | Read More »
Yesterday, I made this suggestion: The federal government should offer income tax breaks for families which purchase or build their own homes on small plots of land. I also said this, just for the record: [T]his is an idea in (at best) embryonic form right now. And it may be a stupid idea, anyway. But how do I know, unless I toss it out there | Read More »
It is truly a shame that not many conservatives today are familiar with the name “Wilhelm Roepke.” The aforementioned was a Swiss economist who championed a decentralist approach to just about everything (and thus, is my kind of guy). He preferred local government over national, market exchange over state-directed planning, and small business over “monopoly capitalism.” Roepke disdained concentrations of power in favor of a | Read More »
Hello, all. This is my first diary here at RedState, and I’m very excited to be joining you. First, a brief introduction. So, the plan is this: Once a week, I hope to present a roundup of articles from around the web that I’ve found to be particularly illuminating, insightful, or otherwise noteworthy, and that I believe our little RedState community will find to be | Read More »
![[RS]](/t/img/logo-footer.jpg){kind=logo}