Actually, this is the real must-read election postmortem
I keep writing that if you only read one article on what happened in this election, and how Republicans can learn from it and go on to do a lot better next time, read this one.
And then this one and this one and this one.
Meanwhile, I’ve been writing drafts of my own latest version of “this one.” My thoughts keep changing, but recently they have come to rest in a place that turns out to be almost exactly the place John Hinderaker has reached in this piece entitled “Where Do Republicans Go From Here? The Social Issues.”
Hinderaker has touched on the heart of the problem, IMHO, and offered some excellent solutions. Whether Republicans and conservatives and libertarians will be able to unite behind them is another story; that’s quite a herd of cats.
But I’m really glad that someone as widely read as Hinderaker has made the case I wanted to make. If you like the article, please send it to your friends. I believe it needs to get as wide a readership as possible.
its not good.
ie. lets stop talking about eugenics and just let it happen. to which his commentary is concede the loss, and move on. Move on to what? post modern social justice?
the whole article is designed to appeal to the not left. how? easy, it does not let you know the machinations of the left. it pretends that the ideas will have play, and that we get to enter them and they get to be transmitted first person, not third person talking for someone else telling you what they stand for.
ie. the article and you putting it up is a joke. mostly because you are not looking at the bad stuff that negates every point in it.
each point relies on a condition or pivot that does not exist… so it sounds great, and will insure that anyone following it will just lose…
here a double whammy statement:
For one thing, while there is no specifically conservative case for abortion, there is a conservative case for gay marriage.
no conservative case for abortion which is eugenics? ie. combing picking winners and losers and denuding losers by calling them winners and taking their money to give to losers you call winners to have babies (while the winners you take money from cant afford taxes and babies and go barren)
with the history of sanger,
the studies now coming out claiming modernity makes us dumber (forgetting the social engineering breeding dumber), the fact hitlers people wrote and published in her newsletter (shared with the harmonites), and so on and on and on
so really lets just forget all that
and so we have no case against abortion.
the point on gay marriage is also a case of do not refute revision, do not return missing parts of history, and so on.
it amounts to a neville chamberlain move of appeasement through qualifying things to make them acceptable. but note. he is either say concede, to which the statements are truthful, or he is saying lie to gain time, in which case, he is focusing on one conservative point, while ignoring the other and that its a whole package (a common game played by the left on children cartoons and shows where they break morals to accomplish the central moral act)
Nothing in that article will work
and IF you had read the stuff i said to read you would know why it wont work.
ie. they saw you coming 100 years ago.
that is, they have EXPERIENCE. you dont
so they know that there will be stages of reactionary action… you dont.
and each game like this, addresses what to do in each stage (the job of Vpered! the Russian Forwards! organizations). [which the title of the article indicates]
in this stage, the idea is to get the opposition to concede defeat by compromise. the winners dont compromise… so its a form of consolidation of power while pretending the opposite.
compromise synonyms:
accommodation, accord, adjustment, arrangement, bargain, compact, composition, concession, contract, copout, covenant, deal, fifty-fifty, half and half, half measure, happy medium, mean, middle course, middle ground, pact, sellout, settlement, trade-off, understanding, win-win situation
you think the positive ones, they think the negative ones… so the article is asking the republicans as a party to “sell out”.
funny how many socialist communist papers i pull up from 100 years ago that show they were 100 years ahead of you and your ideas derived from lack of study (it sure dont come from a surfeit of it)
On Compromises by V. I. Lenin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/03.htm
The term compromise in politics implies the surrender of certain demands, the renunciation of part of one’s demands, by agreement with another party.
Communism in Europe – Bolshevism And The Emergence Of The Communist International
In fact, the real route to power came through pragmatic compromises and a bloody civil war that lasted until 1921 in which the real instrument that established Bolshevik rule was not the party but the Red Army. The result was that opponents of all political persuasions, from the ultraleft to the tsarist right, were either crushed or marginalized.
Compromise. Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.
Ambrose Bierce 1842-1914
Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf ;is better than a whole loaf. Gilbert K. Chesterton
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last – Winston Churchill
Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another — too often ending in the loss of both – Tryon Edwards
It is the weak man who urges compromise — never the strong man. Elbert Hubbard
Once you consent to some concession, you can never cancel it and put things back the way they are. Howard Hughes
Compromise is never anything but an ignoble truce between the duty of a man and the terror of a coward.
Reginald W. Kaufman
Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise ;in statesmanship. James Russell Lowell
From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been ;abandoned
Charles Sumner 1811-1874
The swift wind of compromise is a lot more devastating than the sudden jolt of misfortune. Charles Swindoll
Most people hew the battlements of life from compromise, erecting their impregnable keeps from judicious submissions, fabricating their philosophical drawbacks from emotional retractions and scalding marauders in the boiling oil of sour grapes.
What did the Great Compromise of 1787 do to the US system of government?
the compromise of 1850? (henry clay)
The Missouri Compromise?
Appeasement is a diplomatic policy aimed at avoiding war by making concessions to an aggressor. [concessions is a synonym for compromise]
hows this for compromise:
American government officials such as Harry Hopkins conceded that the Soviet position on the predominance of the Lublin Poles in any provisional government comported with the compromises worked out at Yalta. Scholars believe that the recognition of the Lublin Government by the Western powers meant acceptance of predominant Soviet influence in postwar Poland.
Damn, I expected to disagree, but my immediate reaction is, “yup.”
It’s do-able too. I’m pro-life and anti-gay marriage (though not passionately so), and not for religious reasons in either case, and I can accept Hinderaker’s “way forward.”
I guess my only worry is that what begins as understating moral principles will eventually become neglect and abandonment of them.
The trickier issue, though, is what to do about our economic message, without abandoning it.
Good piece. I’ve always thought that the propensity to kowtow to the hard core social cons is the GOP’s Achilles’ heel. The beautiful thing about the shellacking of 2010 was that the Tea Party movement intentionally — and successfully — avoided all of the usual social con issues. It worked then and it can work again. Although the Left is actually the modern manifestation of what is called puritanism, the fervor of the social conservatives lends itself to caricature and ridicule by those in control of pop culture/ the zeitgeist. Yes: Stick to the numbers, fiscal/budgetary matters and the accounting….
Neo,
The link to the “must-read” column isn’t working. The only only article I can link to from your post is Hindraker’s. Should there be another?
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/11/13/do-pro-life-policies-even-matter/
I would counter that it does make a difference. We’ve seen a very large drop in the number of abortions due to state level involvement on the issue.
Nope, I think this is a better article to read: link
Rats! grabbed the wrong link. Try this one instead: link
I can agree with Hinderaker’s article to some extent.
First, I have zero problem with not preaching about gay marriage and letting it be an issue that hurts Republicans. Frankly, I think it’s silly and weird, but it doesn’t seem to hurt society much, if any. So I say, let it be if people want it.
I have stronger feelings about abortion. I believe that a human being is created at conception…period. When you truly believe that, then you believe that human’s life should be protected. I believe that’s an independent human being in there and that it doesn’t matter what the circumstances were surrounding its conception. It’s not ITS fault that the parents weren’t married and don’t want to form a family or even if the conception occurred because of rape. It’s terrible when that happens but there’s aways the adoption option.
As a result, I think abortion is OK only when the mother’s life is in danger. Under those circumstances, it’s a Sophie’s choice as to which life gets saved.
HOWEVER, I have come to accept that abortion is now the law of the land so I begrudgingly accept that I’m going to have to leave the morality of what happens to those human beings up to the mothers and hopefully the fathers. I don’t like it but seems I have to accept it.
So, I pretty much agree with Hinderaker that it’s best for Republicans to soft pedal those issues.
However, I doubt that doing so will have much effect on elections. In this country, over the last 30 or so years, we have been sorting ourselves into small communities in which people petty much think alike. And people tend to think alike on a range of issues, some of which are tied together. People who are for abortion and gay marriage are probably also against wars, are for “helping the underprivileged” via welfare, asking wealthy people to pay more taxes than others, bailing out people who overbought their houses, bailing out student loans, etc., etc..
Neutralizing these two more or less discretionary issues won’t keep the liberals from continuing to vote Democratic.
What Hinderaker is doing is what I have been trying to point to: he is showing how to unapologetically communicate conservative principles.
Multiple circumstances have prevented the right from winning national elections. One of those circumstances has been the consecutive nominations of national leaders who have been philosophically incompetent: GWB (re economics), McCain, Romney. These fine Americans have not been sufficiently schooled, in conservative principles, in order competently and unapologetically communicate those principles as Hinderaker has recommended, and as national leaders ought be able to communicate.
Such incompetence has not been the only reason Repubs have lost. However, Repubs cannot allow it to continue to happen.
Repubs MUST STOP nominating national leaders whom Repubs think they can market as nonthreatening. WhOMEVER Repubs nominate, that person will be demagogued, and that person will be perceived as threatening. “Playing nice”, and attempting to BE nonthreatening, will NEVER work. EVER. The only way to win is to be an effective communicator of conservative principles; of why conservative principles are nonthreatening and are superior; of why leftist principles are threatening and inferior. Repubs must have a candidate who has ammunition: who can fire off ammunition (conservative principle) from big guns of communication skills. Repubs always try to hide in a fort, and to hope the Huns will quit attacking, and will pass on by. It will never again work. Repub candidates must understand principle, and communicate principle.
And much, much more. Communicating of principle, alone, will never win. But, it is the new minimum standard in a national candidate. In this environment, nothing less will do.
Hinderaker is correct on on the abortion question – that is, take the counterpoint straight to PBA which is infanticide.
On gay marriage I’ve long believed we could turn the table of the discussion by defining strict guidelines of the responsibilities of the partners in a legal relationship, particularly when children are involved. Most of Arts posts speak to the destruction of family by the exclusion of men from the family unit. Make the case for the health of the whole family. You can hardly defend no man in the family if the parental figures are both men. If there is a right to gay marriage, then that must include responsibilities which defines rights. Otherwise what is the benefit of the right?
Victor Davis Hanson has a piece today at NRO that is what I believe the answer to immigration.
“pretty much think alike”
Also, we are playing both a short game and a long game. In both games: apologizing for our principles, and waffling on our principles, will never win. If we communicate principle: we might win and we might lose, but we will win in the long run. However, in this environment: if we do not communicate principle, we WILL lose. Every time. Now and in future. We either win, maybe, or we lose, for certain. Our choice.
Did we really lose due to social issues? Or was Ace correct and people were worried about their checks being cut off? Or both?
Or maybe Romney didn’t get the turnout he needed b/c he abandoned abortion? After all, he defended the status quo in Massachusetts. I don’t think anyone has enough data yet to know, especially when 40% of people who voted for Obama said Hurricane Sandy played an important role. Huh?
“Did we really lose due to social issues? Or was Ace correct and people were worried about their checks being cut off? Or both?”
Some because of racial loyalty (90+% black vote), mostly because of worry about checks being cut off, and some because of social issues.
Overlaying these things is that liberals’ groups have defined how people in those groups are supposed to think and to feel comfortable in their groups, tribes, or whatever you wanna call them, liberals all vote almost in unison.
Conservatives do too, BTW, but the liberals did a better job of communicating with their groups and getting out their votes.
Here’s another good post from the site holmes noted:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/10/24/10-questions-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/
If we could get someone articulate enough to bring up these points instead of rambling on about rape and getting themselves into trouble, we might get somewhere.
roc scssrs:
Those are excellent questions but I doubt any talk show host, news anchor, etc. in the MSM would ever ask them.
In previous posts I have stated that I favor 3 criteria for legal abortion: life of the mother, rape, and incest. I think the general public is moving in this direction. Homosexual marriage is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. From my POV the right side is banging its collective head against the wall on this issue.
‘It seems obvious that the evolution of social issues from crime and welfare to abortion and gay marriage has hurt the Republican Party.’
And why, I wonder might this be the case? Might it possibly have something to do with the fact that as soon as the social issues shifted away from putting the Republicans always on the side of freedom and rights, these ‘new’ social issues began to work against, rather than for them?
These types of issues have cost the republicans a whole lot of moderate AND libertarian votes. How many conservatives bemoaned the votes they lost to Johnson without realizing that many of these votes were stolen from Obama?
Santorum’s contribution was to make the link between economic and social issues?
Huh?
Every time I saw Santorum unedited campaign stops on C-SPAN, all he talked about was abortion.
Guess what, this election people didn’t give jack shit about abortion, except to the extent that democrats managed to label republicans as anti-women.
The real issue of this election was “the economy, stupid”. Laura Ingraham whined that the media tried to portray Santorum as a one-trick pony that could only stomp out abortion speeches, but that’s all the guy ever talked about in his campaign stops that I saw on C-SPAN. I admit not to having watched each and every one on C-SPAN, but I did watch significant chunks of at least two of them and it’s all he talked about. He barely mumbled anything about free markets and individual liberty.
Harping on abortion is playing right into the democrats hands, and guess what? It helped THEM, not YOU.
Out of 175,554 registered voters, 247,713 vote cards were cast in St. Lucie County, Florida on Tuesday.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio’s Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio’s 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland…
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
[but my point stands. Defining yourself as opposite in Hegelian style, one group would not have created conditions where such actions could decide.]
Many people have stated that they are somewhat neutral on the issue of gay marriage.
I tended to feel the same prior to this year’s campaign to legalize it in in Washington State. The campaign was based on equality. The gays stressed equality as the primary reason why gay marriage should be approved.
Most people might say that is a reasonable argument. However, it opens up marriage equality to a lot of other groups. How about the polygamists? How about those who want to marry someone under 18 years of age? How about someone who wants to marry their child or a brother or sister? Yes, I know these categories all seem silly and unthinkable. But because the progressives always push forward towards greater equality in all ways, I suggest it is not out of the question.
I think Papa Dan’s suggestion (“On gay marriage I’ve long believed we could turn the table of the discussion by defining strict guidelines of the responsibilities of the partners in a legal relationship, particularly when children are involved.”) is worthwhile. Family has traditionally been the reason for marriage. Our marital laws are primarily for the economic benefits of those in a marriage, to pproperly divide the assets of a failled marriage, and to ensure the children don’t become wards of the state. This defines the responsibilities of the parties to the marriage. IMO, we have not looked deeply enough into the whys and wherefores of marital law.
Prior to the AIDs epidemic you could not force gays to marry at gunpoint. However, the AIDs medical insurance issues made them realize that there are many legal and economic benefits to being married. They began a campaign to get those benefits. Civil unions could have provided such an arrangement and been accepted by most religious people. But no, now only full equality will suffice. The polygamists will be next to demand full equality.
I think Hinderaker’s approach is correct. It gives more freedom for social conservatives to argue their cases from different angles without tying them to a legislative threat. For instance, parental consent for abortion is probably something that lots of people would approve of if it is split off from the woman’s right to chose megatheme. Not too many people consider 14 year olds women. If women don’t feel threatened, they may be open to wondering why a woman decided on abortion one week before her due date.
Likewise, there are specific elements of gay marriage that make me uncomfortable and perhaps others as well. For instance, how far do LGBT rights go? Does anyone who claims to be transexual get to share a public toilet with your 9 year old daughter? Will we have to get rid of Mothers Day and Fathers Day if the French concept of parent 1 and parent 2 crosses the big pond? By discussing these things without the legislative hammer, perhaps more people would be willing to want limits or even question the whole rationale behind the gay marriage movement. Gays should really be pressed to answer why civil unions aren’t good enough for them and how they will work to ensure that traditional families won’t be damaged by further “rights” lawsuits.
It’s much better for societ as a whoe to have these discussions than candidates who weigh every word to get or keep votes.
Richard, I believe Santorum did mention the point about two-parent families being better, but he sure didn’t do it in an effective way. No one who didN#t agree with him listened to anything he said.
Sorry, that’s society as a whole and didn’t.
‘How about the polygamists? How about those who want to marry someone under 18 years of age? How about someone who wants to marry their child or a brother or sister?’
This of course is a red herring. Children of course cannot enter into a legal contract, which is what marriage is, so of course no one can marry a child; period. As for polygamy and incest, why in the world would I possibly care what other adults do or what contracts they enter into or what they want to call them? I worry about my own life; they can worry about theirs. Anything else is simply one person imposing their will upon another.
I don’t go around forcing others to my will. You shouldn’t either.
“Most people might say that is a reasonable argument. However, it opens up marriage equality to a lot of other groups. How about the polygamists? How about those who want to marry someone under 18 years of age?”
This link lists marriage laws for each state, you will be surprised: http://tinyurl.com/3u5cpuj
Back when I was a teenager, Kentucky allowed 14 year olds to marry with parental consent. I know this from first hand experience. One of my Kentucky 1st cousins was pregnant at age 14 and she was married to the then 16 year old father. They are still married after all these years and are now great grandparents. Long may they and their progeny live.
As far as polygamy or polyandry are concerned, its none of my business. Why do you think it is your business?
“As for polygamy and incest, why in the world would I possibly care what other adults do or what contracts they enter into or what they want to call them? I worry about my own life; they can worry about theirs. Anything else is simply one person imposing their will upon another. I don’t go around forcing others to my will. You shouldn’t either.”
I agree except when it comes to incest. Incest is not a good policy for a healthy society unless the parties (of legal age) to incest are subjected to forced sterilization.
CBS’s Nancy Giles: Pro-Life White People Are Trying To “Build Up The Race”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/13/cbss_nancy_giles_pro-life_white_people_are_trying_to_build_up_the_race.html
Nancy Giles, social commentator for CBS, asserted pro-life white people are only concerned abortion to “build up the race” on MSNBC’s “Melissa Harris-Perry” this weekend.
GILES: You know when you just showed that graph of the decline in the numbers, I thought maybe that’s why they’re trying to eliminate all these abortions and stuff. They’re trying to build up the race.
As long as the abortion mills are dedicated as they have been to aborting black babies, let them keep it up. It makes them feel good and well, you see where this goes logically.
As for gay marriage … no. Look for someone who will blatantly support a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
And as for welfare, cut it. Again and again.
Finally, everyone pays income taxes. No more makers and takers. Every one pays something. So there is that.
I’m fine with gay marriage. Oh, I think it’s perverse and homosexuals are basically extraordinarily unhappy people (high rates of depression, alcohol, drug abuse) because they are not being the beings they are supposed to be. (They project this angst onto the christianists and Republicans of course and blame them for being judgmental.) But, I don’t believe it’s a moral harm that we should legislate. However, are gays even interested in gay marriage? Like, why aren’t they getting married now? Just because their state won’t recognize it? I’ve always argued that would not have stopped me from marrying my spouse. It didn’t stop slaves from marrying each other either (the state not recognizing their marriage legally). Is it that their liberal ideology means recognition of the state is of utmost importance? Or is it really just above approval from other people? I think it’s the latter.
Someone who reads this might find me a hateful bigot of course. I am friends, best of friends, with a lot of sinners, because I am one too. And terrible as this makes me sound, yes, I’m friends with gay people. I just privately disagree with their whole lifestyle, just as they, actually, disapprove of mine.
I read it after your thread on the topic. I thought it was a good balancing act. I see the issues mostly the same as the author except I think he is overly downplaying abortion’s importance in the past. Reagan just didn’t bring it up as a major issue because he knew it was divisive.. but it was a major issue even back in the 90s. Gay marriage; not an issue back then (they were just pushing ‘tolerance’ back then…).
texexec Says:
“Some because of racial loyalty (90+% black vote)”
I think any dem any color would get 90%+ of the black vote.
Let’s see abortion, gay rights, big tent, minorities. Why doesn’t anyone mention that Obama won because it was fashionable and cool to vote for him? With the media in the tank for the guy I doubt if a non-democrat will be electable until the next generation decides to revolt against their parents. Important issues are not important if they are not being felt and none are. Fashion, on the other hand, is always being felt. As Eric Hoffer wrote “when people are free to do what they want they usually imitate each other”.
Interesting, a society relatively free from worry worries about the unimportant. The trivial becomes critical.
As for those who would point out the economy is bad and we headed for a fiscal cliff I will point out that the employment rate approaches 90% and no one is going hungry. Anything economically bad will happen to a later generation, also the decline will not be perceivable and produce mainly indifference.
Today’s America is in it for fun. Such a people like we have evolved into could care less about retaining its freedoms except to protect its fun. There is absolutely nothing the Republicans can do to get into power in such an environment. We represent a people from another time. For example, what is the average age of the visitors to this blog, 50-60? Do you think the average age of the visitors to a lefty blog would be above 30?
Please show me where I am wrong. If fact I plead with someone to do so.
I don’t buy Hinderaker’s solution because it surrenders to evil. Abortion and gay marriage are evil. Abortion has not brought prosperity or freedom to women. Quite the opposite. Women report more depression and unhappiness today than yesteryears. If it is not possible for us to imagine a return to chastity today, then such imagination will result in something.
Gay marriage isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about giving the govenment the power to declare in yet another area that Scripture/tradition/Western civilation is wrong regarding its emphasis on the family and that sexual prohibitions protect the family. Funny how Hinderaker’s main point is single parent families produce poverty, and yet somehow misses the point that when you had to get married to have sex, single parent families didn’t happen.
Give it all up? Are you kidding me? Hinderaker with a straight face says go back to welfare as the issue? And Obamacare just extended the security blanket? Hinderaker was never a social conservative. He’s a Yale/Dartmouth/Harvard (name your college ashamed off religion) non-conservative. He’s appears to be another Clarence Darrow reaction to “stifling” religion. Like athiesm produces such a better answer. Sheez.
But he sounds reasonable, doesn’t he. I admit he does. But reason has never been the underpinning of scriptural commandments which say thou shalt not steal (socialism), kill (abortion) and commit sodomy. Would you like to be the kid raised without your real Mom and Dad. Thus we see the continuity between abortion and gay marriage. The kids are the concern. The parents are. Kids, for some reason such a burden to women, become all important to homosexuals. Does that raise any suspicions?
The new conservatism may make those things look reasonable and allowable, but I’m just wondering, has the path so far been profitable. Do you like the new man being created?
There is just no better firewall than what God has commanded and when man mocks God and His commandments, he dares the consequeces, and the consequences come.
We do not honor God. We do not honor parents. We do not honor property. We do not honor family. We do not honor each other. We do not honor work. We do not honor life.
What kind of people are we?
Vanderleun tells us what kind of people we are in his latest post, which, is funny, ironic, sarcastic, and reaches unto the highest levels of outrage in the Mark Steyn way.
http://americandigest.org/
Absolutely superb and enjoyable.
The only way to confront abortion is on its most obvious level – partial birth abortion. It is plainly monstrous. People who may justify it at earlier stages are horrified at it. And it is only justified by the most reprobate minds – Obama and Clinton.
The responsibilities of marriage, including the importance of taking care of each other, and nurturing and taking care of our children is the unspoken but understood purpose of family, something that used to be reinforced by society, but has been tossed out in these last 30 years or so by the left as Art keeps reminding us. Use the issue of gay marriage to bring this discussion back to the table.
I believe gay marriage is for most gays a drama game that they can’t resist playing. Those who are serious will agree with us. And we will regain lost ground.
The point is to drive a wedge between the marxist left who have taken over the Democratic party and the remaining Dem’s like the old Reagan Democrats.
We are people who are fine with polygamy, polyandry, single parenthood, gay marriage, and making light of Christian traditions. We may not agree with those things but that’s the direction we’re going. After those things are the norm, what comes next? Libertarian acceptance of all social arrangements may be non-judgmental and oh so tolerant, but do we know where that may take us? I recall when divorce laws were made no-fault. Very modern and non-judgmental. But has it raised the happiness of society in general? Has it strengthened our society? Has it made family life in this country better?
Libertarian ideals work only in a society where the vast majority take responsibility for their lives. Where people don’t angle for an advantage where they can get something they haven’t earned from other people. In many ways big L libertarians are as utopian as liberals. We humans are all flawed in so many ways that we need all the moral/spiritual guidance we can get to help us maintain a strong, workable society. Yet we reject and make fun of so much of our moral traditions that we have no real center anymore.
Yes, this little rant sounds like the ravings of a deranged old coot. Yes, I’m an old coot and deranged as well.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J you may be an old coot, but you are hardly deranged.
We have all sorts of arrangements of adults who already have children in their care whether we like it or not. The state considers itself the true caretaker of your children.
With O-care they will be so far up in our business that they will have the ability to rip apart a family at their whim. A disabled child? Are you sure you can properly care for him? Perhaps they would be better in a home somewhere. Disabled parents, the mentally ill, etc.. they will decide whats best.
I am not a lawyer, so maybe someone can enlighten me. Is there a written law defining the true rights of the family, or is it accumulated precedent that makes the decisions? Is there a threshold that they truly cannot cross?
Artfldodgers source for the election fraud question:
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11/11/obama_likely_won_reelection_through_election_fraud
To be honest, none of this surprises. I just don’t see it in the forums. The typical response to an anti-Obama/pro-Romney comment was 10-1 in favor. The typical response to a pro-Obama/anti-Romney comment was 10-1 AGAINST.
Granted, that’s not voters, but it IS indicative. With a 50-50 election result, You’re saying that of those 11 people, 9 stayed home, and only two went to the polls… one of whom was the Democrat. Something “trout in the milk” fishy there.
Oh, and when I say “forums”, I’m including places like the Washington Post and USA Today, not Townhall.
Papa Dan,
Your point is exacty the one I wanted to make. I think if you take the legislation threat off the table, some may feel free to say what they really think about partial birth abortion, and with a bit of luck, they may begin to rethink their unquestioned allegiance to the lefty program. Right now they are suckered into agreeing with Obama that they wouldn’t want their daughter to be punished with a child. I would ask whether they want their daughter to constantly think of the child she didn’t have, especially if she later cannot get pregnant or loses a child. The casual abortions advocated by feminists can only repress the natural feeling that women have toward children. Even if early abortions remain legal, no one who has one should spend the next day at Victoria’s Secret looking for sexy underwear. Such things can not be discussed fully in the halls of congress, but they need to be discussed.
Another thing I think should be done is to attack the hypocrisy of the 1% who sell their slutty music and slutty expensive clothes for their total lack of concern for the poor and insecure youth who are not yet mature enough to resist their image of coolness. These hypocrits tell us how much they care about the poor, and then they do all they can to make sure the poor give them what money they have.
Concealing massive election fraud is a huge case of the prisoner’s dilemma, and there’s way too much incentive for someone to get a book deal, I mean blow the whistle. It’s not worth discussing.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
“We are people who are fine with polygamy, polyandry, single parenthood, gay marriage, and making light of Christian traditions.”
I’m not. I just don’t think the state exists to take sides. Especially considering the left would then use whatever power the state accumulates against Christians… An exception being mid to late abortion; I really think the debate over whether a life has started or not gets absurd when it is obvious to any impartial observer that it has… so I’ll fight to ban that. Most people would be on our side for that…
Yes, when christians, as I am, look to the state to enforce social mores, they don’t realize, as Thomas states above, that it will be used against them. Marriage will be defined as between two men. Freedom will mean the ability to oppress religious rights for someone’s free stuff. But many Christians empowered this leviathan in the name of kindness for years too.
The problem is not the positions the GOP takes. The problem is the pack of slanders and lies that the Dems and MSM tell people about the GOP. If the GOP doesn’t change that fundamental dynamic, it doesn’t matter how they tweak the platform.
Romney and the GOP aren’t racist, sexist, hate-filled bigots who want to spoil the environment. They don’t want to end medicare, don’t want to ban contraception, aren’t in bed with Wall Street and evil corporations (at least not as much as Obama), don’t want to start wars (not like Obama), aren’t all about favoring the 1% and screwing working people, don’t want to force religion on people.
The ‘answer’ is to put a stop to the slander.
Here’s the worst thing about the gay marriage vote in WA state. Two years ago, they passed a law aimed at gays and couples over 62. It granted all the legal rights of marriage as a domestic partnership. (The over 62 part is designed for couples that can’t marry without losing pensions/SS benefits from a previous partner.) But giving gays all those rights was not enough and we had to vote on giving them marriage as well. Since that has passed, I am in favor of striping all rights to gays under domestic partnerships and requiring marriage for those rights. They wanted marriage, then make them marry to get those rights. The domestic partnership bill still stands for heterosexual couples over 62. If that isn’t a weird situation, I don’t know what is.
@Teri Pittman : November 13th, 2012 at 3:59 pm Rats! grabbed the wrong link. Try this one instead: link
You’re the only person I unequivocally agree with in this entire thread, Teri: between the Frogman, and Hindicker, point Frogman.
Most of what I’m reading, even here, even amongst commenters I ordinarily wholeheartedly agree with, is …disturbing.
Some of you, like Hindicker, seem willing to abandon a core and reliable component of the GOP base. Or you don’t seem to understand that just because these issues don’t resonate with you, they still not merely “resonate” with a core component of the Party, but they are the basis of that components continued support of the GOP.
I understand this in neo’s case, and people like her: she’s from the NYC ex-liberals wing of the party, and she might not have enough fundamentalist Christian co-Republican friends to understand their motivation, both religious and political.
She (and people like her) get a pass.
We lost this election on the margins, on tactical blunders, not ideology.
If the GOP radically abandons long-standing social issues that are of core importance to social conservatives, the GOP will permanently lose religious conservatives (and will NEVER, ever win another presidential election). And social conservatives will find a permanent third party home.
The GOP will certainly lose me: and I am demonstratively politically rational AND politically astute. So how do you think the huge number of far less politically active religious voters are going to react?
Jeezus. I understand people being despondent over the loss, but I don’t understand being politically suicidal as an option at all.
Y’all? – Curtis’s comments “I don’t buy Hinderaker’s solution because it surrenders to evil. Abortion and gay marriage are evil …We do not honor God. We do not honor parents. We do not honor property. We do not honor family. We do not honor each other. We do not honor work. We do not honor life.
What kind of people are we?”
…resonate with me.
They’ll resonate with millions of hitherto reliable GOP voters, too.
Jeezus.
Just …jeezus.
Y’all need to get over this.
Go read Teri Pittman’s link or something.
And. Artfldgr wins the thread. Kudos.
In contrast to Hinderaker (it was a Freudian slip type misspelling previously btw: not purposeful), I think Dan Reihl’s take is a much more politically useful analysis of the loss.
‘Incest is not a good policy for a healthy society unless the parties (of legal age) to incest are subjected to forced sterilization’
Why don’t they just use birth control, then? The fact is, throughout history there has a huge stigma against incest to the point where nowadays most people probably would not even be able to do it (they would be disgusted by the thought). I highly doubt that incest would ever be anything except extremely rare in any society. The few cases where it has been of any consequence have been related to small groups of elites who have used it for political purposes (The Greek Pharaohs of Egypt for example).
I don’t think that I can rightfully impose my view of what is healthy for society on other people; even if I’m right. The individual human is sovereign and it is the only level where self-consciousness exists, not society.
Steve D,
Incest is not common, but incest involving a minor and an adult blood relative does occur. Its not a good idea.
I, for one, look forward to the Republican Party recognizing that every human sexuality is “born that way,” decriminalizing sexuality, and allowing all sexualities their own form of marriage. I won’t discriminate against [insert your own list here] while hetronormative and homonormative paradigms oppress us all.
Hinderacker is hilarious: he abandons hard Leftistism (or so he says), calls himself a conservative or Republican, then later declares Republicans must accept hard Leftism to survive, and offers himself as proof of the broad-mindedness of Republicans and their ability to compromise. I call it lying and subversion.
‘Incest is not common, but incest involving a minor and an adult blood relative does occur. It’s not a good idea.’
I agree but no form of sex (or contract like marriage) between any adult and any child should be permissible by law so that covers incest as well. The laws against statutory rape are in principle correct. (although the age of consent is debatable). There is no reason to make an additional law regarding minors or to restrict what two people over the age of consent do.
First off, this is the standard toss the social cons under the bus argument. It happens after every election, when the politicians/pundits decide to rapidly blame everyone but themselves.
Second, there are plenty of Pro-Life reforms that are women-centered. Requiring parental or judicial (in cases of parental abuse) consent is one of them. Basically, you want to force the abortion lobby to commit to extreme positions instead of you. Also, requiring full informed consent for abortion would work well.
I think we might want to look into allowing two-tier marriages for everyone. Traditional formal marriages for people looking to raise a family, and civil unions for people seeking legal benefits for partners, regardless of sex. Civil unions would be explicitly a matter of governmental law – private institutions would not be obligated to recognize them outside of certain very specific legal contexts (a private hospital must allow civil union partners visitation rights)