The American Spectator : Social Conservatives as Scapegoats

Text Size

Political Hay

Social Conservatives as Scapegoats

By G. Tracy Mehan, III on 11.17.08 @ 6:09AM

In this area the recriminations are not only delusional but politically suicidal.

To listen to some Republicans, not to mention, the braying of media outlets such as MSNBC, and even, here and there, a few economic libertarians, you would think that traditional conservatives, the defenders of the unborn and the integrity of marriage as a venerable and ancient institution, were responsible for two wars gone sour, over-spending at a level to embarrass Lyndon Johnson, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society, numerous cases of GOP corruption and betrayal of the public trust centering around earmarks and political favors and the miserable results in the presidential and congressional elections just passed.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, not this writer’s first choice for the job of vice president, has now become the target for patronizing comments by the chattering classes who can’t tell a moose hunt from an Easter egg hunt. For some of these enlightened minds, Governor Palin’s loving acceptance of her new baby with special needs and her stand-up support for her teenage daughter seem to count for nothing at best or even a big negative. They view her selflessness as trailer park behavior rather than a loving parent’s defense of life and love in her family.

“To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections,” said Edmund Burke.

Listening to these outcries, one might believe that the global economic meltdown, the single biggest reason for Senator McCain’s defeat, was the result of a worldwide conspiracy of the Right to Life movement, pro-marriage activists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Mass-attending Catholics, oh yes, and the NRA.

This scapegoating of the solid and most loyal of the three wings of the Reaganite coalition is inaccurate and just plain wrong. It is self-defeating in the long run. It is rank blame-shifting and a libel of a GOP constituency which has always supported low taxes, a strong defense and a constrained judiciary. All it asked for was fair consideration of its concerns with family and the culture of life.

If economic or business conservatives thinks they can win Midwestern, western, Southern and border states without Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, culturally conservative Catholics and advocates for the nuclear family as the first of all social institutions, they are kidding themselves. President Gerald Ford’s primary victory over Ronald Reagan in 1976 was the last gasp of that worldview. You do not find many political volunteers, or voters, at the Union League or Bogey Clubs.

Political success is about addition, not subtraction. Clearly, the GOP cannot win with only the social conservatives. That is why coalitions are a necessary part of political life. This is equally true for economic and national defense conservatives. Indeed, one could argue that the apparent singularity of social conservative support for the GOP ticket this past election was due, at least in part, to the failure of conservative economic or neoconservative foreign policies, many of which were radical departures from the Reaganite model.

This internecine battle has got to stop if there is to be any chance of regrouping for the off-year elections in 2010 and beyond.

One might view the tripartite Reagan coalition as a portfolio approach to political risk management, appealing to diverse constituencies, programs and messages across a wide and varied society. Viewed this way, social conservatives, free-market economic and national security advocates need to cling to each other while remaining open to the concerns of new emerging constituencies such as Hispanics who, by the way, are pro-family and not normally categorized as social liberals.

This is not to diminish substantive disagreements on serious questions of policy. Indeed, conservative, paleo-conservative and simple plain-vanilla conservatives have real differences on preventive war, nation building, civil liberties and the like. Many will dissent from the GOP’s pronounced tilt in favor of the humanity of the unborn in public policy. With only two political parties to choose from, such skirmishes are inevitable. Moreover, there are new issues that need to be analyzed and addressed creatively. For instance, entitlement reform may rival tax cutting as a concern for the long haul. Health care is another matter crying for creative solutions in an age of economic uncertainty and personal mobility in the market place.

What do the Girl Scouts say, make new friends and keep the old?

About the Author

G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

john| 11.17.08 @ 8:09AM

What Mr Mehan doesn't get is that the concerns of christian fundamentalist values voters in areas like abortion and stem cell research were never of much appeal or interest to the economic and national security parts of the Republican coalition. In fact there is simply not majority support for most of their positions as the recent defeats in three states on measures to restrict abortion demonstrate. However their votes when combined with the other elements in the coalition were sufficient to eke out increasingly narrow victories and so they were promised certain things which it was never intended to deliver . Now the wheels have come off the cart the realities of this situation are being aired.

Captain America| 11.17.08 @ 8:27AM

"Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, not this writer's first choice for the job of vice president, ...," cheer up, Mehan, there's still time.

My how time changes matters, how long has it been since Democrats were trying to court the "values voters" in the aftermath of their defeat?

Matthew Bright| 11.17.08 @ 8:38AM

Young people voted for Obama by a 30 point margin, and every one of them would tell you if they could that they did so partly because they're angry about having a bunch of Republican empowered hillbillies and racists with one tooth and one brain cell between them calling the shots for one of the great countries in the world today. So if they want to "move to the Right," and think that's going to gain them traction with the majority of Americans who appear to have taken back their country from this crowd that's been running amok since Reagan, more power to them. I hope they try it, and run Sarah Palin for President next time around - and keep doing it and doing it forever.

Drivel like this coming from an absolutely amoral someone who served in an environmental capacity for George Bush shouldn't surprise anyone.

malm| 11.17.08 @ 8:45AM

If Mcain had pointed out when he promised more judges like Roberts and Alito. that they e conceded under oath that Roe was settled law ,the social conservatives would have rioted. Add to this that we must stand against using some stem cells in a lab dish to find cures for hideous disease and afflictions, and thus , we say so long suburburban women, and men too it seems. I doubt if stem cell treatment would be denied by many people for themselves or theit loved ones. Yet, the GOP is somehow expected to stop this progress from going forward. Limbaugh battering poor Michael J. Fox is our public persona on the issue, and social conservatives rejoiced in that little spectacle as an example of a good, Christian man serving the Lord. The GOP has an obligation to be a viable second party. Job one is to win elections.

SirWinstonChurchill | 11.17.08 @ 8:53AM

"When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another."

(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1651)

Wendy| 11.17.08 @ 8:58AM

Social conservativism is absolutely to blame. Bush et. al. did not make big government despite their politico-religious ideology--they made big government because of it. They believe that God will hold us to account for not using politics to enforce the will of the Lord on earth. It is completely incompatible with conservative notions of liberty and freedom. We do not need to pander to their bankrupt ideology to win elections--we need to jettison their ideology to win elections. Those who are really committed to "low taxes, a strong defense, and a constrained judiciary" more than enforcing their vision of God's vision onto people will continue to vote Republican anyway--so long as Republicans adhere to the philosophy of individualism. Social conservatives will have to make a choice: Freedom on this earth, or their religious doctrine. You cannot have both.

btenney| 11.17.08 @ 9:07AM

There is a lot ofopinion on both sides of the abortion debate. For the most part I am ambivalent. Where I come out on the issue is that if you abort a child in the last trimester you are lazy and inapable of making personal decisions. In this case others should be making your decisions and personal choice should be taken off the table.
If abortion is your primary method of Birth Control, You are a slut.

J David| 11.17.08 @ 9:10AM

Mr Mehan, you have laid your finger on precisely the source of weakness and the source of DOOM for the GOP and for the country. While Palin might not have been your first pick (as if that would matter), in spite of McVain's evangelical- hatred, there was Divine Intervention in the pick. Not because she has been flawless on social issues, because she has not, but because she HIGHLIGHTS, for those thinking deeper than Britney Spears, what is wrong with the Republicans, the Femi-nazis, the commie-lib Dems, and the Fourth Estate Media.

The pragmatic (idealless, secular, moral equivalence, soulless) RINOs in charge of the RINO Party and their pundit RINO allies in the press giving them cover will succeed in alienating the one solid bloc they could always count on, because morality has been thrown out the window, and a moral imperative is all the GOP has traditionally had to differentiate it from the commie-lib Dems. Since the definition of marriage is up for grabs, the lives of the most innocent among us have NO VALUE, the confiscation of income is paid to tinpot dictatorships around the world that hate America, and our "evangelical" president allowed embryonic stem cell research to take place on his watch and has foisted off socialism/communism upon us as viable option in the marketplace...we are toast. The warning has been sounded, but too few that have heard it have heeded.

Bobbi| 11.17.08 @ 9:14AM

Matthew Bright | 11.17.08 @ 7:38AM

Lovely sentiment there, Matthew. Original too. That must have taken a lot of thought. I live in FL which went for Bush in '00 and '04, but Obama this time around. I guess we grew some teeth and brain cells. Or maybe it is because Obama ran as right-leaning moderate who will "lower taxes for 95 percent of working Americans." If he had been honest and ran on his record of higher taxes, more spending except for defense which he wants to slash (video is on You Tube), tax payer funded abortion and infanticide on demand, he would have lost HUGE.

Timothy A. Jumonville| 11.17.08 @ 9:41AM

Oh, good grief!

I've got one tooth and one brain cell, call on elves and fairies and I want government to push my religion on you???

Grow up will you?

Just like you, I just want government to leave me alone and get out of my way. If you don't want to hear what I have to say about my God then politely tell me to shove it and I will leave you alone as well.

And, just like you, I also want the Government to stop spending my children's money and do only what they are required to do by the Constitution.

By acting as you are acting, you are indeed blaming this on me. Put the blame where it belongs: on people who want to sin and get away with it. Trust me, though, they won't get away with it forever. There will be a price to pay, by you and me... and them. Here and after this life is over. Oh, sorry, if you want to believe there is nothing after this life, go ahead. No skin off my back. Knock yourself out. It's your decision, and if you've already made it, then fine. Otherwise, let me believe what I want to believe. I'm not bothering you. Don't bother me.

John| 11.17.08 @ 9:42AM

I fear it is too late, Mr. Mehan. Social conservatives, like myself, have already heard, loud and clear, from the GOP elites that we have been useful idiots for the party cause long enough and that our usefulness has run out. Look at the comments in this column. We were foolish to think that we really had a stake in this party. And, so, thank you very much, Republican party, we honored you, we respected you, we supported you, we put our hope in you. We served you with our efforts and our votes. Now, however, it is obvious that you never accepted us and never intended to honor those issues that were most important to us. We will remain partyless for now, until another party is willing to hear why these issues are worth defending. And as for you, GOP, good luck. The great Reagan coalition has broken up.

Crusader| 11.17.08 @ 10:19AM

John, there IS a party for social conservatives who want less government and more liberty: the Constitution Party. Look into it.

As for the other RINOs posting here and blaming folks like myself for your loss, well, keep thinking that way. I don't understand where you get that we want the government to push our religion on you (we're not islamic) but whatever. You've lost us. Good luck in the future.

One thing to consider when you are picking candidates is it might be helpful if your candidate has at least marginal differences in policy that the democratic candidate.

Gazinya| 11.17.08 @ 10:24AM

Rigorous honesty with myself comes at a price. I am a political conservative. Not a compasionate conservative or right of center or a left of center conservative. I wake up in the morning and plan my day all the while asking my God to help me accomplish my plan or give me the wisdom and courage to change it. Much of how I 'feel' about this country is based on my study of its history. Why, who, what, where, when did events in the past bring us to where we are today. What is my connection to and responsibility for furtherance of good citizenship.
I am fortunate that my parents gave me their own examples of their sacrifices and victories and hardships growing up during the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's. They allowed me to connect to their past and I am able to pass on my past and present to my children.
What is wholly necessary for this transference is a social fabric that allows, without deviant moral confusion, the ability to connect my life with my children.
I believe it is the shredding of this social fabric that is the root cause of our current political and social choas. The debate about which direction we should go as a nation has been reduced to actual hatered toward differing ideas. I see the competition to be between those who are grateful to their God for this nation and those who despise even the idea of God. The center, center left, left and beyond argument is that this government is a better more tangible god than our Constitution allows. Evolution vs. Creation science is an example. Also children today are taught that there is no absolute reason why they should contribute anything to society. "What ever." The Pledge of Alligence is debated among adults as to why children should be taught this article.
Wisdom and Understanding are the linchpins of any society and when these things are trivialized then the past is downgraded and personal desires are placed in front of personal responsibility. To me a political conservative is a person to whom responsibility to perserve our Constitution is paramont.

JMPSWANN| 11.17.08 @ 10:26AM

As someone who is just about to outgrow the "youth vote" category, I gotta say Matthew Bright has a pretty solid point. We're tired of our gay friends being margninalized by hateful, pandering legislation masquerading as "family values". We're tired of our politicians injecting religion into the public discourse. We're tired of Red States dictating how we should handle our reproductive rights. We're tired of the Govt. spying on us.

You've lost us. More of us our voting. And thankfully, more of you are dying.

Bonnie Hanssen| 11.17.08 @ 10:26AM

Excellent analysis!

PolishKnight| 11.17.08 @ 10:40AM

One of the major reasons why Republicans continue to lose elections is their half-apologetic tone such as "compassionate conservativism" or pandering to feminism. Consider G. Tracy's nod to the "Hispanic" vote. The gorilla in the room is that the Republicans clearly have captured the WHITE vote but it's impolite to say that precisely because the left defines racism as something only white people engage in which is so sublimely paradoxical that it transcends hypocrisy.

Hispanics special interest groups and other racist spoils coalitions are, at best, going to swing over a small percentage of votes to Republican candidates but will always be a massive voting bloc for the Democrats. It's the same losing strategy as pork barrel bailout bills to try to get a fraction of union voters. Special interest groups that vote to rob Peter to pay Paula will always vote in the majority for the biggest sugar daddy.

Matthew Bright, older people vote republican for a reason: It's called maturity. I love to tell young Obama voters that they're going to have to pay 2/3's of their income to pay my social security and to thank FDR for the privilege. Tee hee. Oh, and they can also thank the left for white flight and dual income policies that created suburban sprawl. Yep, thank heavens for the leftist elite!

Patrick M.| 11.17.08 @ 10:43AM

Agreed. Another well-written, thoughtful piece, sir.

frost| 11.17.08 @ 10:57AM

Didn't even bother completing the first paragraph; the presumed laying-of-blame on those who might lean Libertarian - - while Dubya, a "social conservative" of the nnnth degree, was not able to keep his own party in line with spending. Candidly, what makes me want to barf, literally, are those people who place pretense above reality -- like that California congressman who wanted to outlaw the Morning After Pill, and the sanctimonious multitudes who place Stem-cells, anti-CHOICE rhetoric and Gay crap above our nation's defense, borders, spending and gross, massive corruption. Really, the priorities are sickening, nothing less.
Get back to me when you figure out what's really important, 'ay?

frankg| 11.17.08 @ 11:14AM

To the youth voters...
JUMPSWANN, you're tired of the government spying on us. How about all those state government departments looking into Joe "the plumber" personal files? I believe children need the example of two parents, a man and a woman who can give the best example of what a mother, father, husband and wife are to developing children. The kids can make their minds up when they are adults. I don't want the word marriage to wind up a legal weapon to be wielded by the state to force feed its version of anti-discrimination against people who don't accept the gay lifestyle and don't want it taught to their children in schools they pay taxes for. SS partners have civil unions. The things I believe in are NOT hate, they are a difference of opinion and legal referendums that people voted on according to the law. Many Gay POLITICAL activists cannot countenance dissent or disagreement with their POLITICAL AGENDA!

frost| 11.17.08 @ 11:18AM

Wendy's letter (above) nailed it mightily! Nah, it ain't about sin. Pardon the repetition, but it's those warped priorities, period. Annnd, that Not-so-Bright observation about the so-called "youth vote?" Seems that they voted in their usual numbers....
Yet, in rhetrospect, it was almost humorous -- almost. Not quite. Bob Barr was NO Libertarian; he was more of a Republican that that guy I held-my-nose-and-voted for (actually, I voted against the socialist, not for McCain). And those pushing the Constitution Party - - where, pray tell, is the topic of abortion, or anything related to marriage, evangelical "social values" and all those other pontificated proposals addressed in the Constitution?
Face it, "our" guy lost, mostly because of an ill-educated electorate - and those who demand "Something-for-Nothing, caring not about the pending REAL tax-increases and redistribution of wealth.
You can take those gay-things, abortion and stem-cells and - - - aaaah, forget it.

George Bruce| 11.17.08 @ 11:28AM

Matthew Bright said:
"Young people voted for Obama by a 30 point margin, and every one of them would tell you if they could that they did so partly because they're angry about having a bunch of Republican empowered hillbillies....(blah, blah, blah)"

Really? Every one, huh?

Did a little survey did you?

Name them all.

ValricoJoe| 11.17.08 @ 11:37AM

Wow, the ignorance on this comment board clearly illustrate the success of our left wing education system as well as the progressives (socialist/communist/fascist). The decline we have seen in the Demican party is a direct result of the coalescence of all the former CPUSA stalwarts and their integration into institutions and government. The country has strayed from the constitution since the teachings of Marx were adopted by the progressives in the 1800's and 1900's and the misguided belief that it was not viable in the current time. Thus, via judicial fiat, constitutional changes, lack of checks and balances actually enforced by each branch, we the people are at a precipice. Where this country flourished with a limited government and elevated personal liberties, now we have been blessed with more and more government. Any thoughts on where the problems came from, look at the big picture, IT CAME FROM BAD GOVERNMENT, with the Demicans and the Republicrats letting all the people down. They do not need more of our hard earned money, they need LESS. We need to take our country back, need to be able to have an HONEST discussion on real issues and formulate good policies to go forward for all the people, not just some. Compassion comes from within, not government.

George Bruce| 11.17.08 @ 11:39AM

malm said:

"Limbaugh battering poor Michael J. Fox...."

Limbaugh only pointed out that Fox was playacting in that commercial. Fox grossly exaggerated the extent of his disability to make the commercial more appealing to sentiment. Limbaugh produced evidence of that in the form of other video of Fox taken at about the same time in which no such disability is seen. If Fox puts himself in the debate by making a deceptive TV commercial, then Limbaugh is right to point it out.

Of course, you probably didn't hear the Limbaugh criticism of Fox. You probably only heard accounts of it from the NYT or some similar, sleazy rag.

Fox was deceptive in another way. He exaggerated the benefits of the particular type of stem cell research banned by Bush. My evidence? Please consider the underwhelming number of medical advances coming from other counties.

The North Words Falkon| 11.17.08 @ 11:42AM

TWO WAY GUNS ARE FUN! a poem by the north
words falkon

**Here we all go again, poking fingers at the tattered body ...
Meanwhile their victory is hailed, and McCain just labeled shoddy

**The refs that are the media, threw their flags in one direction ...
And now we all sit and wonder, was it this or that defection.

**The truth stands in the shadows, as we rush to spread the blame ...
As long as we're shooting in our house, the left will cover that game.

**So cheer up mi amigos, and just watch our
new(?) government grow ...
Me thinks it was the mainstream media, not just us that stubbed our toe.

Thomas| 11.17.08 @ 11:49AM

Mr. Mehan makes two very evident points:

One, the Republican Party can not exist as a viable national party without Conservatives.

Second, that conservatives should not be blamed for the loss of John McCain.

John McCain was a horribly flawed candidate and his campaign was one of the most poorly managed in modern history. Until the inclusion of Sarah Palin on his ticket, there was simply no reason for Conservatives, of any stripe to vote FOR him. The only difference between the demonstrated policies of John McCain and the previously stated policies of Barack Obama was only a matter of degree. Without the Conservative vote that he picked up from the Palin inclusion, he would have lost by another 10 points [at least], as conservatives stayed home. He would have fared even worse against Hillary Clinton.

By the way, labeling people as social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neo-cons or paleo-cons is simply stupid. True Conservatives share common beliefs concerning government and society:

1. Government should be limited to the least that is necessary to provide for the greatest freedom for the largest number of people while protecting basic rights for all.

2. Politicians should be discouraged from making laws that are not directly related to common law crimes [murder, rape, theft, etc.]

3. People should be encouraged to fend for themselves, not supported by the State.

4. Charity should be a personal matter, not a matter for the State.

5. All responsibility is personal, not shared. And it should be assumed at all times. No one is above the law.

This is the definition of a Conservative. If a persons belief system does not encompass these five points, then he, or she, is not a Conservative.

As to the complaints of the so called moderates posting here today concerning religion and reproductive rights, here is a dose of reality for you.

Unlike liberals, Conservatives do not attempt to force their beliefs upon anyone. Their philosophical truths are limited and simple. Their religion is their own and their right to worship is guaranteed by the Constitution, as is yours.
"Reproductive rights" is a different matter and for an entirely different reason.

Conservatives, in general, and the so-called religious right, in particular, wants the government to stay out of the area of reproduction, entirely. No government sponsored sex education, no government sponsored condom give aways in the schools and especially, no abrogation of parental rights with regard to their minor children's sexual behavior. As to contraception, the religious right has no problem with any type of contraception. The only time Conservatives object is in the case of post-conception actions, most notably abortion.

Aborting a human fetus is a special case. A fetus is not the same as anything else in the human body. A liver and its cells, if left alone, will never be anything other than a liver. The same with sperm, ova, kidneys, muscle, bone or even the brain. But, if left alone to develop inside the woman's womb, the fetus develops into a living human being. This is the great debate. When does human life begin? Most Conservatives believe that life begins at the moment of conception. And for those conservatives who do not believe that, they are more than willing to err on the side of caution and concede the point. If you accept that, then when does it become murder, and a violation of the laws pertaining to homicide, for a woman to kill her child? The first trimester, the second, the third, after delivery, at age eighteen, when? Even the omniscient courts can not agree on this. There are several people currently serving prison sentences for the murder of a fetus as young as 2 1/2 months, while it is legal for the mother to abort that fetus up to the age of seven months. See the problem, here? I realize that this is an argument that everyone has heard many, many times, but, please bear wiht me. Now for those who are comfortable, or even supportive of abortion rights, what if your mother had chosen to abort you in the womb? True, once you were born there are any number of things that could have led to your premature demise. But, your mother would, most likely, not have been the one to kill you. And how many Einsteins, Sikorskys, Voltares, Michelangelos, Ganhdis, etc. have never been born because of abortion. While it is true that some Hitlers, Pol Pots, and Josef Stalins have also not been born, is this an acceptable trade off? Think about this for while.

The young are expected to be more liberal than their elders. They are the one who experiment, who push the envelope. They are also the ones who are most closely watch by their elders, for their own protection. Simply because their elders have been there and done that and usually survived through simple good fortune. So to those of you in the "youth vote" category, we'll listen to you, but do not take yourselves too seriously at this stage of your development.

Kejda | 11.17.08 @ 12:01PM

Social Conservatives seeking to use government to legislate morality to the masses have been poisoning the well for too long by destroying the practical and ideological consistency of negative rights, thus opening the door to government cooptation by demagogues with various agendas and malignant vested interests from all sides of the political spectrum. Their religiously inspired diatribes against full American freedoms continue to alienate people in droves, particularly because most Americans today are rightfully oversensitive regarding matters of conscience, religion, social institutions, and private behavior.

Until it extirpates this reactionary faction, the Conservative movement’s defense of free markets is hopelessly doomed to intellectual impotence. Economic self-reliance through free proud enterprise on the one hand, but moral paternalism in matters confined to the bedroom or uterus on the other hand, are ideologically irreconcilable positions both of which sound hypocritical when preached by the same political voice.

Judeo-Christian values are neither sufficient nor even necessary components of Americanism. Conservatives with a mental blind spot to this reality often try to justify the institutionalization of Judeo-Christianity by deeming it to be the only absolute ideological shelter for freedom. Plato alone has spoken with more clarity and conviction about absolute transcendental values such as Justice and Goodness, than there can be found throughout the entire Bible. Natural Law has enjoyed a fertile tradition in Western Philosophy, originated by Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, carried out by the Stoics, and augmented by many great thinkers up to the present day.

Not only is the firm binding of natural law with religion not dictated by any philosophical necessity, it is also a strategically self-defeating position for Conservatives to take in the ongoing battle for hearts and minds. I cannot think of a more dangerous proposition for the future of American cultural institutions than the prospect that their desirability and justification depend on the dubious existence of Abraham’s God.

George Bruce| 11.17.08 @ 12:01PM

Wendy, your sentiments are so thoroughly, foolishly self defeating that I don’t know where to start.
Let me explain this to you. The social conservatives (of which I am not one) are not going to renounce their religious beliefs........ period. Not even if you say so three times and stamp your feet.

Unless you control a huge voting block, you cannot compel them to “make a choice.” If they show up at the primaries with more votes, ( and they will in a large majority of states), they will compel you to make a choice. You can choose to have freedom on Earth and respect their views, or you can reject freedom for you and them. If you choose the latter, at least you will have the satisfaction of knowing that somewhere a high school valedictorian will be punished severely for working a reference to God into her commencement speech. Will that be worth it for you?

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.17.08 @ 12:34PM

There has been a disturbing pattern emerging around the term "social." The socialists want to regulate our jobs, and the social conservatives want to regulate what we do in our free time. Sorry gang, that leaves me nothing. Pox on both of you.

frost| 11.17.08 @ 1:11PM

Kejda and Mr. Hauschild nailed it -- those self-professed Social Conservatives esposing their dogma ("we're right,'n the rest of you either believe as we do or else!!") in such sanctimonious fashion - - you've finally even chased my wife away; I departed after witnessing so much hypocracy from the religious right, I became a Deist and fled from organized religion years ago.
Thomas (above) was kinda mistaken when he suggested that those evangelical types weren't trying to change the minds of we, the unwashed.
Their obnoxious pontifications have chased away, verally, the multitudes, even. The only things even close to that repugnant attitude are the meaningless, Pabulum Puke and Politically Correct garbage-utterances eminating from those Obama deciples and their cheerleaders in the media. PS/we'll be shopping for some property next month when we're in Costa Rica...

Gazinya| 11.17.08 @ 2:02PM

Americanism is soley dependent on Judeo-Christian values. Our Constitution will not work for a people who are not moral. Morality is not a natural human trait. It can not be govened or created out of thin air. It can only be taught. There must be a standard by which morality can be judged. That standard can not come from our own experience. 'One mans' superstition is another mans' religion'. The teaching of moral values begins in childhood and is an intrigal part of an individuals eventual success in adulthood. Subjective truth is not truth. Absolute truth is truth. Governments and the peoples they represent or repress are incapable of legislating morallity. The founders knew, from their own experience, that a general belief in a power greater than themselves would be necessary to extend the Constitution into the future. By negating that truth in our schools and supplimenting that truth with liberalisms, like 'if it don't hurt, do it' has caused this moral and social delimma that is at the core of our current problems.
The main reason Christianity is under assult is that the debate excludes God because liberals attatch religion to God. God is not a religion and that is the absolute truth. Belief in God is the beginning of Wisdom.

Crusader| 11.17.08 @ 2:13PM

Really? I want to regulate what you do in your free time? Can you explain without reading from the dem talking points of horror? Is it social conservatives in CA today trying to do an end run around the CA State Constitution in an effort to force gay marriage on the people? A people who rejected it?

What legislation have social cons or religious right folks pushed to force their religion on you? You can not cite Sharia law either. I would be interested to know, because every example I can think of where people force their beliefs on others through judicial fiat is like the one above, by kooks on the left. When the right finally reacts to being pushed into a corner and simply requests an equal voice, they are "religious nuts" trying to convert everyone. Evolution vs. ID is a perfect example of this.

Thomas is correct, most "social conservatives" simply want to be left alone and leave you alone.

Thomas| 11.17.08 @ 2:15PM

Frost,

I never said that evangelicals, or any other conservative, were not trying to change peoples' minds. But evangelicals are only trying to change your MIND. Not intrude into your everyday life.

First of all, Evangelicals are a very small religious minority in this country. If they all showed up in the same place at the same time, they couldn't control a county, let alone the country. If you fear people who are, not only actively trying to change your mind, but are also trying and succeeding in changing your life whether YOU like it or not, look to the liberals. Who passes anti-smoking laws that even intrude into private homes and the great outdoors? Who actively limits the type of food that you can buy and eat? Who limits the amount of salt, transfats and sugar that is in prepared foods? I'll give you a clue. It is not the tobacco smoking, fried food eating Evangelicals.

Mr. Frost, anarchy is not a positive survival philosophy for a society.

Crusader| 11.17.08 @ 2:23PM

Thomas, that somking legislation is a great example! When I lived in MD (hint to Wendy & Frost, MD is NOT a social con state) a guy was ticketed for smoking in his house! His neighbor allegedly smelled the cigarette smoke and called the cops. The smoke offended him or something. Again, hint to Wendy & Frost, the author of this law was NOT a social con. Smoke, don't smoke, I could care less. But if I tell you smoking is bad for your health don't misinterpret it to mean I want to take away your right to smoke.

I know NYC is forcing restuarants to limit the fat/trans fat in the foods they serve. Do you mean to tell me NYC is a hotbed of social conservatism?????

frost| 11.17.08 @ 2:46PM

GadZooka even! The departures from the choking subject of "social conservatives" and their impact (or the lack thereof)?
Let me put it to you briefly and simply. It's more than transfats, it's that California congressional clown who wanted to outlaw the Morning After pill, and the Virginia guy (Goodlatte?) who sponsored legislation against Internet Wagering. Even got a pandering (and pukey) excuse letter from former Senator Bill Frist trying to justify it in protecting-us-from-ourselves.
Annnnd, the clincher: how many times have you been threatened with eternal damnation UNLESS you "accept Jesus as your personal savior?" They make me nauseous, just like the social conservative who wanted to ban a "Where's Waldo" book from the library because it had a cartoon woman, topless, laying on her cartoon stomach on a cartoon beach. Yeah, really.
The left's rotten behavior does not (or SHOULD Not) be expected to excuse the pandering by the "social conservatives" of the right. They're all scary, so, kindly crusade elsewhere.

PolishKnight| 11.17.08 @ 3:35PM

Frost, the left has their own "eternal damnation" social religious agenda. Try to burn leaves in your own backyard in California, for example. They're just bigger hypocrites riding around in cars and flying to Europe to worship 90% white socialist governments while proclaiming that the government needs to save the planet by banning cars and forcing non-white diversity. Wait, that's not hypocrisy. It's madness. Jim Jones' followers drank cool aid, the Catholics eat those wafers and pancake dinners. Guess which extreme the left is on?

The Deuce| 11.17.08 @ 3:50PM

Annnnd, the clincher: how many times have you been threatened with eternal damnation UNLESS you "accept Jesus as your personal savior?"

Well, goodness gracious. You mean that people who disagree with you are allowed to have their beliefs, and even espouse them, without the government forcibly shutting them up?

That's just terrible. We need to put an end to that right now. To protect freedom.

frost| 11.17.08 @ 4:49PM

The topic kinda evolved into dogmatic attitudes and intolerance of others...? I guess it comes from a variety of sides. And, while I've been in 49 of 50 states (lived in California once...) I'm reminded of what intolerance REALLY boils down to -- possibly the worst example of the Green's attitude toward the rest-of-the-citizenry and the economy could be cited in the question asked to two major spokespersons who were opposed to the re-opening of the "A-J Mine" in Juneau, Alaska (where I also lived). Skip Grey and Laurie Ferguson Craig were asked: "IF ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WERE ANSWERED AND THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY POLLUTION WHATSOEVER, WOULD YOU STILL OPPOSE THE MINE'S RE-OPENING?" Laurie Craig said "maybe". Skip Grey said "yes" he would still oppose the re-opening of the mine!
Doesn't matter who the jerks are, there certainly is an abundance!

Eugene Debbs| 11.17.08 @ 4:49PM

Is it possible to say anything negative about Sarah Palin or ask a single question about her knowledge or competence without being accused of "attacking" her?

I know that the media is the big bad monster with you people, but I'd still like specific of examples of how Palin was "attacked" or even treated unfairly.

She was running to be vice president behind a man 72 years old who'd had cancer four times.

No one knew who she was. We deserved to know.

And, yes, that includes uncomfortable questions about her character and her family.

Her husband's DUI was a legitimate source of concern, as was his membership in an organization that advocated for Alaskan Independence. Alaska is one of the states referred to in the phrase "United States," as some of you may know, and we'd go to war to keep it that way. Knowing whether or not the future First Dude would be on our side or their side should such a conflict emerge was in fact in the national interest.

Instead, we had a great deal of talk in the media about whether the media was treating Palin fairly.

Well folks, listen up. Especially you house-fraus who may be interested in running for president:

In this country, there is NO SUCH THING as treating a candidate for the presidency unfairly.

We get to ask anything we want. Nothing's off limits. Not family, not children, not money, not the past, not the future -- nothing.

We're considering giving you the launch codes for nuclear (that's NOOO --- CL -- EEEEAAR) weapons.

And so we can ask you anything we want. You may want to think about that before accepting an offer like McCain's.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 5:02PM

There are some interesting posts that express my more libertarian point of view, so I won't repeat them. However, I put forth this pragmatic thought -- economic and national security conservatives are willing to compromise which is why social conservatives can be part of the coalition. The problem is that this coalition no longer represents more than half of the electorate. Therefore, most governors have pointed out that to extend this coalition into other groups, there are some issues that need to be compromised. If we want the Republicans to consistently win again, the social conservatives must get rid of their intolerance and accept some compromise. In order to be effective, all elements of a coalition need to compromise.

Avitar| 11.17.08 @ 5:17PM

Keep a sober perspective on the actual results of this election, hard with the inebriated condition of the media. It is clear from the behavor of the MSM that the tank they keep going into is filed with a potent potable. All of the news reports based on exit polls are meaningless.

The voter rolls mater, by that index there was no increase in the percentage of young people turning out to vote. By the voter rolls there was a very small increase in voter turn out. Two percent of Republicans more than is usual stayed home. One percent to one and a half percent, more Democrats got out to vote in this election than in 2004. The Obama get out the vote effort was impressive but in the end the results were less so. Obama did not do that well when you factor in spending more money than Kerry and Bush Combined.

There really is little love lost between the average Republican and John McCain. Without the open primaries allowing Democrats and Independents to vote for John McCain, he would not have been nominated. If the next RNC chairman has, a brain voters in 2012 will have to be registered Republican for at least thirty days before the primary in any state.

Obama will give citizenship to the 20 million illegal aliens before 2012 or risk the Democrats being blown out of the whole game.

Bob| 11.17.08 @ 5:27PM

Avitar - you can't get reliable age segment data from voter rolls. The only reliable method is sampling. Here is the best summary I could find.

"Youth Turnout: CIRCLE projects that a record number of young people (19-29) voted in 2008, in terms of numbers (22.8-23.1 million Americans) and the highest percentage of youth turnout since 1972 (52-53%). (CIRCLE’s figures are based on exit polling, which can then be compared with what youth report on the Current Population Survey, once it becomes available in the Spring). [As one would expect, youth turnout and turnout of those over 30 years old was heavier in battleground states.]"

Thomas| 11.17.08 @ 5:48PM

Mr. Debbs,

You mean like the MSM thoroughly vetted the democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate?

Try again.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.17.08 @ 5:57PM

"Forcing gay marriage on the people?" This statement illustrates best the social conservatives mentality. I really doubt, even on the left coast, that the local constable showed up at your door and said you have to marry someone with a lisp.

malm| 11.17.08 @ 6:05PM

Dear George Bruce,hey that's a good media name,turn it around and you still have a nice sounding white bread name. Anyhow, I know What Rush said, and knew the moment he said it they'd use it against us. And use it they did, and to devastating effect. He looked like a monster, one of those burly hunters clubbing a cute baby seal to death. All the inside conservative baseball explanations offering the context of his remarks are simply singing to the choir. You need to learn a bit about mass media communication,and winning friends,and influencing people. It is all about being a nice guy and persuasion getting you votes. The one way, angry, insensitive diatribe of Rush is turning off voters, especially women and those moderates he openly despises. Look, I was the number one buddy for a relative undergoing a heavy duty transplant in a Boston medical center in 2006. I swear a million people are in and out of such a place in a week, or so it seems. All over are television screens, and they had CNN on all of them. It seemed they had the Limbaugh assault against Fox on every five minutes.IT CAME ACROSS AS AN ASSAULT. I was ashamed to say I even listened to talk radio at times. All these folks visiting sick loved ones and friends, and thereis Mr. GOP himself in full form trashing an appeal by a sick beloved public figure, and seemingly cheering against a cure that they might hope one day will be found. It was an ugly moment. Also, in this last election Obama ran ads feauturing guess who, the great man himself, on Hispanic radio stations.
They feautured the wisdom of Limbaugh on immigration. Were words taken out of context? Yes. Was it fair and honest to run such ads? No. Did Obama win the Hispanic vote hugely? Yes. Is Limbaugh and his style and ideology a wrecking ball slamming into the structure of a broad and diverse, and non dogmatic party that can stand up to the DPPM(democrat party political machine)? Think about it. Turn off the stupid radio for ten days and think.

frost| 11.17.08 @ 6:07PM

This will wrap-it-up, at least for today -- so far as I'm concerned. On these very pages I've been threatened with Hell and Damnation because I am pro-Choice. The evangelicals find it mighty convenient to equate that with being pro-abortion, which I'm not; my wives and I account for seven kids between us, and I totally rest the implication. Yet, THOSE IMPLECATIONS HAVE BEEN REPEATED MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT - - - like, what is there about the word "choice" that some fail to understand? She can choose to have the child, okay?
As an independent Independent with more than a few Libertarian leanings (and, NO, I never could vote for Bob Barr), yeah, I do find the right wing, evangelical "social conservatives" about as repugnant and intolerant as the lefties. Okay, there, I rest my case.

frost| 11.17.08 @ 6:08PM

That should'a read "resent" (5th line down)... it was the case I rested.

Thomas| 11.17.08 @ 6:14PM

Last point Mr. Frost,

"I am pro-Choice" means that you support abortion. Supporting a woman's "right to choose" an abortion is, in fact, supporting the practice. Think about it.

Good night.

aware| 11.17.08 @ 6:18PM

Not being taken into account here by too many, including the writer, in my opinion is that this is NOT the same old party game as we have known in American politics. Look very carefully at the modern Democrat Party...decidedly leftist, authoritarian, and " all in the State and nothing outside the State" types.
Whether you like it or not a necessary counter-weight will form in response. Some of us are tired of the continued growth of the Federal government even when "we" win. It is the most serious threat to every person's liberty. It's obvious that we are not as free as our fathers were, and that they were not as free as their fathers. Where do you think this ends?
The next four years promise to be even worse in this respect. If this doesn't turn around soon we will be doomed to socialist misery and the police state. It is coming down to the same simple thing it came down to for the Founders....freedom.

BJC| 11.17.08 @ 6:21PM

Excellent original essay -- and Thomas has fine posts in response ... in contradistinction to the site infestation of Obamarroids ("bleeding pain in the butt" Obama supporters ). Thomas made intriguing points about the arbitrariness of abortion laws that led me to a rude thought -- I propose we all agree to legalize "abortion" for any parent whose child of any age whatsoever becomes a liberal ... and we all agree to pay for such prebirth or postbirth "abortions" of any child who voted for Obama!

Roger McKinney| 11.17.08 @ 6:27PM

John: "Social conservatives, like myself, have already heard, loud and clear, from the GOP elites that we have been useful idiots for the party cause long enough and that our usefulness has run out. "

I hear you, John, and completely agree. The big story of this election is how many conservatives stayed home. McCain lost because many conservatives stayed home rather than hold their nose and vote for him and they couldn't vote for Obama.

The other part of the story is how many social conservatives voted for Obama. Many social conservatives have grown weary of the cold shoulder from the Republican party as well as the lack of action on any social issues since Reagan. In addition, many of the "Reagon Democrats" were socially conservative but economically liberal. Because of the decades of lip service only to social issues, the Reagan Democrats have gone home to the Democrat party because the Democrat party has become less antagonistic with the ascendency of Bill, Hillary and Obama.

I would guess that without the social conservatives and Reagan Democrats, the Republican party faces a long period out in the cold. I'll probably never vote Republican again, if I bother to vote, but I still wish them luck figuring out how to attract the young people and minorities that they think are so much more important than us social conservatives.

frost| 11.17.08 @ 6:35PM

Thank you Thiomas, for illustrating my case.
But, alas, you miss the point too. Being pro-CHOICE should never be equated with being pro-abortion. What is there about the word "CHOICE" that so many fail to comprehend?
Nitpicking sucks too.
And that's all. Period.

Louis Jenkins| 11.17.08 @ 6:38PM

"Political success is about addition, not subtraction. Clearly, the GOP cannot win with only the social conservatives." And it cannot, will not, win without them either. Social Conservatives adhere to their values. They are not as the fourth monkey of the three classic ones- Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil, and the fouth- Wellllll, maybe!

Louis Jenkins

Thomas| 11.17.08 @ 7:03PM

Frost,

If a man should put a gun to your head he has the "choice" to kill you. Killing you, in other than self defense, would be murder. If you support his being allowed to choose to kill you, or anyone else, then you condone the act of murder. For, if he should blow your brains out, no one would stop him because a judge ruled that he had the right to shoot you if he so chose.

Do you support a persons choice to kill your children, to rape your wife, to take your belongings, to burn your house or deny you the right to exist peacefully?

If you support a persons right to choose to commit any act without recrimination, then you condone the act itself.

Now what part of that don't you understand.

Eugene Debbs| 11.17.08 @ 7:15PM

Thomas --

That's my whole point. If I ask, "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president?" I'm greeted by an unholy din of voices shouting that Obama is not qualified to be president.

Well, fine. But does that make Palin qualified?

I don't care if you like Palin or not. I'm just asking why it is that she could not so much as be asked a question without people being accused of attacking her.

Now. Was Obama vetted? The answer to that question is, of course: 75 million people voted for him. That's vetting you can believe in. But let's go back.

Obama gave DOZENS of interviews with journalists over a period of four years after the 04 convention. He has been at the CENTER of media scrutiny for the last two years.

Obama wrote (he wrote, not using a ghost writer) two full length books that have been available for review and critique. (Note: I'm not saying the books are good or you should like them or buy them; I'm just saying they're there as a part of the "vetting" process. Really. Imagine Sarah Palin writing a book. Paragraph. Sentence.)

Obama participated in over twenty nationally televised debates. That's vetting.

Obama was probed, poked, prodded, investigated, rehearsed, and researched by The Clintons, the most exacting opposition research machine in existence. If nothing else, THAT's vetting. Katie Couric, my behind. Try defying Hillary Clinton and escaping with your life.

Obama has addressed some of the most controversial issues in dozens of nationally publicized or broadcasted speeches. People tend to scoff at these speeches. I think that's foolish. Go into a closet where no one can hear you. Close the door. And then try to talk coherently for 10 minutes on any topic you like. Then imagine being the BEST at doing that since Reagan. Believe me, Obama's more than an empty suit.

Obama was elected to the state legislature of Illinois and the US Senate. Again, I'm not saying that these elections qualified him to be president or mean that you should like him. I'm just saying that drawing an equivalence between Palin's exposure to vetting and Obama's is getting less and less persuasive or sympathetic.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.17.08 @ 7:57PM

I am pro-life, for my immediate family I only advocate pro-life, for anyone I do not financially or emotionally support I am pro-choice. I own a firearm, I do not want to force ownership on anyone, nor do I support any law to infringe on someone else right to choose ownership. I am straight and choose the standard female (1) relationship, other than statutory age I do not support any law that prohibits other relationships, unions, or marriages.
The penalty for rummaging around in other peoples lives (wombs, bedrooms and gun cabinets) is that it gives them an infallible excuse to return the favor; and that my "socially challenged" friends is precisely why we are entering an election cycle tit for tat.

Thomas| 11.17.08 @ 8:44PM

Mr. Debbs,

My question was, "You mean like the MSM thoroughly vetted the democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate?" To expound on that, The MSM ignored, glossed over or, in the case of the LA Times, withheld information on Barack Obama. They never asked penetrating questions of Obama and accepted everything he said as gospel.

In the case of both of his elections to the Illinois House, he ran unopposed and with almost no press scrutiny. In his US Senate race, he ran virtually unopposed after Pearl Harboring his Republican opponent, with the same lack of scrutiny. As for his books, they were published. But once again the MSM never mentioned any of the more controversial parts of them. His speeches were public, but many were never publicized by the MSM and when they were forced into public view, then the MSM made excuses or laughed them off. A journeyman plumber from Toledo gave us a better view of Barack Obama's economic philosophy in 60 seconds, than the MSM did in 18 months. Now, MSM personalities are saying that they really don't know Barack Obama. A man, who the MSM accepted Obama's assurance was only some guy who lived in the neighborhood, now describes himself as a good family friend and Obama does not deny this. This is the same man who has sealed his birth records in the State of Hawaii and his records at Columbia and Harvard. Yet that is fine with the MSM.

So what we have found out is that Barack Obama spent 20 years of is life hanging out with anti-American, anti-semitic, racist, separatist, murdering terrorists and lied about it. But that was perfectly alright with the MSM. After all this man was only going to be the President of the United States of America. Hillary Clinton came up with a tremendous amount of dirt on Obama, but if the MSM won't publicize it or turns around and tries to discredit it, it does no good.

As for speaking ability, Obama is fantastic when he has a prepared speech on a teleprompter [that's what those little panes of glass are next to the podium]. But, when he has to speak contemporaneously, he stammers, stutters and fumbles. You are correct, he is more than just an empty suit. Unfortunately no one, in the public, really knows what kind of man is in the suit.

And then there is Old Joe Biden. The man makes gaff after gaff after gaff and never gets called on it by the MSM. He is touted by his campaign as, not only the next President if Obama should drop dead during his term, but as the "foreign relations guru" for the next administration. The man who has been on the wrong side every major foreign relations issue since he entered the Congress. But that is alright with the MSM.

Now Sarah Palin is a young Governor with limited government experience. Is she qualified to be President of the most powerful nation on the planet? No. Was she running for that position? No. Yet the MSM put her under a microscope , which they did not do for the Democrat Presidential candidate. The MSM harped on here inexperience for a job that she was not running for. Yet, she had more experience the executive branch of government than all three of the other candidates combined. Todd palin was fair game for the MSM, but Michelle Obama was off limits.

My point is that, whether you like Sarah Palin or not, she was subjected to much greater and deeper probing of her background and family, as a Vice Presidential candidate, than Barack Obama received, from the MSM, in nearly 2 years of a campaign for the Office of President.

So, tell me again how thoroughly Obama was vetted by the MSM and how an equivalence in his and Palin's vetting is getting any less persuasive.

Oh, by the way, the latest results, of which i am aware, give Barack Obama only 66 million popular votes.

Alan Brooks| 11.17.08 @ 10:25PM

I agree, social conservatives are being scapegoated. Their crime is to try to inject the tiniest bit of morality into a country with everything but morality. Bad schools, bad culture. "We" can spend billions on porn; we can have millions of cases of STDs; we can be try to be unaware of unwed moms in ghettos,
but try to even broach traditional morality and you are a hillbilly with one braincell! or goosestepping through a barbed wire door of an enclosure in the steppes.
And look at how fierce the Hollywood moguls are! They can do their pushy thing, babydoll, but not hillbillies. Hollywood good; Peoria bad.
A hillbilly is a 'fascist' but a celebrity, say, is liberated and angelic? Kiss kiss.

Alan Brooks| 11.17.08 @ 10:29PM

PS please dont blame Obama, he is A good family guy.
Perhaps many of his people are sluts-- but not he.

Eugene Debbs| 11.17.08 @ 10:44PM

Thomas --

Clearly you don't like Obama, and clearly you did not support his candidacy. I'm not arguing you do or you should.

I think that we all have a tendency to see our side treated unfairly by the media. It's a phenomenon every sports fan is familiar with when it comes to referees and umpires.

However, when I hear someone talk about the "MSM" (especially when they use the acronym) I feel pretty certain that I'm hearing someone who views the press as monolithic -- as though they got together and decided they would ignore Obama's weaknesses.

Michelle Obama (who ran for nothing) said once that she had never yet been proud of her country until her husband's success. I admit this was weird and concerning. But the media covered it for WEEKS. The same with Rev. Wright. Weeks and weeks and weeks of the same snippets recycled over and over.

This is the same "liberal" media that dwelt on Monica Lewinski every day for two years -- in all the lovely details.

Let me put it a different way. Sociologically, the term MSM is too simplistic and assuming they just gave Obama a pass and "attacked" Palin is just not accurate.

bluecollarbytes| 11.17.08 @ 11:07PM

The "social conservatives" I know are well rounded conservatives. Why the need to separate them into some nutter offshoot? Those who condemn them seem more interested in following some ever-moving middle target, which Obama has just moved further left with his convincing win. Obama was free to 'remain' a Liberal thanks to John McCain's chasing after liberal policies, while slamming the entire Party {except the maverick himself}. To compound the insult, we're about to witness McCain give Obama the bipartisan cover he needs to govern in a Unipartisan fashion.

While some care about taxes, some national security, social conservatives care about all of it, including stopping the current trend of devaluing human life.

You may wish for the demise of "social conservatives". You might as well hope the Republican Party goes the way of the Dodo.

Eugene Debbs| 11.17.08 @ 11:35PM

Why keep any of these categories at all?

I'm so liberal on tax and economic policy most of you would probably argue I should be imprisoned or deported on general principles.

However, I'm socially "conservative" when it comes to sexual morality, education, the need for faith to inform public policy, and my general sense that traditions and customs usually communicate a wisdom that isn't always easily ascertained.

The different strands of conservatism strengthen the Republican party. What weakens the party and conservatism is divisive rhetoric, phony patriotism, ignorance of the Muslim world, anti-intellectualism, and this freaky, paranoid, and weak-kneed dread of the so-called main stream media. It's called the marketplace of ideas, folks. Just jump in the ring and start boxing. Never whine.

Thomas| 11.18.08 @ 12:26AM

As you please, Mr. Debbs. After all, you brought this up in the first place.

Let's look at your points.

Re: the mainstream media [hereinafter known as MSM for brevity's sake]. The MSM is largely composed of the traditional major market news papers, radio stations and television broadcast media [ABC, NBC, CBS and their cable offshoots]. Surprisingly, the original cable news network, CNN, was almost a moderate purveyor of news by election day. But the aforementioned were anything but fair or balanced in their coverage, This fact was noted by several media monitoring groups and even by the ombudsman of the times and the Washington Post. Monolithic? Yes. Why? Because national journalism is a liberal society in itself. Few, if any, conservative reporters rise very high in a major national news organization because they simply do not fit in. So yes, major national news organs are very monolithic in their political reporting. Their reporting reveals that they did, in fact, choose to ignore not only his weaknesses, but exactly who he is. The MSM decided that it was more important to elect their version of Barack Obama than to flesh out Barack Obama, the man. Why did they do this? Because they were making History, by reporting on the election of the first black President of the United States. That he was perceived as a liberal only made them more willing to shill for him.

Michelle Obama was largely ignored by the MSM. Reports of her very strange and disturbing remarks were re-hashed only on Fox, CNN and the new internet media. Rev. Wright was also largely ignored by the MSM, particularly after Barack Obama said that he was unaware of the Reverend's sermons and belief system. This after admitting that he had been a member of the church for 20 years and regularly attending and that Rev. Wright had talked with him on several occasions. The Reverend Farrakhan was likewise ignored. The weeks and weeks and weeks of coverage of the Rev. Wright "snippets" to which you refer, came, once again, almost entirely from Fox news, not the MSM.

I have already mentioned Bill Ayres in my previous post. I noticed there was no response to that journalistic issue. He too was brought to the forefront by internet media, by the way.

I can continue to bring these things up, but you would just continue to avoid responding to them and delving into generalities of what I must think and feel. One thing I do not feel is that the MSM attacked Sarah Palin. Most of the attacks came from political operatives, through liberal internet sources [ Trig was her granddaughter, not her daughter, she tried to have her ex-brother-in-law fired, etc.]. The MSM was only to happy to report them with little or no verification. The ones that were picked up by the MSM were largely proven to be false. But, when proven false, no banner headlines blared that information. It was quietly reported as deeply buried as possible in papers and broadcasts, if reported at all. As to your need to continually defend the MSM, that is interesting. You seem to be out of touch with reality. Poll after poll [many run by the MSM outlets themselves] show that the people overwhelmingly feel that the coverage in this election was biased in favor of Obama. Media watchdog groups document the same thing. As I said earlier, even the public ombudsmen for print outlets reported it to be true. Yet, just like the MSM, you blow all of that off.

You can believe what you choose and view reality as you choose. But, a perception of reality is only a perception. Reality is.

Rebecca| 11.18.08 @ 1:16AM

Thomas,

Thanks for the articulate defense of conservatism.

I find that although we live in an advanced technological age, it doesn't seem to have given us superior insights to the consequences of human choices. Instead, it seems to have retarded the ability to understand what personal responsibility and the relationship to liberty means. We seem to demand that every problem we face have a quick fix. Free enterprise endeavors are preferable over government solutions, because the number of proposals are numerous, and the failures go away, unlike government fixes that last forever, not matter how ineffectual.

The idea that the dual concepts of self regulation and limited government were destroyed by social conservatives is absurd in the face of the last years of "conservative" governance. Not all social conservatives want to ban abortion, they may just not want to pay for them or participate in promoting them. Not all social conservatives want the government to step in to force value and belief systems on others, only protect their rights to continue to practice their own. This is especially evident in the issue of gay rights, where the empirical evidence in Canada and Massachusettes has shown gay rights win over religious beliefs.

AveMaria| 11.18.08 @ 8:09AM

"With only two political parties to choose from"

Actually, there are more than two political parties in the US. Unfortunately the D & R party candidates are always promoted & presented as our only option. Conservatives do need to look for a new home. I can appreciate someone wanting to "fix" the GOP-but how much longer do you want to continue being abused? The GOP is not going to change. Too many of the top leaders are so entrenched in political schemes & until they are voted out of office or die - I see no change in the GOP. The other concern also is the longer these top leaders remain in office how will they influence the younger, less "experienced" members. Time to leave the GOP & find a new party. America’s Independent Party.

Crusader| 11.18.08 @ 8:42AM

Frost, thank for tolerantly telling met to go "crusade somewhere else." Hmmm, and it is the "social cons" who are intolerant? Oh, and can you please point out where you were condemned with hellfire for supporting abortion? I read these posts and could not find one instance of it.

Crusader| 11.18.08 @ 8:56AM

Michael L. Hauschild, well what is your definition of "force?" I guess it only applies when a social con asks you if you've accepted Jesus as your Savior? Then he is "forcing" religion on you?

No, the people of CA spoke. They said yes on prop 8. Done, end of story. The problem is kooks on the left can't take losing. They are like little children who are told "no." So they whine and cry and scream and are now trying to find a judge who will single-handidly try and overturn the will of the people of CA. What do you call that if not "forcing" their views on the people of CA?

Let me ask you this, if Prop 8 was a yes/no vote on abortion, and the people said "yes," and a small group of "social cons" went judge-shopping to find as judge to ban abortion, how would you feel about that? You cool with that?

in SoCal| 11.18.08 @ 9:41AM

To Matthew Bright: Young people only voted for Obama because they don't know any better. But they will figure it out. Brush up on your history. The drivel here is coming from you.

sdcougar | 11.18.08 @ 10:01AM

Avitar wrote, "There really is little love lost between the average Republican and John McCain."
This certainly fits with Jim Dobson's fit of mind when he said he would not vote for McCain under any circumstances. (I USED to even support Focus with my money). So now we have someone who voted for partial birth abortion as the new President.
If this is the 'average' Republican, that I see no future for the Republican party. They will be content to self-destruct.

Cyn| 11.18.08 @ 10:09AM

When JMPSWANN's little girl comes home from kindergarten and says, "Dad (or Mom), I wanna marry Alice when I grow up," after this view of what the world should look like comes to pass, will he say proudly: "Oh, how wonderful! I will give you a big wedding. What a great life you will have with a same-sex partner. How will you give me grandchildren? Will you use a turkey baster, or in-vitro? Oh what a wonderful world we live in that WE GET TO DECIDE these things. To HELL WITH GOD. We created him anyway, didn't we?

Grow up and repent.

PolishKnight| 11.18.08 @ 11:24AM

Who cares?

Frost says: "Let me put it to you briefly and simply. It's more than transfats, it's that California congressional clown who wanted to outlaw the Morning After pill"

I'm sure saying this will shock both social conservatives AND snot-nosed libertines, but for the average Joe and Jane Six-pack, abortion rights are not that big a deal in our daily lives. On the other hand, the right to eat a greasy burger or to say "nice outfit" to a woman without a sexual harassment lawsuit is a big deal. Most of this personal police state fascism is coming from the left nowadays. The libertine days of "free love" and the 60's are over, Austin Powers, and you have the hippies to thank!

That said, I am on the side of the leftist fascists when it comes to anti-smoking laws. I am allergic to cigarette smoke and when I politely just try to find out if a restaurant allows smoking, I get the runaround until they say: "There's a smoking "section"." Yeah, thanks. Real useful. Mind if I take a dump in the corner of the room while your customers eat? I'll just use a SECTION!

Eugene Debbs| 11.18.08 @ 11:42AM

Thomas --

The "MSM" is how you learned of Ayers, Wright, and Michelle Obama's comment at all. The idea that Fox (and Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity) are not a part of the "MSM" just because they say they aren't is just nutty. You can't be that innocent.

You say that there aren't that many "conservative" reporters.

Has it ever occured to you that conservatism (as it is now defined) dissuades people from going into the "knowledge" professions? (Knowledge professions like teaching and writing professionally.)

Conservatives complain that there are too few conservatives working in the press, but I think you'd find that isn't because there's some kind of fatwa against hiring young conservative reporters.

Here's another, more important, point:

"Conservative" can mean many things. I think you'd find there are many reporters who are Catholic or evangelical Christians or practicing Jews who share MANY of your social values. But the activity of reporting, of going out and seeking credible, varifiable information about what is going on in the world "liberalizes" them in many ways.

It makes them, for example, far more interested in evidence and issues, far less interested in impressionistic assessments of "character" -- something that dominates right wing radio. It also makes them suspicious of ad hominem attack and the constant, constant use of straw man arguments in conservative "media".

My point is just that public discourses that seem coded "conservative" may really be those that eschew the principles upon which good journalism is founded. This is why I've been arguing that conservatives should drive anti-intellectual buffoonery (such as is found on the Sean Hannity show and no doubt will soon be found on the Sarah Palin show) and the reactionary suspicion of the "press" from their midst.

Eugene Debbs| 11.18.08 @ 11:49AM

Thomas --

Put another way, a weakness in the "conservative" movement is viewing conservatism as a philosophy or a way of life at all.

Cultures "conserve" as a part of their natural self-preservation. Conservatism is a kind of auto-immune system. Another more obvious metaphor would be conservatism as a form of memory.

These are important functions, and as I indicated above, I share some conservative ideas -- particularly regarding the importance of maintaining our ties with the past.

But reporters should NOT be conservative in this sense. They should not be guided by principles or philosophies. America has created the greatest press in the world precisely because American culture reward pragmatism as much as principles. The young reporter, whether he believes in capital gains tax cuts or not, should NOT be patriotic. He should NOT care about the "good of the country" or the importance of maintaining social mores or any of these things.

He should act in competition with other reporters to break stories that hold up during subsequent reporting. That's the standard. It's not even about being "fair and balanced," which suggests there's always two sides to an issue -- which is false.

Since this thread is about "social conservatism," it seems somewhat appropriate to dilate in this fashion about these topics -- but people are free to ignore me if they wish, of course.

Thomas| 11.18.08 @ 1:15PM

Mr. Debbs,

I realize that this is a bit late, but just what the heck are you talking about?

Every instance that I mentioned that was critical of Obama was broken by the internet media or talk radio. As to Fox not being part of the MSM, the old media [the MSM if you will] has said that Fox is not a member of their club. You, can't be that naive.

I am, in fact, a Conservative. I am rather well educated and have spent the most of my life, as put it, "going out and seeking credible, verifiable information about what is going on in the world" . During that time I have dealt with many members of the press. Though some of them were good investigators and reporters, I found the bulk of them to be some of the least well informed people that I have ever met. As to hiring conservative reporters, apparently they neither last very long on the staff nor rise very high within the news organization. I have also taught. Walk into any faculty lounge in the country and state that Barack Obama is a totalitarian socialist and see what happens. No civil discourse will occur. Try to discuss, in a rational manner an anti-abortion stance.

So, please respond to some of my points, rather than drifting off into a Neverland of philosophy. I just proved, by the use of facts, that the MSM, the press as you call them, did not do their job with any degree of responsibility. In the words of this generation, their performance sucked. They were biased in their reporting and heavily filtered the news.

I am going to leave you with this, I defined a Conservative, you did not present anything to dispute this. I repeatedly pointed out glaring instances of the failure of the press to vet a candidate for President, you offered nothing concrete to dispute that. The press was encouraged to "report" the news, not filter it or manufacture it. If the press has an opinion of the news they have an editorial page.

Your opinions appear to be just that, with no grounding in facts or reality. Say hello to Peter and Wendy while you are there. Good bye.

Eugene Debbs| 11.18.08 @ 1:53PM

Thomas,

If you say to a good reporter or a teacher that Obama is a "totalitarian socialist" you will be received with indifference or hostility not because you are a conservative but because your political hyperbole is irresponsible and foolish.

Totalitarian socialism is an awful, inhuman, and tragic evil that destroyed millions of lives.

Obama has shown every sign of being a conventional Democrat. If you believe that means he's setting up Gulags and a secret domestic police force, then fine. I don't know what to do with you -- except recommend you read the newspaper more often.

Conservatives tend to be dismissive of the very kinds of learning and thinking that go into good journalism. This is merely true. I'm NOT saying there are no good conservative thinkers and writers.

It's time you asked yourself whether the universities and editorial rooms are filled with liberals because of some conspiracy or some prejudice against conservatives OR because liberalism encourages and develops the kinds of thinking and reading and writing that goes on in those places.

That's your way from the Utopias of right wing radio to our world.

If you want to to on believing that intellectuals and writers are "really" bigots who are interested only in marginalizing conservatives and not in ideas, fine. But I don't know how conservatives persuade anyone of the strength of their ideas then. Instead, they curl up into a scared little ball and whine that the New York Times is out to get them.

Eugene Debbs| 11.18.08 @ 2:03PM

Other reasons why academics and journalists tend to be liberal (other than the evil conspiracy theories peddled around here) include the broad exposure to ideas in those professions and the greater belief in the powers of language to communicate ideas. (Both of these beliefs were once considered conservative but are now the unique provinces of liberal intellectuals.)

To give a brief example: Rush Limbaugh communicates by means of satire, exaggeration, and hyperbole. This is all well and good and fun. However, it is a form of communication -- now all but ubiquitous among conservatives -- that breeds and rewards cynicism about reasoning and making arguments. All forms of reasoning and argument making are ultimately optimistic: they implicitly suggest the ability of human beings to understand and in part control themselves.

Conservatives (rightly) are suspicious of this belief, preferring, for example, faith in unseen hands of markets or God to human reason and planning.

The differences between liberals and conservatives are discursive rather than moral or philosophical differences. People who trust our ability to understand and improve the world tend to be liberal, people who are suspicious or doubtful about that ability tend to be more conservative.

These beliefs or suspicions condition people's career choices as well as votes. Journalists are interested in a public discourse that is not cynical about the human propensity to articulate, understand, and solve social problems. If you listen to Limbaugh (again, to use him as the most prominent example of a whole movement) he'll flat out say it: belief in improving the world distracts us from what is really important (profit, war, competition, and so on).

That's not Never never land, Thomas. That's just thinking about a problem in a different way.

Eugene Debbs| 11.18.08 @ 2:34PM

It's not dissimilar from the relationship of conservatives to the sciences:

"Conservative" think tanks were given millions to "question" the science linking tobacco to cancer. This was foolish and terrible for human health, and no real scientists participated, but it created a model for conservatives to question any science that threatens to inconvenience the accumulation of profits.

Conservatives then respond to all this by talking about the Garden of Eden, trees making pollution, and faith healing -- and then they are indignant when people who spend their lives studying some scientific topic flee whenever they see a conservative coming. Who wants to argue with a bully who believes the world was created by a deity three thousand years ago when what you're interested in is carbon dating or cosmology?

Halsey Taylor| 11.18.08 @ 3:08PM

My pick for scapegoat is Newt Gingerich.
His lack of self-control of his personal life back in the early 90's led to easy charges of hypocrisy. Added to that was the appearance of impropriety of the funding of his college course, and charges of corruption. These led to his stepping-down as Speaker of the House.
The loss of his strong, excellent leadership left a vacuum that has never been effectively filled. The leadership first of DeLay and then of Boehner has been abysmal. House Republicans forgot who they were and began acting like Democrats, providing no check on Bush's spending and no counsel on his Mid East strategies.
The brilliance of Newt's 'Contract with America' was followed by the 'Breach of Contract with America'.

Thomas| 11.18.08 @ 3:17PM

Mr. Debbs,

You have finally convinced me of the truth of your perception. It is ridiculous to even attempt to discuss anything rationally with you, because your entire hyperbole is irresponsible and foolish and therefor unworthy of further discussion.

Good day, sir.

T| 11.18.08 @ 4:33PM

Wow republicans just DON'T get it! I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday and bible study every Wednesday. I actually teach teenagers bible study and I was/am an AVID Obama supporter. Why? Because I was disgusted by the fear and hate talk of the Republicans. And you know what REALLY did it for me...Sarah Palin. She was sickening. When she went into small, rural, all-white areas and said, "You all are the real Americans, you all are Pro-American." I was disgusted. The kids I teach in bible-study are all African-Americans, they love the Lord, they believe they have been called to do something special in this world and the Vice-Presidential candidate tells them that they are not "real" Americans.
I also did not like how the republicans disrepected muslim Americans. Now I love Jesus, I believe in him BUT I also respect others that have a different religion, that is what America is all about. So when the republicans would use this "Obama is a muslim" foolishness and use his middle name in a nasty, divisive way, it made me sick.
I found the social conservatives more than any other part of the republican party to be THE most hypocritical. They were the most divisive and quite frankly racist. So that is why you all lost and will continue to lose!

Timmy Tynes| 11.18.08 @ 8:25PM

THOMAS; You are well informed, articulate, unapolegetic, and you have truth on your side. (Does that make me sound like a religious fanatic?). I have been hoping for a long time that some [organizational] voice would rise above the din. Though I daresay you handle yourself without flaw in this forum, perhaps for some there is a time to leave the comfort of the anonymous to heed a greater call?
For too long 'We, the People' have been swayed by this wind and that only to be left where we were at the start. Truth however is on its own course. A plant will grow toward the sun. An appleseed will only grow into an apple tree. Humans only reproduce humans, etc. A catalyst sir, a spark. Remove the smoke from the room, perhaps then they will see they've been fanning the flames all along; indeed consider.

Eugene Debbs| 11.18.08 @ 10:35PM

Timmy Tynes --

Lovely prose poem to Thomas you've posted.

Made me think of Samuel Butler (as reading conservative blogs often does):

"Even a potato, in its low cellar, possesses a sort of low cunning as it reaches up towards the light."

Truth indeed shown to be on its own course!

Pam| 11.18.08 @ 10:37PM

Here is why Obama got the youth vote. They tell you why in this short video.

www.whyobamagotelected.com

Linda| 11.19.08 @ 9:41AM

btenney: Is being a slut worse than being a murderer?

Dave Lincoln| 11.22.08 @ 8:57AM

"Conservatives (rightly) are suspicious of this belief, preferring, for example, faith in unseen hands of markets ....."

OK, that's it. That's all we needed to hear to know you are indeed a Commie like your namesake.

At least you got it out in the open.

Thomas (Conservative) - 1
Debbs (Communist) - 0

Top Cat| 11.22.08 @ 4:45PM

Considering all the braying over religious and social conservatives 'taking over,' we're just taking back the party that Ronald Reagan took back from the same 'moderate' ilk over 25 years ago.

Here's some Republican History 101: Reagan wrestled the GOP from the power-brokers of his day; the Rockefellers, Scrantons, Romneys, and Nixons, and returned the party to its fiscal AND social conservative roots. However, since Reagan, we've had fiscal and social lip-service.

Remove conservatism from the GOP and you're left with RINOs ... and if the RINOs were honest with themselves and others, if they had any courage of conviction at all, they'd either go back across the aisle to their Democratic comrades, or just fade away.

Pingback| 6.24.09 @ 3:12PM

ADF Alliance Alert » “Social Conservatives as Scapegoats” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Tag Archive All Posts Subscriptions Donate Powered By: Google Wordpress Last Updated: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:41 AM PDT “Social Conservatives as Scapegoats” G. Tracy Mehan, III, writing in The American Spectator: To listen to some Republicans, not to mention, the braying of media outlets such as MSNBC, and even, here and there, a few economic libertarians, you would think that…

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|29 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|70 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|17 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 9:13PM

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?