The American Spectator

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 7:27AM

Quin, what bothers most of us that are more libertarian leaning Republicans, is that we believe that we are TRUE CONSERVATIVES. We believe in limited government, a non-interventionalist foreign policy, and individual responsibility. It is an anathema to us that government should control our moral lives more than it must. It wasn't social-conservatives alone that made the Reagan revolution work, it was so-cons, so called moderates, and conservative Democrats. It is a fallacy to believe that YOUR VERSION of conservatism alone is enough to win an election.

Furthermore, attached you ideology is the notion that those of us who want to fight for our beliefs that differ from yours, are somehow not as patriotic. Let me give you some advice -- we are just as patriotic because this is our country, too.

The problem with giving so-cons so much power in the Republican party, is that those views act as veto power in picking candidates. It also makes the party one of belief rather than one of reason which is driving away young people and minorities -- both growing segments of the population.

As the Republican party gets smaller -- which it has been doing -- and the choice of anti-intelligence candidates becomes greater along with the debasement of education, more socially moderate people will become independents and vote for Democrats. For people like me, that means no good choices. Either vote for an incompetent, anti-intellectual who believes in limited government or a centrist leaning Democrat.

REPUBLICANS CANNOT WIN WITHOUT LIBERTARIAN LEANING REPUBLICANS. The conservative message will not improve because the reality is that Republicans are a weakly bound group because of the intolerance that both you show in your post and that exists in so-cons in general. We can certainly win on the conservative basics of limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility -- those things that bind us together. We will lose by adding the very divisive social agenda to that mix.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 8:20AM

Bob nailed it (above), 'specially with that last sentence -- and I say that objectively, constructively, not as a Libertarian type, really!
That out-of-control spending and humungous government growth is, methinks, a couple tads more important than stem-cells or gay crap. The borders and illegal (NOT "undocumented") aliens are 'way more critical than the anti-Choice position that the intolerant "pro-life" crowd want to cram down our collective throats - - that's enlarging government!
Yup, as long as there are sanctimonious creeps like that California congressman trying to outlaw the Morning After pill, you betcha, I'll be running in a wholly different direction - - not toward the demented Democrat left, but as distant from the Pat Robertson types as Barry Lynn; Jimmy Swaggart as Jesse Jackson; that very scary TV evangelist woman with the pink hair 'n Al Sharpton. In my view, they're all despicable.
Yeah, Bob's right, and no pontificating by the self-appointed Keepers-of-Morality will change that sorry situation, for sure!

frost| 12.11.08 @ 8:35AM

Oh, to illustrate my point maybe a bit better, I sure couldn't vote for Bush-the-Elder, nor a number of other candidates -- so, on principle, I wrote in names like Dick Lamm, Paul Tsongas, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and even Daniel Patrick Moynahan. It was the quality of individual, not some supercilious "position." Held my nose and voted McCain, a lousy choice! I really wanted to write-in John Bolton, but felt I had to go against the creepy Marxist, even living in Texas...

blackelkspeaks| 12.11.08 @ 9:06AM

Both Bob and Frost are deluded. Hillyer makes a very good case for "Conservatism", as he defines it.

As a former Libertarian Party member (over thirty years ago) I used to have an aversion to Republicans, too, mostly because of Nixon (the war-monger and tax hiker who killed Bretton Woods and instituted wage/price controls) . That didn't last long; especially after I lived through the Carter years. I became a Republican in support of Reagan and voted Republican thereafter. But, having once been a Libertarian Party member and attending numerous meetings with like-minded people, both young and old, I can attest to the definition of Libertarians as being "joint-smoking Conservatives". Even then, though, I recognized that the freedom-loving adults I congregated with who hated the welfare-warfare state had good arguments to make about how abortion laws abrogated the Constitution, gay "rights" was a perversion of the law, and fiat money was ruining this country's economy. I learned that basing my vote on the ability to smoke a joint, or to have an abortion, or to be a sheltered atheist, or any other thing that might have been hated by "social conservatives", was not worth destroying our republican form of government over. What was important was adherence to the Constitution. I also learned that my belief in the paramount necessity of adherence to the Constitution was anathema to any and all members of the Jackass Party.

It is unbelievable to me that young people today have all morphed into Hussein-supporting communists. What is it with young people today and their aversion to true liberty? When I was a kid, there was no way I was ever going to support a commie member of the Jackass Party, under any circumstances. Kids today are pathetic twits who are so freaked about getting a good grade at school that they willingly submit to the MSM propaganda meme of "being cool" and blithely kiss the asses of their professors who back Hussein and every other crook and gangster that advocates totalitarian dictatorship and collectivism. They have no courage, gumption, or a lick of sense. In fact, I'd rather not have any flake who would ever even THINK about giving bullets to my enemy (i.e. voting for any member of the Jackass Party for any reason whatsoever) in my foxhole.

Mary| 12.11.08 @ 9:06AM

Forget it.

Wait. What's that? Oh, I see…. The usual suspects protest that they have our best interests at heart. They say their advice is for our own good, because if we want to win in this brave new political world, we'll need to adjust. Adjust our thinking. Adjust our beliefs. Adjust our values.

No way.

[...]

Therefore, all of this supposedly wise tactical advice to the effect that we should abandon, or significantly play down, any of the main principles that animate us is neither wise nor tactically clever, nor even realistic. It assumes that conservatives could be successful acting as if we're something that we're not. But in the long run, inauthenticity never works. Integrity is more powerful.

This leads us back to the groups having the constructive discussions despite the usual suspects in the establishment media. The conversations are about how to persuade more people that our principles are worthy ones and that, if implemented, those principles will provide the form of government best able to maintain a prosperous, just, and fundamentally decent society.

Excellent!

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 9:24AM

The true delusion is believing that one religion is both right and should rule based on a meritocracy. There is nothing wrong with being Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or even being an atheist. The bigotry in thinking that there is something wrong with the name "Hussein" is NOT a fundamental belief in our society, but is paramount in the so-con arguments. Quin's beliefs may be based upon his religion, but there is no reason the rest of us need believe as he does. Parker, Will, Frum, Brooks, Powell all have it right. Quin and the intolerants who blog here limit true conservativism be redefining it in their own Christian-specific religious image.

Todd Showalter| 12.11.08 @ 9:24AM

Bob,
What exactly are you suggesting when you suggest that Republicans lose the so-called "very divisive" social agenda? Am I to take from this that you believe we should just roll over on gay marriage and abortion on demand under any circumstance like favored by Obama? You seem to believe that if we just throw out religious beliefs and "intolerance" as defined by you, Republicans will do better because than we can have the all-important atheist and secular vote.

Am I right to believe you are an atheist Bob or at least anti-religious? I have run into a number of proud atheist in my time and find them to be smug and condescending in thinking they are so much smarter than people that believe in God and those that believe they will be held accountable for their actions after this life. As if believing in a Supreme Being automatically makes someone "anti-intellectual" because it seems so obvious to the self-satisfied atheist that no God can exist. God requires faith so those who require the requisite evidence for his existence will never believe and frankly I think most of them don't want to believe because they don't want to have to be accountable for the life they led.

I had to laugh reading your first sentence claiming to be a true conservative when I know from your comments you are anything but a supporter of limited government. The author states the principles of conservatism very well in this paragraph, "Those are some of our principles. Programmatically, to put those principles into action, we believe in low and fair taxation, in government limited in its ends and size, in balanced budgets, in a strong but not bloated military, in parental/family choice and control in education, in strong police forces and court systems under strict civilian elected authority, in free enterprise within a system of readily understandable rules, in the sanctity of contracts, in judges with self-restraint and respect for the actual text of our Constitution and laws, and in sound money.

I don't see any instance of the author discussing social conservatism in the article so I find it amusing you make your attack on that but I am guessing you did not read very closely if you read it at all. Since you addressed it to the author, you might want to read the article before you go on your line of attack or no one will take you seriously. If fact, someone might take you for an anti-intellectual that you rail against.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 9:30AM

In fact I should say of course

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 9:36AM

Todd -- I don't believe that abortion or gay marriage should be part of any real conservative agenda because their support is religious in nature. What makes so-cons "anti-intellectual" is not that they are religious, but that they don't support, in general, highly educated candidates and eschew Ivy League educations. Positions, as in abortion and gay marriage, are based upon belief rather than provable reason.

Quin did indeed make the argument for social conservatism. Whenever you argue for the inclusion of "Judeo-Christian" principles, you are making that argument. It is your anti-intellectual orientation that allows you to come to any other conclusion.

We actually believe in may of the same principles of secular governance. It is inconsistent to talk about "choice" in education and not "choice" in abortion or gay marriage. Again, you are being intellectually inconsistent based on your religious beliefs.

If you don't see the social conservative position in Quin's article, then while you may have read it, you didn't comprehend its meaning. What else does "Oogedy-Boogedy" refer to?????

LEN| 12.11.08 @ 9:40AM

Just a comment on the low taxes; as one who considers himself a conservative, I don't see low taxes as something that at all should be even mentioned. Why? The taxes should be as much as necessary but that being said if the government stays within it's Constitutional bounds they will automatically stay low. Imagine no Medicaid, no Department of Education, no Corporate Welfare, no Social Security, etc, none of which is provided for in the Constitution, thus is illegal, and makes for an illegitimate government. I will continue to point this out in any comment I post that the Conservative movement must be the movement of the Constitution , and it galls me to continue hearing "Consevatives" arguing from any other foundation.

John| 12.11.08 @ 9:41AM

Mr. Hillyer has it all Right, so to speak.

The "moderates" submitting comments above are more accurately called "watered-down conservatives". We need look no further back than last month to find proof that this viewpoint cannot win an election. McCain failed to articulate the conservative message the majority of Americans want to hear.

No, I don't believe that I am more patriotic than you. Of course we love this country, no more no less. I will not, however subscribe to "choice" (murder), more "social programs" (government control), "defense spending cuts" (weakening our military), or any other "moderate" agenda in a failed attempt to win an election. As the honorable Congressman Ted Poe says, "and that's just the way it is"!

J David| 12.11.08 @ 9:44AM

There will be NO "Republican Party" without the MORAL IMPERATIVE that drove its creation. One party represents enslavement to socialism, the destruction of MORALITY in the American Judeo-Christian heritage, and the individual liberties that heritage and its enshrinement in the Constitution. That party has no morality, unless it is a negative one.
The GOP was founded on giving an enslaved people human rights. I laugh,between groans, at the [insert insulting descriptive here]s that believe any human act toward the positive takes place in a vacuum divorced from all "morality", and the active support of principled behavior(principled being the EXACT OPPOSITE of pragmatic), that ONLY takes place from the drive of a moral Weltanshcauung, is somehow a negative for the GOP.
There will BE NO Republican Party without social/religious conservatives(whom the Bible also teaches thrift and personal responsibility and love). It WILL cease to exist, because those people amount to 34-40% of its most faithful voting base. The GOP is the *ideals* party and cannot exist on pragmatic amorality(socialism).
All those calling themselves *conservative* but think that such a creature exists apart from a MORAL Weltanshcauung are deluded New Age visualizers at best, or blatant deceivers, more likely. There is no neutral ground there, and there will be no coming to terms with the turncoats to true conservatism. Juan Amnesty McVain lost because he was not a conservative, not because he wasn't liberal enough, and it only gets worse for the GOP from here on, if they do not REPENT, and turn back to the gospel of Reagan.

blackelkspeaks| 12.11.08 @ 9:50AM

Bob wrote:
"Todd -- I don't believe that abortion or gay marriage should be part of any real conservative agenda because their support is religious in nature. What makes so-cons "anti-intellectual" is not that they are religious, but that they don't support, in general, highly educated candidates and eschew Ivy League educations. Positions, as in abortion and gay marriage, are based upon belief rather than provable reason. "

I've got to throw the bullshit flag down on this nonsense. I'm not a "so-con" (whatever the heck that is) but the statement that being anti-abortion or anti-"gay" marriage is "based upon belief rather than provable reason" is outright laughable. It is just such preposterous bullshit as this that makes me (a holder of two degrees in philosophy) run from those who tout their intellectual superiority as being "highly-educated" and having "Ivy-league educations" like they have the plague. It is the fatuous belief of the "highly-educated elites" in the indisputable validity of their prejudices and, yes, beliefs, that will lead as all straight to hell.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 9:50AM

Kinda proves-the-point. Haven't smoked a joint in 32 years, but read and accepted Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of A Conservative" when it came out. He was ( by today's daffynition) more of a Libertarian than a Republican; Conservatives then didn't try to manipulate peoples' lives, and wanted the stupid government to stay OUT of controlling others. Ol' Barry was pro-choice -- on principle.
Sure, I voted for Reagan, but the others have been found lacking. Very!
And, oh, Mary's top paragraph was fun too....

Anya| 12.11.08 @ 9:55AM

Dear Quin,
Thank you for writing this great article. I think you are absolutely right on the issues you address. My response below is to the previous commentors. It was social conservatives who voted with conviction based upon principles coming out in full force that propelled Reagan to victory. Jerry Falwell' s Moral Majority spread like "wild fire" across the small and big churches in this country educating the younger generation on the biblical mandate to responsible citizenship, America's Christian Heritage and the need to take the knowledge of those principles to the polls and vote for the most Conservative candidate we could find.
Whether the libertarian leaning Republicans or Democratic Consevatives like it or agree, it is factual truth.
Reason if sound, is based upon principles one believes to be true. I cannot separate my reason from my beliefs. I would be a divided, double minded person if I tried to live that way.
It is also true that a good number of those Christian Conservatives did not vote Repubilcan this past election due to disgust and disappointment with the conduct of Republicans, the lack of a truly viable conservative candidate, or they voted for Obama due to race. Sarah Palin being the exception here.
If Consevatism, which includes social principles such as the constitutional right to life even for human babies in the womb, is not understood and adhered to by enough voters, we will continue this dismal slide into the abyss of liberal Socialism, fiscally and culturally.
America was a freer, better place prior to the sexual revolution of the 60's and all of the social consequences that that has entailed.
Conservative principles WORK every time they are tried and are far more conducive to a moral, prosperous society. We only need to look to our history as a nation to see this is true. We have strayed far from the principles that defined America and her greatness. May we have the courage, conviction and ability to educate the younger generations as to why Conservative principles are in their best interest.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 9:55AM

Oh, one more quicky -- Todd and Black --- it's all a question of priorities. Most of the "social conservatives" come across as so ultra-sanctimonious it's painful. Very.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 9:58AM

Anya -- please read Conscience of A Conservative and you may possibly learn something about what conservatism USED TO mean.......
Obviously, things have been twisted since - a lot.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 10:12AM

Bob,
Whether you like it or not, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and I believe that is a very good thing and should stay that way. Yes, there is a mention about social conservatism and the obnoxious Kathleen Parker (why should anyone give a damn what she thinks really?) so I will concede that point. The authors point is that principles are principles for a reason and to abandon principles for political advantage will hurt the party and more importantly the country.

Now I think it is interesting that you claim to support Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal when they are very religious and certainly believe in the principles of the Judeo-Christian beliefs this country was founded on. I guess going to Ivy League schools makes up for that apparently but it seems intellectually inconsistent to me.

You say that I am intellectual inconsistent because I believe in school choice but I don't believe in the choice to kill unborn babies as sanctioned by the state or for gay marriage. I believe comparing school choice and the choice to abort a child is a good example of moral equivalence but if there is no God than there is no right or wrong so that is not a problem for you. As for gay marriage, no society in human history has ever sanctioned marriage between gender and there is a good reason for that because marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation block for society since the creation of man. Your argument that Republicans agreeing with gay marriage looks to me to be wrong headed as it has failed every time at the ballot box. But even if it was supported by a majority, we would not support it because it is against our Judeo-Christian principles. Call us bigoted and anti-intellectual all you want but we will stand by our principles.

J David| 12.11.08 @ 10:22AM

I laugh in derision at all of the smarter-than- everyone-else-in-the-room pseudo-intellectual pseudo-conservatives that think they can bully others out of their religious/moral beliefs/ideals informing their political choices. For such smarties, they are morally retarded, making them, in turn POLITICALLY retarded! If that is "intellectual", making enemies of any possible allies, and making "friends" of the people who wish conservatism to DIE, then "intellectual"/ "rational" must equal "stupid fool"/morally retarded.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 10:34AM

blackelk -- It isn't "intellectual superiority" (although you seem to feel intellectual inferiority) that concerns me. It is that the functional base for for a position on abortion or gay marriage is found in particular religious precepts. Without those precepts (which are different for different religions), you can't make an argument. The definition of "marriage" has changed from biblical times where it was a chattel and polygamy was lawful, to recent times when blacks could not marry whites, to now. There are some Christian religions that recognize gay marriage. To make that statement without secular support is to deem it religious in nature. I see you've forgotten what you learned about philosophy in school to make your argument and just denigrated it into a "go to hell" rejoinder. It somehow makes me question whether you do have any degrees in philosophy.

Todd -- the term "Judeo-Christian" didn't even exist at the founding of our country and didn't get into popular use until the early 1900's. There were religious founders and non-religious founders. The problem is that the founders of this country were almost entirely Christians. Freedom of religion had a different meaning then than it has now. Was everything right at the founding? Could women vote? Should blacks have been counted as 3/5ths of a person? You make the assumption that some things were right and some were wrong. We just differ on which ones those are, not that the founding of our country was infallible.

The statement of yours proves my point:

"But even if it was supported by a majority, we would not support it because it is against our Judeo-Christian principles."

This just proves that YOUR religion is a major component of how you see politics -- thereby proving my point and putting your religion above all others.

The reason I like Romney and Jindal is that they have shown in their governance an ability NOT to force their religious opinions down the throats of the rest of us, and are both highly educated, knowledgeable, and competent, unlike McCain and Palin.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 10:41AM

J David -- you make the assumption that not forcing my religious beliefs on other is immoral. Well, my morality says that it is not my place to force my beliefs on you. Yes, I wish that YOUR definition of conservatism -- one that includes religion -- will die. On the other hand, I would like TRUE conservatism to live. If we can have a party that adheres to the basic tenets of secular conservatism that both of us agree to, then we will have a strong party. If you continue to force your religion down my throat, I can only support Republican candidates that have the other qualities of intelligence, knowledge, and education on the belief that they are too smart to do the same.

Quin Hillyer| 12.11.08 @ 10:42AM

Bob,
Geez, I am continually amazed at how people like you look for insults where none exist. There is not a single word of intolerance for other beliefs -- much less a questioning of patriotism -- in my column. But the deny the absolute factual accuracy of this phrase, "liberty under law that is rooted in the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical tradition," is to be utterly deluded. That is not a specifically Christian statement; it is a cultural statement that is incredibly INCLUSIVE, not exclusive. Read M. Stanton Evans' "The Theme is Freedom." Nowhere did I say that one must be a Christian (or a Jew) to be conservative, but only that the ethical and moral underpinnings of our system of liberty under law grew from the Judeo-Christian tradition. That's not a faith statement; it's a widely accepted fact.
Get a grip.

Michael Roush| 12.11.08 @ 10:51AM

Mr. Quin's article and the above commentary are genuinely interesting. Mr. Quin writes: "Somewhere along the line, conservatism (as understood in the modern context; although more rightly called "classical liberalism") lost a significant amount of its political salability." First, I would like to thank Mr. Quin for acknowledging the role of classical LIBERALISM in the development of our political philosophy (Declaration of Independence) and our government (U.S. Constitution). I would remind everyone that CONSERVATIVES at the time opposed both. It was not the conservative who fought slavery, who fought for the rights of women and who opposed the horrors created by a laissez- faire economic system. Conservatives fought for the status quo.

J David| 12.11.08 @ 11:01AM

There is no "secular conservatism" anywhere in the world, nor has there ever been, that existed more than a few brief moments of history. 90+% of ALL people have a god, in some form, and for that god to be a "god" it has to have a PRIMARY influence. For any vain God-hating self-worshiper to believe that the vast bulk of ALL HUMANITY should cease the worship and thus influence of their personal Deity, much less the conservatives of America, whose God is enshrined even in legal tender, and mentioned on most important historic documents, is a level of puffed-up foolish SELF- WORSHIPER that, like Quin says, is utterly delusional. Not even a ration being able to reason with other sane people, and utterly unable to grasp the simplest logic. The FAILURE, repeatedly, of Communism, that is secular humanism at its very core, and enforces its atheism with guns and prisons, is the example of purely secular gov't, and that is ALWAYS where it ends up, no exceptions. Anarchy is the other end of secular humanism, but that won't even lend support to any gov't, and is the effective end of any "civilization".

J David| 12.11.08 @ 11:05AM

"The FOOL has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". (Pr0verbs 14:1)

There is no point in even conversing with fools...

blackelkspeaks| 12.11.08 @ 11:16AM

Bob wrote:
"blackelk -- It isn't "intellectual superiority" (although you seem to feel intellectual inferiority) that concerns me. It is that the functional base for for a position on abortion or gay marriage is found in particular religious precepts. Without those precepts (which are different for different religions), you can't make an argument. The definition of "marriage" has changed from biblical times where it was a chattel and polygamy was lawful, to recent times when blacks could not marry whites, to now. There are some Christian religions that recognize gay marriage. To make that statement without secular support is to deem it religious in nature. I see you've forgotten what you learned about philosophy in school to make your argument and just denigrated it into a "go to hell" rejoinder. It somehow makes me question whether you do have any degrees in philosophy. "

I'm not sure, exactly, what your argument intends to convey. I think it might be some epistemological position like "All knowledge is justified belief." This would explain why you continue to denigrate the "so-con" belief that "gay marriage" is not legitimate, but assert that it could be considered legitimize by other's secular or religious beliefs that maintain otherwise. Is this so?

If you accept that "All knowledge is justified belief", then the intellectual endeavor must be to determine what beliefs are, indeed, justified. Reason alone, though a powerful aid in this endeavor, will not lead you to an indisputable conclusion. Only faith can buttress any ultimate claim to truth. The "so-cons" know this. Their positions are at least intellectually consistent. Why imply that their approach is tyrannical?

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 11:16AM

Quin, let me be specific. You made this statement:

"Winning without the principles is an oxymoron."

And this:

"but it's the winning that must be in service of the principles, not vice versa"

These statements on the face say nothing about "patriotism", but they do imply that if I don't agree with your principles I am not as "right" or as patriotic as you. YOU would not see that as questioning my patriotism, but I clearly see it that way.

You say this:

"Nowhere did I say that one must be a Christian (or a Jew) to be conservative, but only that the ethical and moral underpinnings of our system of liberty under law grew from the Judeo-Christian tradition. That's not a faith statement; it's a widely accepted fact."

So where does this "logic" lead? It leads to the assumption that even if things have changed, we should still base our society on those religious principles. I don't adhere to that logic. Just because slavery was acceptable at the start of our country, does not mean that it is acceptable now.

Quin, it isn't what you've said that I object to, it is where it leads in your conclusions. Making inferences implicitly and then saying you didn't make them explicitly is really not being wholly truthful.

You inferred that since our country was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles, it should remain that way. You inferred that if we didn't agree with you that we were just voting to win -- and that infers a lack of patriotism.

I understand you don't see it that way, but then you are surrounded by like minded associates and wouldn't. It's like only watching Fox News or MSNBC and believing that you are getting the right information.

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 11:21AM

Claiming a pro-life stance is purely religious is about as anti-intellectual as you can get. Might as well do away with all murder laws if that's the case.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 11:31AM

Thanks for the comment Quin and for making it clear that once again Bob is off the mark with his fallacious arguments. His denial of the Judeo-Christian tradition and its inclusiveness that this great Country was founded on shows his ignorance of our history and tradition and his prejudice against religion in general.

As J David points out, there is no example of "secular conservatism" in the world. I don't really care if someone wants to deny the existence of God because people are free to worship how they please in this country or not worship at all. Thankfully, most people in this country still believe in God because we have seen the evidence of what happens to a society that denies the existence of God and is not a pretty sight to behold. The French Revolution is an excellent example of what happens when a society denies God and worships secular reason along with the evils of the Communist movement. Thank God indeed.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 11:34AM

blackelk -- great and intelligent response. I take back what I said about your background, your logic is both thoughtful and consistent.

But you asked this question:

"Why imply that their approach is tyrannical?"

Tyranny is a relative term. If you agree with the approach, then it is not tyranny. If you don't have a choice and disagree with it, then it is tyranny. In our political system, we only have a true choice of two political parties. We can vote for a third party, but we know it is a meaningless vote as that candidate could never be elected. For those of us who are libertarian socially and conservative in all other regards, a tyranny exists. It exists because so-cons have veto power in the primaries. They/you tend to choose people who are firstly social conservatives, and secondly conservatives in other respects. Being so-con trumps being educated or competent. The only other vote I have is Democrat. So if the Republicans don't offer an intelligent, knowledgeable, competent person, I must vote the other way since I at least agree with the other side on social issues.

However, if the Republican party concentrates on the secular, rather than social issues and promotes educated, intelligent and competent candidates, my vote is there. That's why I supported Romney and why I can never support Palin.

I do believe government should be secular and logic plays an important role. Competence seems to be more important than ideology historically since it seems that all bright people end up in similar places -- mostly in the middle of the spectrum.

I do see no problem with gay marriage since the origins of marriage had more to do with property rights than sacraments. In fact, it wasn't until the 1200's that it became a sacrament. I am also very sensitive to be open to all religions. All you have to do is look at the mentions of "Hussein" on this site to see the bigotry.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 11:40AM

So Crusader, do you believe that ALL abortions should be outlawed? That is a particular religious belief -- or are you not aware of the "ensoulment" arguments? There is a convergence with secular thought regarding viability which is why the law is written as it is.

Thomas| 12.11.08 @ 11:40AM

I only have a minute, so I'll make this short.

There are simply too many definitions of what a Conservative is. It seems that anyone who does not consider themselves a Liberal considers themselves a Conservative. And that is what you are all fighting about here; who gets to be called a Conservative.

As for social values, what is wrong with demanding honesty, courtesy, compassion, a positive work ethic, and protection of the weak and elderly? If you can find that in a humanist philosophy, that is fine. If you need to adhere to a religious philosophy for the same things, then that too is alright.

I have lived in both a small town where the majority of the people were regular church going folk and was never ostracized, pilloried or ridden out of town on a rail for not being a regular attendee at services. I now live in a large metropolitan area [for the moment] and have friends and acquaintances of many faiths, some of whom are very religious, lead moral lives and attend services regularly. None have treated me as a lower class citizen. None actively attempt to get me to attend services with them. And all of them I am proud to call my friends. I also have a number of friends that are of indeterminate religious leanings and a few that are agnostic or atheist. Their religious ideas are unimportant to me, for they too, live moral lives. It is the ideal on secular behavior that draw us together, not religious beliefs.

Now, you may be asking yourself what is the point of this rambling passage? Simply that religious belief systems are of secondary importance to most people. Their views on societal practices are much more important. That is why you have differences of opinion among practitioners of the same religion, in this country. Within Judaism, for example, you find very liberal people and very conservative people. The same in Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.

So do not get hung up on religious beliefs in defining Conservatives. You'll only end up confusing the issue. And that does no one any good.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 11:47AM

The point has been proven (if that's the word) again and again. It's the gross intolerance of most "religious right" types that frost the hell out of me, and we've all read a bunch of aforementioned opinions again suggesting that (1) if you're not anti-abortion or (2) anti-gay stuff, or (3) any of the other hard-line crap, you don't qualify as a "conservative" (by their definition).
So, okay, I'm NOT a "conservative" in their restrictive and narrow view -- but I sure DO qualify according to Barry's book, and that holds a lot more value than the neo-conservative opinions. Honest to Murgatroid, you pseudo-religious types scare me -- (and maybe you genuinely religious types too) -- you'd probably add another cabinet position to oversee that no one disagrees with YOUR priorities. Face it, Barry Goldwater, usually acknowledged as the Father of the Modern Conservative Movement (by many of the more knowledgeable folk) would not qualify as a conservative, according to TODAY'S critics -- he'd be a Libertarian, where I'm guessing I'll vote in the future.
That those highly opinionated (Social) "conservatives" of today would presume to chastise we "unwashed" who fail to toe-the-line in their favorite topics -- that's nauseating. You've chased me away -- and, if you'll pardon the vernacular, your priorities suck. Really!
In my 74+ years, I don't think I've EVER come across a more intolerant bunch than today's self-proclaimed Social Conservatives. I quit.

Michael Roush| 12.11.08 @ 11:55AM

Bob,
You said that if the Republican Party would promote educated, intelligent and competent candidates, you would vote Republican. Many may well join you. In an earlier part of this conversation, someone wrote about the anti-intellectual geist in the Republican Party. I was reminded of Senator Roman Hruska's comment during the Carswell nomination hearings: "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos." This may be an enduring reaction to the follies of "the best and the brightest" during the Kennedy and Johnson years, but it is also responsible, in part, for the election of George W. Bush, the candidacy of Sarah Palin and the elevation of Joe the Plumber as someone whose opinions are worthy of being seriously entertained. I have long believed that the Republican and conservative elites have understood and exploited this anti-intellectualism to their benefit.

Mark| 12.11.08 @ 12:22PM

Let me see if I have this right? According to some of the comments made against Bob, you can have no values save one, namely fiscal responsibility, and still be a Conservative? Hmm? Interesting. The idea of government getting its power from the people came from the Romans, er Greeks, er Muslims, er, Buddists, right? They believed in a single creator, right, who gave human beings (PC here) life and all said humans are equal before his justice. Oh, they didn't, that idea came from those Western thinkers who lapped up that clap trap from Christianity and Judism. Come on. Be honest. Being a good money manager isn't Conservatism. It may be part of being conservative, but it sure as heck isn't Conservatism.

Mark

Jeremy Jester| 12.11.08 @ 12:24PM

Obviously, morality cannot be legislated and a conservative (desiring greater liberty) cannot condone such. However, morality and values can be promoted and encouraged outside of the legislative process. Certainly conservatism is more than mere politics. However, in today's culture of boundless victim-hood, instant insult, and grievance on demand telling someone that they are acting in an immoral fashion is akin to carrying a lit stick of dynamite with a very short fuse in your hip pocket.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 12:39PM

Mark, at the beginning of this country, all humans were NOT equal -- and that was based on "Judeo-Christian" principles. The words in the Constitution dealt primarily with white men. The Greeks and Romans did have elements of governance we use today. Ancient Christians and Jews had local agrarian societies. The priests and popes certainly had power over the people even just a few centuries ago so true equality was never part religious life.

Conservative secular principles do go beyond fiscal conservatism, they extend to a strong military, individual freedoms, free enterprise, and limited government. The social conservative aspect is a johnny come lately to the party.

To imply these conservative principles boil down to just fiscal responsibility is the real "clap-trap"

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 12:40PM

Bob,
Let me make this point when it comes to abortion. First, I don't think the author implies that being a conservative means you have to believe abortion should be outlawed, just that there should be reasonable limits. Can you really make much of a difference between having an abortion in the 6 or 7 month or killing a newborn premature baby? That is what I mean by abortion on demand, if there are no limits than the sanctity of life is devalued greatly. Of course I believe abortion outside of rare circumstances is an affront to God and anyone that has one or involved in one will have to answer to God but completely outlawing abortion will not work in this society. Hence, the need for reasonable limits and doing what we can to limit the need for abortions. I believe it does a grave disservice to let woman believe they can have abortion with no consequences and as a form of birth control. I think there is little doubt that millions of lives have been scarred forever by thinking abortion was no big deal but learned differently after the fact. I won't get into exactly what those reasonable limits should be right now but to try to say that pro-life conservatives are intolerant is an unfair accusation because we happen to believe in the sanctity of life.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 12:55PM

Todd: Thanks to you and the others for (again!) proving my point. With priorities like that very limited scope, it's beyond hideous.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 12:55PM

Todd, you make a reasonable point. I think that reasonable restrictions on abortion make absolute sense. But the so-con agenda is to stop all abortions, and when it goes to that extent it goes beyond reason to being religious in nature. Thus, imposing that on all of us is being intolerant. You seem to hold a reasonable position. The other aspect of this debate is abstinence only education which I would strongly object to.

But the real problem here is that so-cons would rather make the ideological argument law rather than work with all of us to reduce the number of abortions through means that work for differing populations. If abstinence works -- use it. If contraception and sex education works -- use it. If it reduces abortion, then it should be good for all of us, right?

The problem is that we can't get so-cons to agree to a universal approach with compromise on all sides. That is the definition of intolerance.

Besides, I can think of very few people who don't believe in the sanctity of life whether they are religious or not. That's why I dislike that phrase -- it is another code word for religion -- and that's exactly how you've used it.

But here's the main point, if the Republican platform said that we need to reduce the number of abortions, I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree. When it says we need to overturn Roe and outlaw abortions, I have a problem.

Here's another area where we can agree on culture. There are some things that coarsen our culture. The exposure of mature information to those that are immature should be controlled. However, I believe this should be done locally.

That said, I do believe the author implies that being a conservative means you should outlaw both abortion and gay marriage and that it is a litmus test for being labeled, "conservative". If he didn't believe that, there would be no reason to mention our "Judeo-Christian" heritage since there would be little disagreement otherwise.

dave| 12.11.08 @ 12:56PM

Thank you Mr. Hillyer for a fine summary of conservatism, and for your justified dismissal of Kathleen Parker and her ilk.

As I read some of Parker's ramblings post-election, the thought that occurred to me was "If to win I must abandon my principles, then I'll just get used to losing."

And to those chirping "You can't legislate morality," please stop it! Someone's morality is always being legislated. Might as well be conservative.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 1:05PM

Frost,
I thought you quit but I guess not , you sound like a very bitter old man who wants someone to blame for your misery.

Roger McKinney| 12.11.08 @ 1:26PM

The argument against abortion is not a religious one. Since Locke all conservatives have held that the purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty and property, nothing more and nothing less. The pro-life movement is simply trying to get the state to do its job to protect life. That's all. If conservtives abandon the right to life, they are no longer conservative.

On the other hand, homosexual marriage, gambling, the war on drgus and other vices don't fall under the categories of life, liberty and property and should be abanonded.

The problem with so-cons, of which I am one, is that they don't value a limited state. They want to use the state for good, but good as defined by them. Peggy Noonan is once such so-con. But these same so-cons are also very socialistic in their economics. They don't see the contradiction between a limited state and a do-good state.

I heard Sarah Palin, whom I really like, say in an interview that we need a limited government and that the government needs to solve a set of problems that she articulated. She never saw the contradiction. I don't blame her. Very few conservatives see the contradiction. Ron Paul is the exception.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 1:29PM

You presume 'way toooo much, Todd. Old? I'm 74, going on 26. And, bitter? Only because there's no one to vote for, and some of you folks have so drastically warped the priorities of the (real) "Conscience of A Conservative" and turned it into a refuge of trvial junk.....
Misery? Hey, I'll be on the beach in Costa Rica next week -- think again. Wrong, as usual.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 1:31PM

Bob,
The main argument against Roe v Wade is that it takes away the states rights to determine the legality of abortion. You are making an assumption about what the author implies but you have already predetermined what you think so no need to argue with you on that. Where in the Republican platform does it mention that abortion should be outlawed? Overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion are two separate issues. There is room in the Republican party for those who consider themselves pro-choice like Rudy Guiliani among others who I thought would have been a better candidate than McCain.

Passing out condoms in Junior High is not the way to deal with unwanted pregnancies, can you really expect children to use birth control responsibly? It is irresponsible to be engaging in that behavior at that age and giving them condoms surely won't help anything. Yes it is tough in today's world to fight against the immorality that pervades society but it is a battle that must be fought. Also I think adoption should be stressed as an alternative for abortion, there are many people that would love to have a child that cannot have them on their own.

Mary| 12.11.08 @ 1:52PM

Mr. Hillyer, please read this comment from Michael B from the website Secular Right:

***Power, force, the coercive power of the state and its varied mechanisms, however one chooses to characterize it, is a fact of life. Ideality is not reality; ideational activity is not contingency; we think abstractedly but we live in the real world. Politics is the arena wherein freedom is maintained, “freedom,” that is, in its better conceived sense; if politics is something other than that - first and foremost, primarily, most fundamentally - then it inherently becomes deleterious and misconceived, it will turn in on itself. Secondarily it can be other things, but absent that primacy, responsibly and properly conceived, its foundation will begin to evidence fissures, then worse.

Essentially, I’m a secularist in the manner and mold of Locke and Montesquieu, but am not a pious or presumptive or naive ideological “secularist” according to a current, general fashion, a fashion that includes large “L” Libertarianism, an outlook that is fine in the abstract but has little cache in the real, contingent, power-driven world. One may as well imagine a large “P” Pacifism is viable as imagine a large “L” ideological Libertarianism is viable. Within very localized communities, perhaps, but not in the world at large; it is deluded to imagine otherwise.

Once government’s inherently and inextricablly coercive nature is owned up to, it will then be acknowledged that the choice is not between coercion or imposition vs. a lack thereof - rather the choice will rightly be acknowledged as between 1) what moral/ethical values to impose (to criminalize or otherwise codify, etc.), 2) what moral/ethical values to not impose via coercion but to exercise societal suasion in favor of (e.g., some minimal but critical level of “patriotism”) and 3) what to leave to a purely libertarian lack of constraint (everything else that society decides does not fall with #1 or #2).

A few John Galts can thrive in a society as large as the U.S., but the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Jacksons, the Lincolns, et al. cannot be John Galts qua their political lives. Such a person, qua politician, won’t exist for very long in a dynamic political arena because some other political actor will simply take advantage of their naivete, their ideality, their abstracted persona. Lenin won’t abide Kerensky, but that’s merely a particularly dramatic, real-world example from the 20th century; most examples are not so dramatic or historic.

In general, no one truly wishes to impose or coerce, but absent a recognition of some basic, foundational moral/ethical underpinnings, a society is arguably not a society, a nation is arguably not a nation, a community is not a community within any very coherent if still loosely conceived sense. We all - again speaking in general terms - want to “do right, and leave others be,” but such a formula does not make for a healthy constitutional order wherein the rule of law is likewise responsibly prescribed; on a personal/individual scale, as analogy, liberty is not synonymous with libertine excesses.***

The values vacuum like the vacuum of power the US tries to occupy is going to be filled by some group and their ideas. Each will seek hegemony.

Again, I return to your piece:

***The conversations are about how to persuade more people that our principles are worthy ones and that, if implemented, those principles will provide the form of government best able to maintain a prosperous, just, and fundamentally decent society. ***

Truth be told, Mr. Hillyer, I'm probably agnostic. That's a painful thing for me to admit. But the truth is the truth.

Your piece as well as Michael B's comment touch upon seamless truth. Heraclitus described it wonderfully, but don't have exact quote handy. Will try to get that later and post.

Maintaining a fundamentally decent society is not a luxury.

Tiny link to Secular Right: http://tinyurl.com/6kmndr

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 1:55PM

Actually, Todd, the main argument for Roe is that the Supreme court found a privacy right in the due process clause of the 14th amendment. If you believe that privacy right exists, then the issue becomes a federal and not a state issue. (It was interesting in the Biden/Palin debate that Sarah didn't understand this and agreed that there was a privacy right in the Constitution).

You are wrong about the Republican Platform -- let me quote:

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."

If you don't think that means outlawing abortions, then you need to restudy the English language.

I believe we need to do things that work vis-a-vis abortion. In some communities, abstinence may work, in others, sex education, in others, passing out condoms, etc. Communities should be encouraged to use their own ingenuity and receive funds for results, not theories. If they reduce abortions -- fund them. If not, don't. Now that's a truly conservative platform.

Well, Todd, there are lots of black babies -- some with crack addiction -- that you can adopt. How many unwanted children have you adopted?

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 2:45PM

Have fun on the beach Frost but you still sound bitter to me. Why are so angry that conservatives support the pro-life stance? I remember Reagan being pro-life and if anyone was a Goldwater disciple, it was him. I am not in any way obsessed with abortion and gay marriage but I am not going to change my morals to fit the likes of phonies like Kathleen Parker. No use arguing with you about anything because you are too old too change your mind and your hatred makes you irrational.

The Deuce| 12.11.08 @ 2:49PM

Quin, what bothers most of us that are more libertarian leaning Republicans, is that we believe that we are TRUE CONSERVATIVES.

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 2:51PM

Good try Bob. I however am not going to play your game. You made an asinine statement; I called you on it. Until you retract or correct your statement, you can keep your questions to yourself.

For the record, here it is:
"Positions, as in abortion and gay marriage, are based upon belief rather than provable reason."

If belief that murder is wrong, then color me wrong.

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 3:00PM

Bob said,
"I believe we need to do things that work vis-a-vis abortion. In some communities, abstinence may work, in others, sex education, in others, passing out condoms, etc. Communities should be encouraged to use their own ingenuity and receive funds for results, not theories. If they reduce abortions -- fund them. If not, don't. Now that's a truly conservative platform."

So funding sex education, whatever flavor that may be, is a "truly conservative platform?" Hahahaha! Are you kidding me Bob? As a so-con I say YOU are trying to force YOUR views of sex education on ME! I could care less if my neighbor wants to give condoms to their 11 year old daughter. I just don't want the gubmint (ME!) to pay for it. Do you see the difference (a silly question, of course you don't)? For a dreaded "so-con" we believe parents (mom & dad) are the teachers of values and morals. To libs like you it is the "community" and the gubmint through using tax dollars to fund sex education. Where is that in your copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, Bob?

BTW Bob, I taught my kinds about sex education and it works--no abortions in my family; can I get my gubmint funding now?

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 3:14PM

If you want to get into the problems of the black community, we can go back and look at the results of the great society and see exactly how compassionate big government works. I believe now that 70% of black children are born out-of-wedlock which is the main reason for poverty in the black community. Seems to me a new approach is needed and I doubt teaching abstinence is to blame for this. It wasn't anywhere close to that before the government decided to give money for having children out-of-wedlock, a classic example of the unintended consequences of government.

They found a privacy right because that is what they wanted to find Bob. I believe it is better off left to the States to decide. Yes that was the platform in the 2004 election and I think there is nothing wrong in standing up for the rights of unborn children though I don't expect it to happen if this society because it has been accepted for too long. It really did not come up in this election and even Obama's extreme views on abortions was ignored for the most part. I believe this sums up the position on abortion in the Republican Party now, "Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services.

Michael Roush| 12.11.08 @ 3:24PM

In the debate between Bob and Todd, Bob wins!!!!
Frost, enjoy Costa Rica, Bro.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 3:26PM

Crusader -- I stand by my comments. If you want to define murder at the moment of conception, that's your problem. Furthermore, isn't it murder to go through the process of in vitro fertilization? We should outlaw that as well with your definition.

Regarding sex education, as you, I don't think it should be funded by the federal government. Neither should abstinence education as it is now. But if it is, it should be for results, not methods.

Todd, I grew up in a black community so I know the problems from the inside. But you sidestepped the question. If you want to take responsibility for your beliefs, you should adopt a child -- preferably the most unwanted child. If not, you don't really believe what you say -- they are just words.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 3:43PM

I hear Planned Parenthood takes personal donations to abort black children so you can donate your money to them to get rid of these unwanted black children Bob. Last I checked, they don't let single men adopt children, whether black or white. Maybe if I moved to Conn and deciding I was gay and wanted to get married, they will let me adopt some black crack babies.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 3:55PM

Todd -- that is a cop out. Just commit to us that when you get married to the appropriate man or woman (or both), you will adopt a child. Even better, give your name to planned parenthood as an adoption candidate:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/adoption-4261.htm

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 4:04PM

Again Bob, avoiding the point and changing focus. Good try though.

You don't think sex education should be funded by the gubmint? Then why did you post:

"I believe we need to do things that work vis-a-vis abortion. In some communities, abstinence may work, in others, sex education, in others, passing out condoms, etc. Communities should be encouraged to use their own ingenuity and receive funds for results, not theories. If they reduce abortions -- fund them. If not, don't. Now that's a truly conservative platform."

How is that not bellieving sex education should not be funded?

And no, my belief that abortion is murder isn't "my problem." I would say it is the pro-aborts problem when they will have to answer for it.

frost| 12.11.08 @ 4:07PM

Forgive the lapse - had to fish a lawnchair out of the pool. Too much wind. Now, having returned for a final comment, after weighing so many of the comments and ideas, have pretty much come to the conclusion that I shall, henceforth, seek out a Libertarian site (or several, if they exist) for the extreme tunnelvision displayed by, alas, too many pontificators who remind me of the evangelical types who threatened me with Eternal Damnation if I don't "accept Jesus as my personal Savior." This "believe-as-I-do-or-be-summarally outcast to yon boondocks" attitude is enough to gag a maggot; those who place the abortion issue above 12-16-million Illegal Aliens? Those who find the silly gay-marriage issue more significant than tha appalling growth of government/spending? Those who hate the idea of Assisted Suicide (as voted on several times in Oregon) and attempt to get it repealed, the same way the Liberals attempt overturning stuff they don't like, thru the courts - - and those who place Terry Schivo ahead of Digging in ANWR?
No, I shall still occasionally check in with this Spectator site, just as I read the socialists' crap (gotta know that the "other guys" are saying) and the idiot greenies' weird pronouncements... but, anyone with a suggestion as to a decent website for Libertarians? You see, Bob, Tom, et al., my priorities don't seem to coincide with yours, IF they are, indeed, so far removed from Barry Goldwater (yeah, Reagan dug Barry, but, face it, he really was luke-warm on the subject of over-turning Roe vs. Wade and pushing any tough anti-abortion legislation; a question of priorities -- I don't like abortion, but I sure don't want some sanctmonious pontificator lecturing my daughters on what they must/must not do - - hence, I don't fit your concept of a conservative, and the Goldwater type is, I guess, obsolete?).
Never mind, I'll scout out a Libertarian site for myself (I'm NOT a computer-person and still type with just my two index fingers -- that Old-Dog-New-Trix crap again). Have a great evening!!

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 4:16PM

Crusader -- as indicated I posted the comment assuming that you and your ilk would force some government intervention on the subject which is extremely non-conservative.

You still didn't answer my question on in vitro fertilization where fertilized eggs are discarded in huge numbers.

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 4:17PM

Bob posted,

"Regarding sex education, as you, I don't think it should be funded by the federal government. Neither should abstinence education as it is now. But if it is, it should be for results, not methods."

You come on here claiming to be a "true" conservative (whatever that means) then spout off this garbage, and you don't even see the hypocrisy in it.

True conservatism says, sex education--abstinence, condoms, whatever--should be left to the parents and the government should not "fund" (lib speak for throw money at) it regardless of results. Because what is defined as "results" Bob? Who determines that? I mean the history of government setting conditions ("results") required in order to receive funding is so great that yeah, let's do it with abortions too!!! It worked in education right? We got the smartest kids in the world, right? Haha!

Actions have consequences. With freedom comes responsibility. Most adults know that. Problem is we have a country full of chronological adults but emotional adolescents, who want the Nanny state to provide them food, shelter, jobs, abortions, gas money, mortgage payments, etc etc etc.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 4:23PM

Crusader -- "true conservatism" means decisions are left up to the individual -- including abortion and gay marriage. Choosing some things to be left up to the individual and leaving others to government is hypocritical.

By the way, you can measure increases and decreases in abortions. It is a simple measure and unlike school testing.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 4:25PM

I am a member of the LDS Church like Mitt and our Church encourages adoption for anyone who gets pregnant out of wedlock and isn't getting married. At least in our Church, that option is available for anyone who needs it instead of getting an abortion since we consider that a very serious sin. Not quite the same as murder but not far off. If I didn't believe in God like you, I think I would probably think abortion is fine if someone doesn't want to keep the baby.

Like I said, I am fine with anyone believing what they want but anti-religious types annoy me when they act like they are superior because they don't let religion cloud their beliefs. There is nothing anti-intellectual in believing in God who is the source of all light and knowledge if followed correctly with an honest sincere heart. Not preaching but quit with the anti-intellectual rubbish against people of faith.

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 4:27PM

Bob, YOU are the one posting the gubmint should fund sex education, based on some nebulous "results," not me! Holy smokes man are you seriously that ignorant of your own posts or what?

In as plain English as I can, here is what I think:

The gubmint should NOT fund sex education. Not. At. All. The gubmint should not fund abortions. Not. At. All. I do not believe in abortion. I think it is wrong. I believe it is murder. However the bottom line is I do not want to pay for them. So if forced to live with laws legalizing abortion, I will work to overturn them. I will vote for pro-life candidates, donate money to pro-life organizations. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMERICAN IS WANT TO DO FOR WHATEVER CAUSE THEY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. However IN NO WAY should taxpayer money be used directly or indirectly to fund abortions or abortion providers. Abortions are legal, fine. But you want one, YOU pay for it. What don't you get about that? You want a condom, YOU pay for it. What is so hard for you to understand about that? How is that "forcing some government intervention" on someone? It is taking the government OUT of the sex education/abortion-funding business. What is so wrong about paying your own way, whether you want an aboriton, a condom or a car?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine.

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 4:36PM

Bob, we are talking about sex education and abortion. Do not cloud it with generalities and assumptions like in your last post.

Based on the topic (sex education/abortion) I would say I am a heckuva lot more "conservative," if you define conservatism as "decisions are left up to the individual" than you.

Problem is you leave the decision to the individual (I want an abortion) and then you would have the gubmint step in and pay for it. I say you want it you pay for it.

Again, duh, yeah you can measure increases and decreases in anything. The POINT is (and for someone who regularly points out others missing the point, you sure miss a TON) that if Nanny State says "community X, decrease abortions by 50% and you will get $500,000 in gubmint funding" I am sure some type of numbers will be fudged and lines redrawn and etc etc corruption etc so community X gets their money. Thats the point. Gubmint set results rarely result in anything getting done, except taxpayer money being thrown down the toilet.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 5:00PM

Government intervention is funding abstinence only education. Get rid of it. Now I answered your question. What about in vitro fertilization???? I know you won't answer it...

Todd, I don't think religion is either intellectual or anti-intellectual -- it is belief. I call so-cons ANTI-INTELLECTUAL because they don't choose the best educated, most knowledgeable candidates and eschew those with Ivy League educations. You must be anti-intellectual to choose Palin who was one of the least knowledgeable candidates I've ever seen. Look what has happened with the current President who does not value reason and intellect.

todd showalter| 12.11.08 @ 5:28PM

Last I checked Bob, the last two Republican Presidents came from Ivy League schools and you don't seem to care much for them. Ronald Reagan did not have an Ivy League education and did just fine I believe, I remember the liberal establishment trying to make him out to be a dunce because of that and his acting background. Was it Buckley or William Bennett who said he rather have the country governed by picking the first 200 hundred people out of the phone book than the faculty at Harvard? Considering the socialists that inhabit such institutions, I think that would be a safe bet.

Michael | 12.11.08 @ 5:41PM

Crusader,
Here are two examples of the "Nanny State." South Dakota passed a law requiring doctors to read a state mandated script to women seeking an abortion. The script states that the woman is about to "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being." The doctor is also required to have her sign a form indicating of the "statistically significant" risk of suicide brought on by the procedure. No study support this claim. So regardless of the beliefs of the physician and the women, the state is intruding on their relationship and forcing the doctor to lie or risk losing his/her license. A mid-night rule passed by the HHS (which presumably conservatives want to abolish), allows health care workers to refuse to perform procedures, dispense prescriptions or offer information if doing so would offend their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Probably no big deal in a city or a sizable town. Could be a real problem in rural America. Three observations: (1) so-cons have no trouble with the Nanny State when it serves their ends (2) the pro-life crowd is now trying to use the federal government to advance an anti-contraception agenda and (3) the pro-life crowd, in South Dakota at least, lies.

Rick Arand| 12.11.08 @ 5:59PM

Early on in this forum Bob wrote:

“Positions, as in abortion and gay marriage, are based upon belief rather than provable reason.

It is inconsistent to talk about "choice" in education and not "choice" in abortion or gay marriage. Again, you are being intellectually inconsistent based on your religious beliefs.”

You’re kidding, right? How far are you willing to take this preposterous assertion? Implicit in your remark is the notion that “choice” is the benchmark for determining the morality of our decision making. Who died and made that the universal criterion for determining moral rectitude?

Therefore in your economy, denying a young person an educational opportunity is the moral equivalent of opposing the termination of the life of an unborn child. Granting a young person his or her choice in education but denying a woman the choice to kill her baby is then hypocritical. After all, it’s all about applying the same standard isn’t it?

This is your concept of “intellectual consistency”? Is this an example of the “provable reason” you criticize others for not exercising?

If that is not what you meant, then the logic of your analogy completely falls apart. I sincerely hope you don’t believe that the freedom to choose an action can be made independently from what is chosen. I can list many things people have a “choice” to do but thankfully the rest of society “chooses” not to tolerate those choices. That is not hypocrisy, it is common sense.

By the way, George W. Bush graduated from what school? Yale and Harvard Business School, I believe. Proof positive that an Ivy League education makes all the difference!

Quin Hillyer| 12.11.08 @ 5:59PM

Bob,
In your comments posted at 10:16 a.m., you are so out of line it's absurd. You accuse me of making inferences that I didn't make, and implying things I did not imply, and then YOU draw from those non-existent inferences and implications the idea that I have made conclusions I never even considered -- and then YOU take offense at those inferences, implications and conclusions. My Lord, the degree of willed victimology in your comments is worse than anything I've seen the Left cook up in years. The bit about your "patriotism" being questioned because I defend my right not to give up my principles is just so lacking any thread of syllogistic logic as to be downright bizarre. And when I write about the "ethical and moral underpinnings of our system of liberty under law grew from the Judeo-Christian tradition," I am, despite your accusation, saying NOTHING about specific religious points of doctrine or lack thereof.
And so on with every objection you raise. If you want to run around being offended, go ahead. But don't waste our time with your oh-so-delicate sensibilities to non-existing affronts that not only never appeared in the text of what I wrote, but never appeared in my mind or heart as well.

mel| 12.11.08 @ 6:06PM

Excellent article. Some "Republicans" seem to be advocating that the best way to win is to lie down in the middle. That's no more than a good way to get run over. It is roughly equivalent to Ann Coulter's illustration about standing half way between a snake and a pitchfork. In the end even the snake doesn't respect that.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 6:26PM

Todd -- going to an Ivy League school on a legacy admit and doing well in school are two very different things. Bush did not do well in school -- I don't know about his father. Bush also failed in any business he started. For that matter, Kerry did not do well either. But Romney was successful in both school and business. There is a difference. Clinton also did well both at Yale and as President.

Quin, I understand that you don't like the inferences I made from your statements, but the logic is there. You were arguing against the Oogedy-Boogedy paraphrase with logic on why it isn't true. Then you associate that with a statement that implies "winning" is not the moral equivalent of being "principled". Aren't you saying that anyone who thinks that winning elections is important, and compromises on some of his principles, is morally inferior to you? If not, then why make that statement? I can't read your mind or heart, but I can read what you write. When you write something that offends someone else, whether you meant it or not, it still offends the other person.

This is done all of the time on AmSpec in regard to your "opponents". People talk about "Hussein", or Alinskyites, or socialists, or marxists or about "baby killers" and no one says that is over the line. However, call Sarah Palin unknowledgeable, which is unquestionably true, and people here go beserk. I am not personally offended, but I'd like people here to realize that what they say has meaning to potential coalitions in the Republican party. If you want to drive the more libertarian leaning Republicans away -- that's fine, but it is the end of the Reagan coalition. In business, we call that the law of unintended consequences.

Rick, certainly we all have moral priorities. The point I was making was that choice made by the individual is preferable to a choice made for that individual. I do not have the religious beliefs that you do, and I want my daughters to have the choice of an abortion if they so desire. I would also like them to have a choice of schools -- and they did. Since I have set my own morality, and it is not hurting you, you should get out of my business just as it is not my business where your kids go to school.

Bob| 12.11.08 @ 6:31PM

Mel -- and some Republicans believe that being an extremist is the best way to get others to go along with you? You've got to be kidding. The art of politics is compromise. You don't get a majority by sticking with extreme views. If, by sticking to your extreme views, you don't win, then the other side does many more things you won't like. Is that preferable? I'd rather get some of what I'd like, than none at all. That's what you are arguing for.

the-gunslinger| 12.11.08 @ 7:14PM

Bob said:
"What makes so-cons "anti-intellectual" is not that they are religious, but that they don't support, in general, highly educated candidates and eschew Ivy League educations. Positions, as in abortion and gay marriage, are based upon belief rather than provable reason."

Forgive me, but this is about as elitist as it gets. I think, considering the sort of "education" one receives today in these overpriced propaganda mills, it is rather absurd to suggest that because one does not prefer the mindless, Marxist products they produce, one is "anti-intellectual". Further, the fact that Bob assumes that Conservative objections to gay marriage and abortion are "faith-based" rather than "intellectual" is rather an exercise in typical Liberal projection.

Nothing is more logically obvious or more intellectually honest than recognizing that killing unborn human babies = killing human babies = killing human beings.

It is only the convoluted and tortured emotional reasoning with a pre-determined conclusion in view—the freedom of women from the consequences of their actions—that represents anti-intellectualism. Pure logic cannot arrive at the conclusion that murdering babies in the womb is essentially different that murdering babies just outside the womb...for which humans are charged with murder.

It is the abortionists' argument that is not based in logic or intellectually honest. They're arguments are not rational. They are rationalizations.

Rick Arand| 12.11.08 @ 8:18PM

Bob,

Again, you continue to make illogical arguments.

“The point I was making was that choice made by the individual is preferable to a choice made for that individual.”

In the case of abortion, this statement is self-refuting. What you are advocating with your position is precisely the thing you claim to argue against. A woman who chooses to have an abortion is making a life or death choice FOR another person.

Of course, most advocates of abortion are adept at the art of verbal gymnastics. They attempt to define away the humanity of the unborn by applying capricious and arbitrary definitions for personhood. Things like viability, acquisition of a heartbeat, size of the fetus, location of the fetus, the list goes on and on. These same people choose to ignore real scientific proof of the unborn child’s genetic makeup - a full set of human chromosomes – because that would interfere with the choice they want to make. It’s easy to justify the extermination of something of no value like a blob of tissue but very difficult to excuse taking an innocent human life. The list of atrocities perpetrated against various ethnic and religious segments of the human family using arguments like these are well-documented.

I have engaged in numerous discussions with people who cling tenaciously to their pro-choice positions without ever supplying even one objective argument for their belief. And they have the nerve to accuse pro-lifers of acting out of ignorance or blind faith!

frost| 12.11.08 @ 9:01PM

Okay – I don’t like abortion. But, for whatever reason the courts decided, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land until such time as the Supreme Court may reconsider the ruling. The Supremes interjected itself into what should have been a legislative matter; the Constitution doesn’t address the issue – and, on topics where the Constitution is mute, we have state and federal legislatures to write our laws. It’s their job. Still, even though I don’t like abortion, I’m no fanatical zealot. In fact, I’m pro-CHOICE. My wife and I were pro-Choice, but we did have three kids, and further, I resent any sanctimonious pontificator trying to tell my daughters what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Personally, I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don’t like abortion, but I’m pragmatic about it. Do I think that we’re actually going to go overturn Roe v. Wade? Possibly, but then it becomes a state issue, and it will play out however it plays out. I mean, who really likes abortion?
That said, Rick -- as you've never had a response, I read somewhere that the countries with the least abortion include Belgium with an abortion rate of 6.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The Netherlands, 6.5. Germany, 7.8. In the USA it’s 22. THEN, compare it to countries where abortion is illegal: Egypt, 23; Brazil, 40; Chile, 50; Peru, 56. Thus, if pro-life laws are the best way to reduce abortion, then why are the world's lowest abortion rates found in Pro-CHOICE countries -- while some of the world's highest abortion rates are in countries that outlaw abortion? A government that chooses to send young people (born & grown) to war and death has NO RIGHT to make laws about women's choice - the choice MUST remain personal, NOT dictated by government or others' moral or religious values.
As most "Pro-Life" people also believe in the death penalty, they aren't really pro-LIFE -- they're Pro- BIRTH - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thennnnn, contrary to what many would have you to believe, I've read some stuff, court testimony which states "the predominant response to abortion (by women) is RELIEF - - there are far fewer psychiatric disabilities than from women who are DENIED abortions. The "pro-life" types would deny it, but I'd like to see their sources. Frankly, I've misplaced the articles from which I paraphrased, sorry.
Legal in the USA with 330-million people.... we have about 1.6-million abortions-a-year, right? Brazil, with 40% of our population, has TWICE AS MANY ILLEGAL ABORTIONS-A-YEAR. At the end of the 1900s it was estimated that 100,000 women have died in Rumania by ILLEGAL abortions since they were outlawed. Then, battered children??? 2.2-million abused each year. "Unwanted burdens" 450,000 kids suffer abuse or neglect - or are in forester/state facilities... "Who wants THEM"?
Adoption??? 51% are non-white minorities - but most prospective adopting parents want white or healthy kids.
Okay, you asked. I sure don't advocate abortion; anything but. But those are some factors to consider, looking at the other side of what some consider a very uncomfortable topic.....
Now, if you'll pardon me, have a Jorge Amado book to finish.

John Schneider| 12.11.08 @ 10:44PM

Wow!!! DOGPILE ON THE SEMINAR POSTER!!! YEEEHAAA!!

Bob,

With not a ton of due respect, you couldn’t identify a logical statement if one fell out of the sky, landed on your head, and wiggled. I also must wonder where you are finding such dower alternative meanings. Chronic finding of “code words” is usually a sign of a more chronic prejudice in the reader. I re-read Mr. Hillyer’s article twice and only noticed an occasional and much justified tweak; those being fairly obvious and nicely executed.

To all,
1. Unfortunately if 100 Conservatives were put into a room and asked to clearly point anther “True Conservative” the numbers of hands still planted firmly in pockets would make you wonder if the heat worked in the room. Liberals have no such difficulty identifying fellow travelers. They seem to gamely accept that there are different paths to their same statist goal.

2. The social issues remain, and must remain in the GOP platform and at the head of any list of Conservative Principles because life actually really matters. Religion is quite beside the point. The simple fact is that EVERYTHING is of consequence the effect might be small or large, but the consequence is real. Ironically the smallest most inconsequential thing can have the largest effect. Just think what the world would have been like if a small inconsequential virus had replicated itself in the body of Albert Einstein in the early 20th Century. And what happened to that cure for cancer that never seems to have been found? Perhaps one of the 60+ million human beings who never had a chance to draw a breath was the critical member of the team that found the cure (remember we are now in our second generation of mass fetucide – my word… seems to work). Maybe some of them would have been thieves, or murderers… or soldiers who saved a company of men from a roadside bomb… or a scientist who had some tiny insight into how chains of genes affect other chains of genes… No position that denies that life is of consequence and therefore should be protected is Conservative.

3. If one believes that life is a utility then one believes that it can be limited by law. If one accepts every life as having a major effect on the universe as we know it to be, then one cannot accept that life is casually disposable at any stage. The former is a Liberal/Leftist position; the latter is the ultimate Conservatism. The concept has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.

Step one in returning to the seat of governance is the understanding that power is intoxicating. It is an urge to indulge in an addiction. That urge must be throttled by principles. The men who founded this nation were flawed and they knew it. They were weak and they knew it. They turned to a greater order to give them the order necessary to govern and not rule.

If we have no morality (meaning no-religion for most of us) there are no limits. The principle of a life plank is that there is a rational limit on what one is allowed to do. The ability to kill at will is the ultimate power. A moral code that contains the unrestricted power of life and death is intrinsically incongruent. The morality will eventually fail. A Conservative movement, minus the protection of life is a paradox that cannot survive. It becomes the proverbial house divided.

We must communicate better, not dismiss the principle.

Regards,
JWS

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 11:11PM

Michael, cry me a river. Any chance those abortion mills in SD gubmint-funded? If so the saying about lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas comes to mind.

I agree they are Nanny State initiatives though. But you know I agree for a totally different reason. If a woman chooses to kill her own offspring then she deserves whatever mental/emotional anguish that follows. No coming back later and suing the abortion provider because you can't handle the pain and suffering of the after effects of the abortion. I would bet though those "scripts" you refer to are there to protect the "doctors" from getting sued after the fact, much like how you are reminded that the McDonald's coffee you just ordered is hot.

For the millionth time nobody is telling anyone's daughters what they can or can't do with their bodies. But if they choose to have unprotected sex they shouldn't go looking to the gubmint to pay for their abortion. Why is this so hard to libs to understand?

Bob no you didn't. And the gubmint only funds abstinence education? Really? Is that why my 9th grader can get condoms at the local gubmint school for free? Or our military can get free condoms or birth control pills at any base clinic, including in the ME where nookie is supposed to be a no-no?

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 11:20PM

Hey frost, when I was younger I got a tattoo. I want it removed now and since nobody can tell me what to do with my body I want someone to pay for my tattoo removal because I can't afford it. I don't want to live with the "punishment" of a mistake I made as a youngster following me around for the rest of my life. (Even longer than kids--you can kick them out at 18!). So I think tattoo removal should be government funded, and the government should start paying local communities big $$$$ to open up places called, I don't know, maybe "Planned Tattoohood" or something where you can get information on tattoos and tattoo removal and such.

But anyway bottom line is I made a choice, now I don't want to live with it/be inconvenienced by it so someone else should pay to help me correct my bad choice I made. Cool?

Oh yeah and if next year I decide to get another tattoo and then decide I want that one removed you all can pay for that too. Still cool?

(Man how many "moderates" could we win over to the republican side with thinking like this?????)

Crusader| 12.11.08 @ 11:28PM

Frost I must confess I usually stop reading your crazy old man rantings after a sentence or two but I went back and mined this nugget from your last post:

"A government that chooses to send young people (born & grown) to war and death has NO RIGHT to make laws about women's choice - the choice MUST remain personal, NOT dictated by government or others' moral or religious values."

Could I just amend that a teeny tiny bit? See, my neighbor has been making me mad lately and I decided you are right, a government that sends young people to die in war has NO RIGHT to make laws that tell me what I can and can't do, or tell me who I can choose to kill or not kill, so I am going to kill my neighbor. After all, the laws outlawing murder are just someone else's religious or moral views--probably some dead white guy who didn't go to an Ivy league school--and MY morality says it is OK to kill something if it bothers and/or inconveniences you, so back off man! This is MY CHOICE! Don't push your religion on me!

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.12.08 @ 7:25AM

Great Caesar's Ghost Quin, if Bob said you meant something, be resigned, that is what you meant.

Quin Hillyer| 12.12.08 @ 3:17PM

Michael,
AHH... you got me!
Actually, I have decided that Bob is the reader's version of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, who makes words means whatever she wants them to mean, no matter what anybody else thinks!
By that standard, Great Caesar's Ghost, you are right!
;)

Bob| 12.13.08 @ 4:27PM

Michael/Quin,

Communication requires both a progenitor and a listener. We all take a learned perspective into any communication. I cannot divorce your other views from this piece. If, as Micheal, you live in a cloistered existence surrounded by limited and like minded people, then no one will question your communication. When you open that communication up to people with differences, then meaning changes. We cannot read your mind or heart -- only your words.

The tone of your argument is demeaning to those of us who think there should be more separation between church and state. And in essence, by the tone of your words, you are saying that you are "patriotic" and we are not.

Think about it this way. Convincing like minded people is fundamentally a worthless endeavor -- and that's what you do here. In order to convince someone who thinks differently, which is what advances thought, you need to have respect for their views.

I'm simply pointing out that someone with a radically different view from so-cons will interpret your words in a very different way -- one in which you could obviously never understand.

I guess you'll never go through the looking glass.... you'll only stare at it from one side....

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.13.08 @ 8:12PM

Bob all you are is the “Ruth” who has traveled through the aforementioned looking glass. If you would bother to read anything I have written here you would find that I see eye to eye with you on virtually every topic. As for my cloistered existence, I have spent most of the last decade as an educator. My class load varied with as many as one hundred and seventy undergraduate students a semester to eleven or twelve students in a research oriented graduate program (most of whom already had a PhD.). One of my proudest accomplishments is that in all those students I have never had a negative review. Four times in that period I have traveled out of the country to monitor benchmark species to evaluate environmental impacts of encroaching populations. My last group had only two citizens from the USA, virtually all the rest of the class was sponsored by foreign governments sent here to learn the science of remote sensing. The last funding I received was on your dime to do research under a government bio-terrorism grant. “…..surrounded and limited by like–minded people”, hardly.
Probably the only thing I agree with Mr. Hillyer about is you, but you have to give him credit he certainly has that progenitor thing working for him. Listen up, Bob.

Bob| 12.13.08 @ 10:17PM

Michael -- sorry for putting you in the same frame as Hillyer. As you are aware, I do have a tendency to overstate my case (for effect, of course). I am concerned by the lack of critical thinking on the part of the current Republican base. We live in a complicated world where very little is clearly black or white. But here, you have saints and demons and very little in-between. I've never participated in a political forum before and I consider this an exercise in testing whether so-cons can reason. However, the reasoning I've found is circular with complete adherence to faith based assumptions that are deemed to be true and never questioned. But thanks for the response and don't hesitate to post if you think I'm off base.

I don't have the patience to be an educator. I've spent my entire career in business fixing problems other people have created and putting successful new products into the marketplace in many different industries. The biggest problem has never been developing the ideas, but has been getting senior executives to look at markets/businesses with new perspectives. Once that is accomplished, the rest is easy. Just as in politics, senior executives, in general, have closed minds and are inertially oriented. That's why markets behave as they do -- moving from one extreme to the other always going too far in both directions.

I would like to see a Republican party that adheres to "pragmatic conservatism" and not "ideological conservatism". Assumptions are not to be believed, they are to be tested and re-evaluated. If I'm speaking to the choir, let me know.

societyis2blame| 12.16.08 @ 6:50PM

John Schhneider:

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the pro-life position is rooted in the value of human life, which should be readily apparent to both Ayn Rand libertarians and "ooggedy-boogedy" Christians.

Add to that the fact that Roe is a travesty of legal logic resting on a smoke and mirror foundation of penumbras and emanations which, if it were claimed as the basis for any other government action, would have Libertarians howling mad.

You don't need to believe in God to believe that abortion is morally wrong. I am an atheist myself owing to every religion's inability to adequately explain to me why an all-powerful God would allow evil to exist (and more issues besides). My personal moral code is based on the value of human life - my human rights and personal freedom don't come from God but from my nature as a thinking being and what that implies for how we should live together in society (e.g. maximum personal freedom so long as basic rights are protected). In short, Life, Liberty, Property.

Under that standard, how is abortion morally justified over adoption ? Regardless of whether you believe in a "soul" or not, the fact is that, absent outside intervention, the blob of cells that makes up the fetus will in fact become a person with individual rights (including the right to life) at some point in time.

Personally, I believe that time is best defined as conception rather than some nebulous subsequent trimester based on criteria no one can meaningfully articulate or understand.

I can agree with exceptions where the health of the mother is threatened, rape and incest, but otherwise I don't believe that nine months of a mother's life is too high a price to pay for 80+ years of life for the child. If she can't raise the child, put them up for adoption.

As a late-60's adoptee, if I had been born several years later, I could have been an abortion statistic myself. Being alive is a lot more fun and interesting. I am glad that my natural mother had enough respect for life, whatever her religious or non-religious views may have been, to give me that chance.