-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 104 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
A Letter to Sarah Westwood
Advice from a former Lonely College Republican to the latest Lonely College Republican.
(Page 4 of 5)
The real issue over abortion (and interestingly both science and technology have lent a hand to the pro-life cause, recording very live babies in the womb), well aside from the issue itself, is the fact that Roe v. Wade short-circuited the emerging abortion debate. The historical fact — not to mention the common sense fact — is that controversial issues, whatever they may be, need extensive public debate to sell themselves to the American public. From civil rights to gay marriage, from entering World War II to taking on Saddam Hussein, the only way to reach consensus is to let the American people discuss, debate, and vote.
Roe v. Wade, like the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 that tried to write slavery permanently into the Constitution, is an infamous example of judicial activism gone wild. And Americans have paid heavily for it ever since. The fact that abortion is still a subject of hot debate almost 40 years after the Court handed down its decision is a testament to what happens when judges try to shut people up. The very fact that so many states are out there successfully enacting pro-life laws gives the lie to the notion that abortion is somehow wildly and overwhelmingly popular. In fact, it is anything but.
Let’s use the gay marriage issue as an example. How favorably would your liberal classmates be toward the Supreme Court if it summarily ruled gay marriage was illegal forever? Instead of letting your classmates make the choice in voting for gay marriage in their individual states? Again, one suspects the feelings on abortion are situational. Through a roll of the judicial dice the Supreme Court ruled in abortion’s favor. But if it rules against gay marriage? Then what? My guess is that the pro-gay marriage folks will insist — exactly like the pro-lifers have — on having the right to vote on the issue. As well they should.
Lastly, your view of the Religious Right is, if I may, political suicide. The GOP was hardly “hijacked” by the “evangelical set.” They were invited in — by Ronald Reagan. They fled the Democrats whom they had supported historically and it was Reagan personally who saw to it that they came and broadened the conservative coalition. They did.
What you are proposing when you say “Republicans don’t have a future unless they break up with the Religious Right” flies in the face of facts. Republican victories have come about in part precisely because “the Religious Right” has been there. One does not build an inclusive conservative “Big Tent” by immediately reading evangelicals out of the tent.
And finally, as to Rush Limbaugh.
You say:
Thawing the icy attitude of our most vocal, radical voices — including the raucous right (a la Limbaugh) — could let a fatally fractured party put the pieces together again.
Icy attitude? Radical voice? Raucous? Rush Limbaugh?
I can’t think of a conservative with a more optimistic, welcoming attitude than Rush. You must be listening to the hyper-racial, anti-gay MSNBC. You know, the MSNBC that employs a host who calls gays “faggots” and blacks the n-word.
Yes, Sarah, that’s right. MSNBC employs a host whose gay bashing and race baiting has been caught on camera or on live mics, as documented right here.
How many of your liberal classmates watch and regurgitate this swill under the guise of “tolerance”?
Rush, on the other hand, is the guy whose famous gay friend Elton John sang at his wedding, a wedding presided over by a black minister. Rush, like Ronald Reagan before him, believes in a color-blind, gender-blind America that promotes the idea that we all should do well, regardless of color, gender, or sexual preference. He promotes these ideas relentlessly and yes entertainingly. He makes no bones about being on the radio to go after liberalism — the nation’s premiere racist (supporter over the centuries for slavery, segregation, lynching, the Klan and now racial quotas), gender and class warfare political philosophy. A philosophy which you ask, inexplicably, that conservatives imitate.
Sorry. No thanks.
Lastly, Sarah, I would refer you to someone who agreed with you. That would be Thomas E. Dewey, the liberal Republican Governor of New York from 1942-1954 and twice the losing Republican presidential nominee in 1944 (against FDR) and 1948 (against Truman).
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/15/a-letter-to-sarah-westwood
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Walk the Line
- Gerry Ford at 100
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.15.12 @ 6:18AM
To Sarah I would simply add, it's better to have principles and be rejected than to abandon your principles and be part of a mob, and most likely, a stupid mob.
spike59| 11.15.12 @ 6:26AM
i was going to add "you can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office"....but that's no longer true
the best advice i can give is this: just make sure to live in such a way that, if you find yourself compelled to give an account of yourself, you don't find yourself offering excuses
Appleby| 11.15.12 @ 7:08AM
Sarah is mistaking "popularity" for "principles." That is, she is willing to be passionately supportive of matters that don't personally affect her, and to demand that others abandon their principles for popularity. I was a REAL lonely Republican at Bible College in the 1960s; there were days I felt like Douglas Fairbanks clinging to the rigging of the pirate ship with one hand and fighting off the pirates with the sword in the other hand. Fortunately my father brought us up to never say "it's going to be a nice day today" without citing our sources, and I actually converted some people to this POV. I have never been liberal and never will be. And I will always prefer principles to popularity. It's time to ask yourself what you believe -- not what gives you entree to a populist mob. They'll abandon you. Principles will not.
Joellen| 11.15.12 @ 7:27AM
Bravo Mr. Lord, Bravo. Please send a copy to Ross Kaminsky TODAY to peruse.
mike 3/505| 11.15.12 @ 8:43AM
+1
JCS| 11.15.12 @ 7:28AM
First, I want to note that I am in agreement with Mr. Lord and consider myself as a Genghis Khan conservative. Having said that, I think Mr. Lord glossed over the gay marriage issue by equating it with polygamy. That rhetorical trick usually loses the debate in front of the audience. "Sarah" (and proponents of gay marriage) have an argument distinguishes themselves from other, more abnormal behaviors. Avoiding those arguments is unnecessary because the body of research favors traditional marriage.
For example, proponents argue that regularized gay marriage would make them more socially conservative and supportive of traditional relationships. However, research shows that the vast majority of gay couples -- whether married or not -- do not last. There is nothing (like children) to keep such couples together.
With respect to children, research shows that children raised in a family with "two dads" fare significantly worse than their traditional counterparts.
Gay marriage proponents also argue that simple principles of freedom and privacy support their desires. However, there is nothing in history or in our culture that supports the notion that gay marriage is or should be considered anything except what it is: an attempt to regularize formerly abnormal behavior.
These "polygamy-denying" arguments must be addressed in this debate. Or else our side will be accused of simply "ignoring reality."
MaryTudor| 11.15.12 @ 10:59AM
Thing is...polygamy is actually the MORE logical argument than gay marriage. Marriage is ultimately about production of offspring that have legal legitimate parents so that inheritance issues are clear. As long as he can financially support all the resultant offspring, it's evolutionarily logical for a man to have multiple wives, and isn't allowing a legal union locking him into that better than trendily modern "serial monogamy"? Whereas gay marriage can only reproduce artificially, and none of the rights they're demanding can't already be obtained with five minutes on LegalZoom creating the correct POA documents? If anything polygamy has a stronger argument than gay marriage (though polyandry would be another story, as in a land-rich country there's no real reason for one female to have multiple legal partners.)
Von Mises Jr| 11.15.12 @ 8:03AM
Most college kids are confused, lonely and looking for someone to love them. Think about going away to college where you don't know and can't trust anyone.
Some grow up and find deeper relationships outside mommy and daddy. They strive for more than themselves and look for family and love.
Then others look for the State to love and care for them just as they are heartbroken if their college football team loses the Title Game.
I have been surrounded by liberals for half-century and they are the most miserable people by far. They are typically the ones with bad marriages or divorced since the State becomes their partner.
Sarah will make someone a good wife someday soon.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.15.12 @ 9:04AM
In 1981, my roommate obtained a T-Shirt from his brother's College Republican chapter that I think might still have appeal on most campuses:
Make Love, Not Laws
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.15.12 @ 9:32AM
Being a broadcaster of the truth does not necessarily make one less lonely, and referencing history can often be a thankless task in the campus environment (even if dealing with history majors). But Mr. Lord mentions the Dred Scott decision, so perhaps a couple of facts and history might help add some perspective that a student might be able to use with a willing audience.
In the Dred Scott decision, not only did the Supreme Court attempt to advance the cause of slavery, but they also went beyond this. In essence, Justice Taney advanced the notion that a black man had no contractual rights that a white man is obligated to follow, which was an early version of affirmative action (albeit with a different race being affirmed).
Justice Taney was appointed to SCOTUS by a Democrat President (Andrew Jackson), who is still celebrated annually by most state Democratic Party organizations in their Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, despite his problems with the Supreme Court and certain demographic groups (how does Cherokee Elizabeth Warren feel at the Massachusetts dinner).
It also bears mentioning that like Obama’s election in 2008, Justice Taney’s appointment was hailed at the time as historic, as he was the first Catholic appointed as a Supreme Court Justice.
Though it’s a stretch, perhaps a lonely college Republican could make the point that historical significance does little to guarantee or promote a good outcome.
RAM| 11.15.12 @ 10:10AM
To put this in simple terms:
When evil has become more popular than good, should we embrace evil or push good all the harder?
Libertas Americana| 11.15.12 @ 10:25AM
Having read Sarah Westwood's essay and having attended college from 1968 thru 1972, Jeffrey Lord's article was "on target."
Still, I can't completely agree with Jeffrey when he says: " The kids who were so passionate about George McGovern became adults who voted for Ronald Reagan and listened to Rush Limbaugh."
That doesn't describe many of my acquaintances from college. One, as only an example, a "brilliant" professor, has a loathing hate of all things right of Karl Marx. You see, he had to "earn a living" also. And, from his view anyone who stands in his way by displaying judgement with the spending of our resources is a direct threat to him being in the "gimme line for life."
Unfortunately, there are more and more people in the "gimme line for life." Look what happened with Scott Walker.
What these folks do better than us is hate and whine. The hate on Facebook was so nasty, I had to "unfriend" a whole slug of 'em just so I could see the photos my daughter posted of my mother with my granddaughter.
Why can't we compete? Simple! Their hate (and open propaganda) may have positive results and no negative consequences. If I were to express myself similarily, I'd lose half my customers. (And, I'm the evil businessman ?? ).
Absolutely make a bigger tent! Absolutely identify with other groups! Absolutely listen! But, that cannot be done using the Dewey formula. It will be done again by using the Reagan formula (You know, it wasn't magic).
Who Knows?| 11.15.12 @ 11:32AM
Nero fiddled while Rome burned down.
Oh, how many ways are Americans fiddling while their country goes from a slow burn to a quickly stepped up raging inferno!
And, ANY attention paid to gay subjects is the canary in THAT mine of “ways”.
Only 2-3% of people are gay! Next time you’re in public, and maybe see fifty people, know that forty-nine of them are likely NOT homosexuals.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog!
Ah, but there’s just something so entertaining about what gays actually DO to each other’s body parts, isn’t there?
When I see a picture of the seedy Barney Frank, I see a penis sucking mouth---only. “Mothers, do you know where your children have been” morphs into, “Barney, where has your mouth and anus been, lately?”
America the frivolous!
Here’s the thing---the vast majority of people in the red states, especially those who reside in big cities and urban areas, which are deeply red (think of the extreme San Francisco, which is loaded with clock suckers), are ALREADY living out the last days of America.
Just as the Roman Empire withered from within, as the more vital barbarians sliced and diced their way in, the American experiment is going to hell, in its unique way.
nathan| 11.15.12 @ 11:33AM
Ronald Reagan . . . Why? Mr. Lord and the rest of you, tell me one, I'll settle for just one, New Deal/Great Society program that he eliminated in eight years with a republican congress in place. He didn't try in part because the "greatest generation" as Brokaw called them had no interest in tampering with FDR's legacy and honestly, neither did he. RR like the magazine that inspired him, National Review was primarily neocon imperialist in orientation and that's what he focussed on. We credit him and Thatcher for "destroying the soviets" although we know now that based information we got after the fall, they like increasingly ourselves were hallowed out internally and were going to collapse no matter what we did. Thatcher supported gun control as did RR and wasn't much of civil libertarian at home either. RR was the last best chance of reversing the entitlement structure in this country and what did you Mr. Lord do to force the issue with him? Not much I bet. You like everyone else were too enamoured in playing "the great game". It was sexier right?
Bush II, the "hero" of 911, again read "Torture and Impunity" and decide how "heroic" he was, well tamper with the New Deal/Great Society? Of course not, let's expand it further. Democrats we can understand but the failure of republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush's to act domestically is beyond comprehension. Explain THAT to her sir.
Butch| 11.15.12 @ 2:41PM
nathan, I think if you check it out you will find out that Reagan had a Republican Senate for two of his eight years. He never had a Republican House.
nathan| 11.15.12 @ 3:10PM
It doesn't excuse his failure to make the effort to try and eliminate at least one New Deal/Great Society program. And if he wasn't going to do it, then who was? The programs, based on Madison's I cannot find the article in the Constitution quote were and remain patently unconstitutional.
With Eisenhower, great war hero, all of it. What effort did he make to roll back the New Deal? NONE He was too busy illegally overthrowing the Mossedegh government in Iran poisoning that relationship for like forever.
No republican made any serious efforts to re baseline what the democrats did and in some cases like Bush II made it worse. And yet now republicans/"conservatives" want to rant and rave about this guy. Well Mr. Lord served in the Reagan administration. What exactly did HE do to push him in the direction of undoing those social programs?
Our parents the "greatest generation" idolized FDR and had no desire to see his legacy touched. And no republican president, RR included were prepared to put their political careers on the line and challenge those people. And again RR was too busy playing "the great game" to be bothered with mundane domestic issues.
Occam's Tool| 11.15.12 @ 7:25PM
Nathan: RWR won the Cold War. Winning that engagement was priority number one. He also lowered taxes to the lowest levels in decades---even W didn't lower them that much.
Incidentally, Jeff, your argument can be made simpler still than the unfortunate brainwashed College Republican girl realizes. Here's my missive to her:
Young Lady, Marriage exists to sublimate a man's sexual passions, which are his strongest (and most aggressive) in young (and most productive) men, into channels that protect his children and society. You mess with protections against Men's aggressive nature with great caution, especially those that have been shown to be useful over Millenia.
Have you ever wondered why so many of the Boys on your Campus aren't Men yet? Hmmmm? It's because you don't demand that they be, and Society increasingly is selecting against Men and in favor of Boys. And you're helping.
Primum Non Nocere.
nathan| 11.16.12 @ 11:59AM
You're probably not going to read this but I'll respond anyway.
Oh "St. Ronald" couldn't find time in his busy schedule to do both? Really? You honestly want people to believe that the most prominent "conservative" president (who signed abortion bills in CA and a gun control bill while president) didn't have the time to focus on rolling back a SINGLE New Deal/Great Society program?
And yes the great urban myth of our time, he WON the Cold War. No he didn't. Our intelligence was ghastly as it too often is, and what we know now is as I've said before is that they were hallowed out. They couldn't sustain what they were doing and they were likely to collapse no matter what we did or didn't do. Did he play a role in "pushing" them? Yes. But far less than his supporters like to think. And supporting people like Jonas Savimbi in the process was indefensible. It simply was.
And you conveniently ignore his willingness at Iceland to cut a deal to eliminate all nukes. Very "conservative" of him.
I'm sorry but at the end of the day his accomplishments don't match the legend.
ElijahJack| 11.15.12 @ 12:18PM
Mr. Lord, I am afraid your polygamy argument falls a bit flat. One can respectfully choose to live a heterosexual life (for now at least). To criticize polygamy vs. not accepting an invite are two different things. Even those who passionately support gay marriage rights may be totally straight. But perhaps what you do here though is to portend. How long is the wait before political correctness demands not just beliefs but actions?
Joe D.| 11.15.12 @ 3:37PM
Jeff and Sarah here is another thing being missed, leaving someone along is different than socialty giving its stamp of approval. You are not alone in this country. We all live here. And what you do in private is not left there any longer. It is brought right out in the open and forced on the rest of us who don't agree (not bigots).
We are offended by the sexual preverted lifestyles (gays, unmarries, etc.). We, alot of people, are offended by alot of what you people think is good in society today. But in a plural society we all have to be offended. But we do not have to all give our stamp of approval.
fmm| 11.15.12 @ 10:31PM
Mr. Lord: Only the college liberals who went into private sector life grew up to become conservatives because that is the only way to succeed. Those who went into government or academia have yet to grow up because they are insulated from reality by big brother. Unfortunately, it is the latter children who are in a position to do the most damage to this country.
Ronsch| 11.16.12 @ 1:06PM
Young Sarah is making the claim to being a "Lonely Republican" which she may be right about...Too bad she does not feel the need to be a "Lonely Conservative" instead...She is simply spouting all of the "we have to be more moderate" nonsense that got us to where we are now...The time for any "compassionate conservative" mantra is past. By nature Conservatives are compassionate and assist their fellow men, but by choice and not at the point of the spear (or laws as dictated by the Progressive Party.)
Rhoetus| 11.16.12 @ 6:36PM
Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com
Jaynie59| 11.17.12 @ 3:05PM
Thanks for defending Rush. When I read that part of Sarah's essay I knew she was not a conservative but just a college kid trying to be relevent. Her WSJ piece reads like a better written version of something Meghan McCain would spew. Oh, gosh. How depressing is that? Meghan McCain, Role Model.
Neatsfoot| 11.18.12 @ 4:19PM
"I can't think of a conservative with a more optimistic, welcoming attitude than Rush. "
That pretty much sums up the insanity of this piece. Rush Limbaugh is in the forefront of what is destroying the GOP.
Jaynie59| 11.18.12 @ 6:29PM
No, he's not. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. The only negative impact Rush has on the GOP is that too many Republicans refuse to listen to him because they've bought into the lies told about him.
Neatsfoot| 11.18.12 @ 7:04PM
Jaynie59 . . . Rush's worst enemies are the words out of his own mouth. His trashing of Ms. Fluke, among others, helped feed the perception of a GOP war on women.
Tell me what lies were told about Rush's behavior in this regard . . . . .