-
Reopened for Business
April 26, 2013 | 95 comments
-
Bush and Boston
April 24, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Dubya’s Reemergence
April 18, 2013 | 67 comments
-
The Mean Old Gray Lady
March 31, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Beyond Steven Brill
November 29, 2011 | 21 comments
Feature
Lead Us Not Into Temptation
Surrendering on “social issues” won’t save the Republican soul.
THE HEAT’S ON, my friends. Gotta change that GOP.
Change it how? You know by now, surely, with all the talk afloat in the land since the last time America voted. Gotta gag, not to mention tie up (and maybe strangle, if no one’s watching too closely) those “social issue” people, the ones who cost Republicans probably the White House and almost certainly the Senate. They just wouldn’t shut up, would they? Had to keep jamming their sermons down our throats: abortion, gay rights, marriage, religion. Religion? Oh, my God! All that stuff that divides instead of uniting people?
Testimony to the above conceits, whose proponents of course perceive them as reality, not mere supposition or opinion, are abundant as the 2012 political postmortems proceed. The anti–social issues trope is fast becoming embedded. Nor am I talking just about the inevitable reproaches from professional strategists accustomed to receiving large fees for their wisdom and insights.
Writers to the New York Times were free, naturally, with the told-you-so’s:
“An an educated person, I find myself alienated by the anti-woman and anti-science sentiments expressed by the GOP.” (Meredith Schultz, Boca Raton, Fla.)
“The tide has turned. The control of a woman’s body remains properly in her hands, and the right of people to love and marry the partner of their choice is affirmed.” (Arthur L. Yeager, Edison, N.J.)
And so on.
Various professed conservatives sang harmony. Typical would be Patricia Cooper-Smith of Carson City, Nev., in a letter to the Wall Street Journal complaining of a GOP platform imbrued in “intolerance toward minorities and women.” Conservatism, Ms. Cooper-Smith declared, “the philosophy of less government and less government intrusion, has no business playing with social issues.”
Some weeks later, an online commenter to the Journal wrote, “One of the primary reasons the GOP fares so badly IMHO is that many of their social policies are at odds with the mainstream average voters.” Such folk as support abortion and tolerate gay marriage? And blame white males for most of the world’s troubles? That could be the inference from censures such as the above. Depend on David Plouffe, who was until recently President Obama’s senior political strategist, to embroider the theme. “Out of the mainstream,” was how he characterized Washington Republicans to CNN. Just “barriers to progress,” poor fellows, contrasted with “Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance.” Light dawns. To get in the “mainstream,” Republicans have to become Obama Democrats. Or something closer to it than now.
TO A POINT, one can see why so much steam builds up in the boilers of the “social issue” critics. The prime culprit in 2012 was Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri, the Republican nominee for a Democratic Senate seat generally regarded as his to lose. He lost it, sure enough, after expressing himself infelicitously on the politically infelicitous topic of what happens when rape victims become pregnant. Akin gave it out that pregnancy rarely happens in cases of “legitimate” rape, and anyway women are blessed with unspecified means of “shutting down” the whole process. And thus fell the curtain on the Akin campaign, though not without leaving the name “Akin” lying around to decorate Democratic speeches, columns, and blog posts dealing with Republican “insensitivity,” “backwardness,” “bigotry,” you name it. This was unfortunate for many reasons, not the least of these reasons being Akin’s much-vouched-for personal character (as contrasted with the spottiness of his gynecological learning). A couple of other Republicans—Senate candidate Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Rep. Joe Walsh in Illinois—spoke less obtusely about rape and abortion, but got bracketed with Akin anyway and lost their races.
Meanwhile, the push for gay marriage—a notion from which Republicans generally recoil—rolls merrily along at the state level. Nine states and the District of Columbia permit it, as of the start of the year. I reluctantly quote a hugely gratified New York Times: “A rapid shift in public opinion is bolstering [the cause] as more people grow used to the idea of same-sex marriage and become acquainted with openly gay people and couples.”
What, then, for Republicans? Push aside the social issues? Won’t happen. Half, perhaps, of the party’s conservative base would take serious umbrage. The issues clustered under this admittedly ambiguous heading—aren’t all issues “social” to one degree or another?—are ethically urgent. Abortion involves the deliberate taking of human life in the weeks or months before time comes for the child to move and breathe independently. That such an issue would not concern any respectable body of public servants is a proposition as impossible to credit as an Obama speech devoid of the first person singular.
Similarly important, and no more fun to deal with, is the issue of matrimony, contemplated today in a manner unknown throughout the whole course of history. A marriage, on any honest showing, is an undertaking, civil or ecclesiastical, between people of the opposite sex and for reasons rooted in How Things Are, not in how we might remake them if we closed our eyes and clicked our heels three times. From marriage in the traditional sense flow the family relationships we take for granted: teaching, conveying (less often now, it sadly appears, than formerly) the realities and duties of life, as revealed by the testimony of the centuries. The family is foundational in the way Americans and all other humans live. What you build atop a wholly new foundation cannot resemble in any important sense what sat atop the old one.
Next question for Republicans: Change your tone of voice? It might help. Karl Rove has suggested as much: “Republicans need not jettison their principles.” (I’d have liked “should not jettison” even better, if you’ll pardon my saying so, Mr. Rove. Anyway…) “But they must avoid appearing judgmental and callous on social issues.” That is what we might call Politics 101 counsel: Don’t hack off potential supporters. I agree—without doubting the resolution of the media and the Obama White House to put a splenetic spin on words spoken by Republicans in support of unborn life or traditional marriage, howsoever quietly, howsoever tactfully.
That leaves us where, then? Contemplating, I think, a reality larger than mere electoral politics. That reality is the insufficiency at minimum, the scandal at maximum, of licensing government to oversee matters properly left to private modes and institutions. The social issues of which we speak, to put the matter another way, have no business in the political arena…well, to paraphrase the captain of the Pinafore, hardly any.
About the Author
William Murchison, a Dallas-based columnist for Creators Syndicate and author of Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (Encounter Books), is completing a biography of John Dickinson..
Letter to the Editor View all comments (69) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Murchison
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/21/lead-us-not-into-temptation
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Teflon93 | 3.21.13 @ 6:35AM
60% of Mitt Romney's vote came fron religious conservatives---some 35 million votes. The GOP is going to toss us over the side for what? A handful of pot-smoking "libertarians" who vote Democrat at least half the time anyway lest theocracy be unleashed?
Jack in Wi| 3.21.13 @ 7:31AM
Quit blaming the libertarians. Ron Paul was the best and most knowledgeable speaker on both the physical and Constitutional issue of abortion, I have ever heard. Abortion could have gone back to the states 30 years ago if Congress followed Jesse Helms and later Ron Paul and put abortion back in the hands of the states by taking Artical 3 Section 2 of the Constitution and removing the issue of abortion from juridiction of the Federal courts. Roe vs Wade was the most unconstitutional userpation of the power of the people ever foisted on the American people. In 1973 whe Roe vs Wade was affirmed, I predicted it would be the end of the American Republic, Nothing changes my mind since. 60 million immigrants have been imported to replace 60 million aborted babies. The Republicans can go to hell if they abandon us and our children to the abortionists and gay mafia.
alice921| 3.21.13 @ 3:49PM
this is definitely the coolest work I've ever done. Make money with Google. On thursday I got a brand new Chevrolet Corvette since I been earnin $5269 this-past/4 weeks and-even more than, $10,000 this past month. I work through this link,
http://tw.gs/YbVcey
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:08AM
There are libertarians who honestly believe their professed ideology. There are also "libertarians" who just want to do certain things and adopt "libertarianism" as ideological cover.
Appleby| 3.21.13 @ 6:44AM
These are the same people who are always certain that the next Pope won't be Catholic.
Bob K| 3.21.13 @ 7:28AM
To lose an election because one did not reach out to Reagan Democrats is the ultimate stupidity and that is what happened in 2012.
So what we have here is Mr. Murchison, one of the anointed and appointed heads of the Republican party advocating the same policies that will result in another Republican disaster in 2016.
But you can't expect much from Journalists bound up as they are in institutional stupidity.
Lord how tiresome their preaching has become!
Jack in Wi| 3.21.13 @ 7:36AM
I think Mr. Murchession is one of the good guys. But this esssay does seem a little disjointed.
Podesta| 3.22.13 @ 5:06AM
He seems more likely to be one of the clueless guys. Every great social and political wrong in American society has been The Way Things Are, from genocide against the Indians, to child labor, to slavery and segregation to refusal to treat women and full-fledged human beings capable of making their own decisions. Today's big issues - environmental degradation, climate change, and yes, gay unions, are also challenges to The Way Things Are.
Despite his apologia for the bigotry of Charles Murray, I gather Murchison has adjusted to desegregation, coeducational institutions and people of various races/ethnicities voting. He looks old enough to not have to worry about being around when our current The Way Things Are becomes The Way Things Were.
Spike| 3.21.13 @ 10:49AM
I believe the author is on to something, but I would have taken a different tack.
We have more in common with Reagan Democrats than the Far-Left, but we've allowed the Far-Left to define us, as the Far Right on these "social issues"
Conservative positions on both Fiscal and Social issues 30-40 years ago were mainstream. That they now are deemed "extreme" is the fault of;
A)Our timidity in defining what we believe, and why we believe it.
B)The Media & Academia. We've ceded this ground to the Far-Left, who act as arbiters of truth(referee's, if you will), and then proceed to compete on the playing field, while they are officiating the event.
Determine what and why we believe as we do(because Liberalism has failed, wherever it is being tried), and take our cause to the street.
Never allow the Media, or Academia, or the "machine" to create Strawmen of our positions, and attack EVERY falsehood made about our positions.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:06AM
CNN recently ran an LZ Granderson editorial demanding that "Republicans confront their racism problem." I commented that to do that, we must confront left-wing media, which is the source of our "racism" problem. Our racism problem is that the Left keeps calling us racist.
Sure, you can find a racist on the Right if you look hard, but it's far easier to find it on the Left. Where's the talk of THAT problem?
Podesta| 3.22.13 @ 5:22AM
Being racist means, simply, believing a race, invariably white people, is better than others. All the data make it clear conservatives do largely believe white people are better than people of color.
Here is a summary of findings of research on the nearly all-white tea party movement:
"Just 16 percent of Tea Party supporters say whites have more opportunities to get ahead, compared to 31 percent of all Americans. Seventy-three percent say both have equal opportunity, compared to 60 percent of Americans overall.
Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Far fewer Americans overall 28 percent -- believe as much. Among non-Tea Party whites, the percentage who say too much attention has been paid to the problems of black people is 23 percent."
http://cbsn.ws/9pbc72
"Approximately 45% of whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe blacks to be hardworking, only 45% believe blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that blacks are trustworthy.."
http://bit.ly/qsl1po
And,
Al Adab| 3.21.13 @ 9:29AM
The actual question goes much deeper than simply the GOP. Social issues is simply a euphemism for the concept of moral relativism and equivalence into which many have been conned over the years. The Democrat party, being simply the weathervane of American politics, will follow this philosophy based on public perception for its own power whether or not the long term consequence is the fall of the United States. How the GOP reacts to changing national culture is another question. Will either party hold to the belief in timeless values and a knowable Truth or will it too simply bow to a social mood which rejects any such concept as Truth?
Ultimately it is for us as individuals to decide whether to continue the traditions of Western Civilization one facet of which is a belief in knowable Truth or will we each simply conform to the mass mood and abandon Truth as anything but relative? The answer will determine in large measure what becomes not only of the U S itself, but of The West as well.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 10:33AM
The Republicans' problem is dishonesty on the Left, which is desperate to prevent us from defining ourselves in the eyes of the public. We are "racist" and "sexist" because they are determined to tell the public that it is so.
The claim that we should abandon "social issues" is just another form of the "advice" they've always given us - become more Leftist.
But we'll never be Leftist enough to deter the same slander we receive from them today.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 10:48AM
In politics, a call for "compromise" is merely an attempt to browbeat someone into giving up something for nothing. You will not "compromise" enough to avoid being accused of not "compromising" until you've become a clone of the person calling for you to "compromise".
These calls to abandon "social issues" are such requests to "compromise".
Witness our move to new "heights" of Leftism, which is forever labeled the product of "compromise" by Leftist leaders.
Butch| 3.21.13 @ 1:37PM
And there is never a compromise, by the true definition of the word. The left swallows the gain, and then immediately calls for more--there is no abiding by the "agreement," ever. The process is endless until they get everything they want.
dominic1955| 3.21.13 @ 10:56AM
Exactly. On a merely earthly level, there is no way to beat them at their own game without being just as dispicable as they are. We cannot stoop to the lying and falsehood that comes naturally to the left without becoming leftists who just happen to prefer paying a little less taxes. All of my "liberal" friends, if you get them alone, sit them down and help them parse out the issues, are against gay "marriage", abortion, gun control, etc. but once they get back to within earshot of the mob, they go right back to bleating the mantras. Every human being has the essential (i.e. by nature, could be impeded by accidental qualities like mental disorders) ability to reason, but very few seem to make use of this ability very ably or deeply. Many folks imagine that the ability to process information in a formulaic way to perform the duties of their job, for instance, gives them superabundant ability to pronounce on these social/philosophical/moral issues. How mistaken we are, how far we've fallen! The American experiment needs intelligent and morally principled citizens for it to work. We have been abusing our freedom into license and perverting our principles by turning a blind eye to obvious vices. We, as a nation, deserve to fall.
This really has become a battle of good vs. evil. The Republicans and anyone else who think they are "conservative" need to step up to the plate and stand for Truth. If the Republicans resort to whoring for votes, they are done.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.21.13 @ 12:42PM
I believe the Republicans (including AmSpec and NR writers) have already gone whoring after votes. The problem with the GOP was not Akin, who was roundly denounced by Republicans and conservatives, but Romney. He was the pimp with money and "electability," and the GOP political whores followed after him.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 10:44AM
Conservatives believe that government should protect natural rights. That means not trying to do more than that, because doing more than that for some always violates the natural rights of others.
Libertarians believe exactly the same thing.
We just disagree as to its application.
Conservatives believe that defending the natural right to life requires banning abortion. Libertarians believe that the unborn are not people with rights, and protecting them violates the freedoms of their mothers. This is not a disagreement over the role of government. It's a disagreement over the personhood of the unborn.
Conservatives believe that freedom of choice is harmed my mind-altering, addictive drugs. Libertarians believe that the use of these drugs IS a freedom. True conservatives understand that government registration of social relationships and endorsement of those relationships through the assigning of special privileges is not part of government's role, and thus oppose government having a role in "marriage". Libertarians... oppose this because they've been misled by Leftists and somehow regard this as a ban on homosexuality.
The notion that conservatives should abandon their core tenet - the role of government - in the name of recruiting others who actually believe in the same role of government is ludicrous. The Leftists who advance this notion know it; they advance it to sabotage us.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.21.13 @ 12:45PM
Unfortunately, a large number of libertarians are anarchists, most following Rothbard or Rockwell.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 12:53PM
That's what the Left wants us to think. I don't believe it.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.21.13 @ 2:53PM
All you have to do is read their writings.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 3:24PM
I read "large number" to mean "majority". I'm not sure the majority even HAVE writings for you to read.
I don't believe that the millions of "libertarians" out there are mostly anarchists, even if the vocal minority is. Technically, if they're anarchists, they're definitionally not libertarians, just as people who claim to be conservative but work to have government enshrine their views into law are not really conservative.
As I wrote above, I suspect a larger portion are libertarian-in-name only types who claim the ideology to justify certain behaviors, such as drug use. These are more frequently leftists on other issues than they are anarchists.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.21.13 @ 4:37PM
When I speak of libertarians, I usually mean the Ron Paul brigade plus their ideological masters: anarchist Lew Rockwell and his merry band of loons, plus Murray Rothbard, who was the anarchist leader of a former day.
Al Adab| 3.21.13 @ 1:48PM
While I admire our libertarian allies, they err in their acceptance of moral relativism as a standard. There are moral absolutes which governments are obligated to recognize and honor - not to impose - but to honor. To ignore them is to turn our backs on 2500 years of Western Civilization. Athens and Jerusalem represent the foundations on which all else is built. Ignore either one and the edifice could crumble.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:32PM
It shouldn't have to honor them. If it neither imposes nor opposes things outside natural rights, it will simply not interfere.
Which is good. Something that is old is not necessarily right.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:34PM
This was meant as a reply to markenoff below.
markenoff| 3.21.13 @ 2:01PM
"Libertarians believe that the unborn are not people with rights, and protecting them violates the freedoms of their mothers."
It's not what you believe, it is what you can prove.
The 14th Amendment reads, in part:
".....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In our system of laws we err on the side of the weaker particularly when the stronger are the government and agents of the government. Since the unborn baby is obviously the weakest party in the situation we must err on the side of the unborn baby when deciding whether it is a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. Since you cannot prove the unborn baby is not a person we must err on the side of the unborn baby.
New research is also showing that unborn babies exhibit human emotions such as empathy much earlier than thought. Twins begin interacting in the womb as early as 65 post-menstrul days and have been seen via ultrasound caressing each other and showing an awareness of the difference in the sensitiivity of different parts of the body by touching more carefully around the eyes and the mouth of their twin sibling than on the arm or leg.
They are persons, they are unborn human babies and killing them is infanticide.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:34PM
I stated the libertarian position, with which you and I both disagree.
markenoff| 3.21.13 @ 2:08PM
"Libertarians believe that the use of these (mind-altering, addictive) drugs IS a freedom."
"drug addiction - a condition characterized by an overwhelming desire to continue taking a drug to which one has become habituated through repeated consumption because it produces a particular effect, usually an alteration of mental status. Addiction is usually accompanied by a COMPULSION to obtain the drug, a tendency to increase the dose, a psychologic or physical dependence, and detrimental consequences for the individual and society."
compulsion /com·pul·sion/ (kom-pul´shun)
1. an overwhelming urge to perform an irrational act or ritual.
2. the repetitive or stereotyped action that is the object of such an urge.compul´sive
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
You have a strange definition of freedom.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:33PM
I do not agree with the libertarian definition. I merely stated it.
markenoff| 3.21.13 @ 2:10PM
"True conservatives understand that government registration of social relationships and endorsement of those relationships through the assigning of special privileges is not part of government's role, and thus oppose government having a role in "marriage". "
Agree. No government has the power to redefine a societal institution that predates the existence of government.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:33PM
It shouldn't have to honor them. If it neither imposes nor opposes things outside natural rights, it will simply not interfere.
Which is good. Something that is old is not necessarily right.
Sixgun| 3.21.13 @ 7:01PM
JD... "Libertarians believe that the unborn are not people with rights". OK, let's replace the word unborn with the word "negros" and see what we have... "Libertarians believe that the negros are not people with rights". And therein lies the problem, you can believe that the unborn are not people all you want, just like the slave holders of history, but that does not make it so. There are certain moral absolutes established by God and he instituted human government to protect those moral absolutes. God says life begins at conception and to believe otherwise is foolish.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 7:35PM
I agree.
My point is that we should understand our disagreement, in the hope of persuading people to change. Leftists actively refuse to do this on many issues - they often insist that our "true" motivation for opposing abortion is sexism, no matter how much we say otherwise.
With libertarians, it's important to understand that we don't disagree on the role of government, but do disagree on facts like the personhood of the unborn. If we don't understand this, then Leftists will try to convince libertarians to vote with them instead of us by claiming that we believe government should "control personal lives" by banning abortion.
This Leftist lie must be fought.
Anthony| 3.21.13 @ 10:45AM
Hey come on, we knuckle draggers are right in step with the hip left. After all, Obozo came around to gay marriage just 4 months ago and Madam Hillary just last week.
Next thing you know, the co- butchers of Benghazi will tell us their "3 am" (5 pm eastern) phone calls went unanswered due to the sequestration.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:01AM
The idea that "social issues" are separate from "fiscal issues" requires a Leftists' misunderstanding of what money is.
Leftists think that money is a unique special thing that is not just a stand-in for the things it is traded for. They believe that spending creates wealth. If I buy $1 worth of ingredients and make a loaf of bread, then sell it for $3, they declare that wealth was created by the sale. But the bread was worth $3 before I sold it. The sale was just a trade of $3 in bread form for $3 in currency form. The creating was in the turning of $1 in ingredients into $3 in wealth.
Leftists declare that you can value things that have value, but the second you trade them for currency, you are "greedy". Or if you state your desire for value in currency form, though fully intending to trade it for "noble" things, you are not the same as the person who seeks value in non-currency form. They say "the best things in life are free", as though a day at the beach doesn't have opportunity cost, and doesn't require you to have earned enough to pay your bills, plus the costs of your beach trip, before you go to the beach.
Value is value, no matter the form.
We have only one true right - the right to property, aka our owned "value." Our lives have value. Freedom has value. Physical possessions have value. "Social issues" respect the same rules of fairness, ownership, and economy that "fiscal issues" do, because value is value, whether in currency form or other forms.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:27AM
The most common difference between libertarians and conservatives is summed up in the "Edgar Friendly" quote at the top of this page:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/quotes
Both believe that it's not government's role to ban behaviors that don't violate the natural rights of others. The difference is that given government's permission to do crazy things, libertarians want to actually DO them.
For this reason, I identify as "conservative" more than "libertarian." Freedom requires responsibility. It fundamentally benefits those who learn which behaviors are BEST and act on this knowledge. Leftism tries to force everyone to do what its leaders have decided are best, and has no hedge against being wrong. Libertarianism exists as a distinction from conservatism only in that it tends not to believe as much in "morality" - the superiority of some uses of freedom over others. It's freedom without freedom's purpose - to advance self.
Conservatism is freedom with a purpose - to learn and improve. Government doesn't restrict exploration of alternative lifestyles, but the individual understands that some choices are better, and why, and takes his responsibility to make the best choices very seriously.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.21.13 @ 2:55PM
That's why Washington mentioned the twin pillars of religion and morality as necessary for the survival of republican government.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 7:36PM
Freedom requires responsibility.
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 11:27AM
A government which upholds immorality is itself immoral.
A political party which upholds immorality is itself immoral.
A person who upholds immorality is immoral.
Hiding behind the label "freedom for all" won't change that. In fact using that label by definition will mean you will uphold immorality, because the state's standard is making sure both moral and immoral are treated equally.
Which is impossible, because one says "do not" and the other "do whatever".
One will necessarily hate that which is against what one loves. As Jesus said one cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24). Either one will choose (love) justice which means not placing unjust, immoral laws or one will choose (love) liberty, where by necessity unjust, immoral laws have to be placed to protect all choices/desires.
Justice or liberty as the standard. One has to be picked as the starting point.
My vote/voice is always liberty within that which is just; not liberty despite that which is just.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:59AM
Liberty is the right to behave as you choose. Justice is receiving the consequences of your use of your liberty.
If allowing others to behave badly and suffer the consequences if they so choose is "endorsing" their bad behavior, then it wasn't too "just" of God to let people sin, was it?
No, the immorality lies in the sinner, not the freedom.
It is not immoral for government to provide liberty. If people abuse it, that's their immorality alone. A just government will ensure that they feel the consequences, though.
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 12:46PM
-"Liberty is the right to behave as you choose. Justice is receiving the consequences of your use of your liberty."
Heh, your proving my point. They contradict each other. "Justice is receiving the consequences of your use of your liberty". Justice judges liberty, which means not all liberty is just. So if you want to "establish Justice" it automatically means not all liberty can be established.
-"If allowing others to behave badly and suffer the consequences if they so choose is "endorsing" their bad behavior, then it wasn't too "just" of God to let people sin, was it?"
The government does not just allow... it denies justice to behaviors which are unjust by protecting the behavior in law.
Mercy does not equate to protection.
-"No, the immorality lies in the sinner, not the freedom.
It is not immoral for government to provide liberty. If people abuse it, that's their immorality alone. A just government will ensure that they feel the consequences, though."
A "just government will ensure that they feel the consequences" means they will have laws against the behavior in order to feel the consequences. Otherwise there are no consequences for unjust behavior... because its protected by law.
Your trying to smooth out A and not A... good luck!
JD| 3.21.13 @ 1:00PM
There are natural consequences for bad behavior. Eat poorly, and you suffer health issues. Do not produce for yourself, and you suffer want. Be rude, you and suffer the scorn of peers.
Government is not necessary for these to exist. Bad government tries to protect some people from the consequences of their actions; this should be opposed.
You seem to be defining liberty in the anarchist sense - I can exercise liberty to kill you. If you define liberty so absolutely, then you might as well define justice in the same sense, and declare that society's banding together to imprison a mass murder is just a natural consequence, same as the others in my first paragraph. Government becomes a natural consequence.
Alternatively, you can define liberty in a way that understands that it doesn't allow infringing on the natural rights of others. If you do this, then you can define justice as defending natural rights.
Either way, justice doesn't infringe on liberty.
Only if you define liberty as "freedom from consequences" does justice, natural or otherwise, violate it.
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 5:01PM
-One I am accepting your definition for liberty from your post..."the right to behave as you choose".
-There is not always consequences for bad behavior. A person can eat badly, smoke, drink, and live to over 100.
Not to mention a thief can benefit from lying to escape going to jail. A mobster can benefit from making someone disappear. Both of those are unjust and yet derive from consequences.
How that even relates to government and upholding that which is unjust through laws you did not explain...(it doesn't).
-The right to behave as you choose has as itself its own boundry. I am not arguing for an absolute liberty or anarchy. The right to behave as you choose, limited by not infringing on another's right to behave as they choose, can be contradictory to justice.
Liberty of speech is a good example. One can both speak for X and against X. That speach can either be moral or immoral, just or unjust, but not both. Liberty, as a standard, will always have examples of being unjust... just because of the logic of possibilities.
The standard of liberty is not the same as the standard of justice. So it is possible, when your standard is liberty, to be unjust. A law which protects the rights of criminals via liberty, can be unjust when the law allows a criminal to escape justice (provide your own example as there are many.. watch Law and Order if you can't come up with one).
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 5:04PM
-If your standard is defending natural rights then you will still have the same dichotomy, because your standard of reference, where your laws are referenced from, is still different than liberty. The possibilites for was is natural law is different than the possibilities from liberty.
-Justice can never be a consequence from a starting perspective point without losing its moral conotation. If it does come as a consequence of a starting perspective (liberty, do not harm others, natural rights,etc...) then it only means "I like my reference point". Unjust would just mean "I don't like X because it is against my reference point". In other words there can be no innate objective meaning in regards to justice. It can literally mean anything as long as people like the reference point.
Take your example of natural rights. Natural rights doesn't mean anything without it coming from an innate objective moral meaning. Without that innate meaning it is just what exists, which includes killing, eating of others, taking from others, every thing you've seen in nature that was brutal. It is that pointing to an innate objective moral meaning which gives any credence to natural rights (like the Declaration and its pointing to a creator).
To use natural rights one has to point beyond what exists to an innate meaning that exists... otherwise it is meaningless in a morally objective manner; it just is.
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 5:07PM
The same holds true of justice; otherwise it just means I like what I like. Which has the same value as I like strawberry ice cream. So in this sense justice as consequence doesn't violate liberty, because it is devoid of any objective meaning; its meaning is derived from liberty and just means "I like liberty".
So yes one can make justice not contradictory to liberty... you just lose any pretense of morality and any pretense of a meaningful justice. You lose any objective meaning for society.
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 7:27PM
Let me put the same thing into a different format:
For every one event:
Objective meaning: One Possibility
Subjective meaning: Many Possibilities
Just because of the format (objective and subject) by necessity the subjective will have more possibilities than the objective.
So while an individual could follow the objective from the subjective.
It is impossible for a law based upon the subjective to not be against the objective, because out of all the possibilites all but one is in opposition to the objective. And that is the best case scenario as what is in the subjective possibilities does not have to contain the objective (all subjective possibilities happen to be wrong).
It is just a matter of what is possible and not possible based upon the logical format alone.
7-08| 3.21.13 @ 11:38AM
"Surrendering on “social issues” won’t save the Republican soul."
Really? Virtually all of your champions ironically lose any semblance of soul when they place their hand on the Bible and swear in.
You want to save our culture? Quit getting divorced, quit bearing illegitimate children, and quit interfering in others lives. "Social issues" are resolved democratically at the ballot box; social engineering, what your persist in, has made you pariahs.
Half of you have been divorced, yet you want the electorate to let you dictate terms to some insignificant one percent that want to marry.
Half of you cannot bear children because you are male. Many of you cannot bear children because you are too old. There have been fifty million abortions so it is statistically impossible that a staggering amount of the child bearing women (yes you) since Roe have "chosen" hypocritically.
Surrender (?), you have lost and as your representatives demonstrate you have lost "unconditionally."
fmm| 3.21.13 @ 12:32PM
Simply put, surrendering on social issues resuts in total failure as there remains nothing on which to build meaningful arguments.
Chazael| 3.21.13 @ 5:09PM
True!
Everything has to be built upon "I like...". Which has as much force as declaring your favorite ice cream flavor.
JP| 3.21.13 @ 2:06PM
Here's a religious attitude that is quite libertarian:
My Church is a private organization protected by the First Amendment. We break no laws; we're no people. As a matter of fact, we supply millions of dollars of free charity to own towns and neighborhoods every year. LEAVES US ALONE!!!!
Now, that should satisfy both sides of the Conservative aisles (Libertarian and religious). However, there is another group within the GOP - the Progressive branch. That's another story.
OP4| 3.21.13 @ 2:34PM
You just described this Libertarian Christian's attitude perfectly.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:36PM
As I've been saying, libertarians and conservatives agree exactly on the role of government. The difference is in particular beliefs.
Most libertarians are atheists. Most conservatives are Christians.
Given the identicality on the role of government, I believe that Christians who understand that this identicality exists don't have much reason to call themselves "libertarian" instead of "conservative".
Sixgun| 3.21.13 @ 7:15PM
But most libertarians would claim that the government has no right to include the First Amendment in the law of the land and protect religious organizations, that is government interference. So if you remove the First Amendment, you satisfy the libertarians, but not the Conservatives because now they lose their protection from those who want to harm religion. This is where libertarian ideology crumbles.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 7:42PM
Freedom of religion is a farce.
It's a farce that's more useful to Christians than most alternatives, which have historically been more hostile to Christians than our "freedom of religion." That is why most Christians claim to like it. But it is still a farce.
The fundamentalist Muslim who believes in slaughtering infidels cannot freely practice his religion without violating others' rights. This is one egregious example of many ways in which true freedom of religion would violate rights.
Part of the problem is the broad definition of "religion".
By definition, two mutually compatible ideas cannot coexist without conflict.
The Founders felt a need to call out "religion" in the First Amendment due to particular problems of their era. This is understandable. But the true meaning of the First Amendment is that no idea gets inherent superiority over others; all must earn their places in society. And all should get what they earn; none should be banned without a chance on the whims of some authority.
But when ideas (whether labeled "religious" or not) compete, some will still lose. As in all things, freedom is not freedom from consequences.
Rhoetus| 3.21.13 @ 11:00PM
Amen JP.
OP4| 3.21.13 @ 2:33PM
The states are the right place to decide issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc...
What I want in the national Republican Party is FEDERALISM. The federal government should be as distant from my life as it was 200 years ago.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 2:38PM
That won't solve problems. It will just move them.
States' Rights are a step in a good direction, but legalizing murder at the state level is no better than legalizing it federally. The person being slaughtered doesn't care why he's being slaughtered.
C. Vernon Crisler | 3.21.13 @ 2:57PM
Good point JD. I think the 14th Amendment elevates abortion to the federal level.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 3:19PM
The federal government does have a purpose. That purpose is to protect natural rights. The federal government is the place to ban abortion, ideologically speaking.
I agree that if it were left to the states, abortion would be banned in half the country, and that would be a better outcome than having it legal everywhere. But dividing responsibility to defend natural rights could cause new problems.
PolishKnight| 3.21.13 @ 3:47PM
Hammering in the obvious until they get it:
While the leftist's purge against white males was mentioned in passing, it is the single most important "social" issue out there. Unborn children cannot vote but white males can. Protecting the civil rights of their electorate is not only moral but essential for everything else. It's like those stewardess' flight instructions: First you attach YOUR oxygen mask, and then the kids. If white males aren't around to vote Republican, then the party is worthless.
All the other great stuff, even the economic stuff, is great but worthless to non-white males who will vote for race spoils 80% of the time or more.
Going to the left won't work but yanking out the rug from under the biggest vote getter will.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 4:43PM
How about catering to people who understand how the world works, or needs to work to advance, and leaving the identity politics to the trolls?
Yes, we may lose elections, but you can't save a people from themselves, and you can't improve them by compromising yourself.
Jesus didn't sin in the name of relating to sinners, nor did he dilute his message for them. And not all believe in him. If he diluted his message in order to increase his "appeal", he might have gained followers, but what would they have followed him to?
PolishKnight| 3.21.13 @ 9:53PM
JD, I think the principles have already been compromised. It amuses me that the same people who often love a big, strong military that will protect America's interests (some of the time) by going around the world and shooting at people often including innocent civilians caught in the crossfire somehow think that it's ok to lose elections because that would be "too ugly".
Conservatives and libertarians are practicing political pacifism and if the goal is to lose, big, so that you can prove how principled you are then, great, you're accomplishing that pretty well.
And there's plenty of identity politics for the conservatives. You don't think that the wealthy don't send over some checks to the Republicans to protect their interests? Note, there's nothing WRONG with that but why shouldn't Republicans perhaps care about white males as much as their other "identity" blocs?
But sure, Jesus died for our sins and if the goal of conservatism is to die too, it's on the right track.
Job| 3.21.13 @ 6:29PM
I'm on an unbalanced see-saw. I need more weight on my side. What do I do ??? Or idea!!!! Cut something off the other side and throw it on the ground, or cut something off the other side and put it on my side, or stay on or get off the ride and whine. Now what's it gonna be after all this whining is over with folks? How the hell do we get some more conservatives aside from breeding wasp males with wasp males???? How bout we hand the dynamite to the game warden and ask him, "you gonna talk or you gonna fish."
PolishKnight| 3.21.13 @ 9:59PM
The answer, Job, is that as long as the left is allowed to engage in "identity politics" or bashing white males without a challenge, most Democrat voters will stay in that camp. This is why Obama can raise gas prices to 4 bucks and still get a 43% approval rating.
This is an easily defined and addressed social issue and also political profitable as well. It's also the right thing to do.
I'm amused at the outrage about gay marriage. Not only is that issue slowly being won by the left (who will put it on their trophy mantle) but it's irrelevant to the family values campaign since Richard Nixon signed in the marriage penalty and subsidies for unwed mothers into the tax code. I'm considering getting a divorce and staying "shacked up" with my wife just to make money.
There's this image the left has put out there of the typical conservative being one of those crazed fundamentalists in the film "Footloose" where the preachers try to stop the kids from the horrors of... DANCING and then those rapscallions sneak around in the basement being cool and hip. A philosophy that's suicidal and misdirected may have some great ideas but in the end, it's still suicidal and misdirected.
Podesta| 3.22.13 @ 5:27AM
As long as Republicans are ignorant enough to believe presidents control gas prices the GOP is hopeless.
PolishKnight| 3.22.13 @ 3:32PM
Obama had a press release where he criticized the Republicans for claiming that increasing domestic fuel production could somehow impact world prices and then, in the next paragraph, claimed that the Democrat's (ambiguous) plan for energy conservation would somehow do the same thing. How is saving gasoline supposed to lower energy prices while producing more gasoline not have any impact?
Rhoetus| 3.21.13 @ 10:59PM
I don't get my morality from politics or politicians.
Jane Chingo| 3.24.13 @ 8:24AM
Did you intentionally set out to be incomprehensible? Or did your outline for a first draft somehow get published? The words are English, but there's not a single understandable thought anywhere.