-
Key Soros Ally Provides Race-Rhetoric Training Session for House Democrats
May 13, 2012 | 11 comments
-
Washington Post Quotes the Dead to Defame Romney
May 11, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Chronicle Editors Pander to Academic Lynch Mob, Fire Naomi Schaefer Riley
May 8, 2012 | 39 comments
-
NBC News and the Death of Truth
April 26, 2012 | 24 comments
-
Geithner Says Obama Policies 'Incredibly Effective,' Calls Romney Claims 'Ridiculous'
April 15, 2012 | 38 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Ace of Spades, Conservative Blogger of the Year, on the repeated assertions that social conservatives are a net political liability to the GOP:
Libertarians/social liberals sometimes insist that all we need to do is ditch the values program of the conservative agenda and then we start winning. This is asserted time and time again, even when, say, Prop 8 wins in socially-liberal California. Oddly, it is asserted that running on a plank that commands 53% support even in a socially-liberal state is a losing proposition.<
I'm going to single out Ryan Sager as Johnny Nonsensical One-Note on this point, because he keeps writing the same column over and over, with the same massive hole in logic that is never filled.
It's clear that Ryan Sager is a libertarian/social liberal -- he never tires of informing us so -- and it is therefore quite clear that he'd prefer a dream party that perfectly tracked his own policy impulses. What he always seeks to prove, however, and always fails at so doing, is that it is electorally plausible to follow his prescriptions.
This goes back more than 40 years to Phyllis Schlafly urging Republicans to offer America "a choice, not an echo." If the Democratic Party is liberal (and it is) and if liberalism results in bad policy (and it does), then clearly opposing liberalism is the GOP's best long-term strategy even if such opposition is unpopular in the short term.
Elsewhere, Ace points to a new poll on immigration -- showing a 3-to-1 preference for enforcement over amnesty -- and sarcastically observes:
But by all means let's keep ignoring a winning issue because some "moderates" want the NYT to like them. I mean, we have so many winning issues at the moment, we can afford to be choosy.
As Casey Stengel said, can't anybody here play this game?
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/11/ace-nails-sagerism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Tenured and Powerless
- Medicaid Freedom of Choice
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Matthew Vadum| 11.12.08 @ 12:23AM
Sagerism?
Matthew Vadum| 11.12.08 @ 12:24AM
Further thought: Is a huge fan of your writings therefore a McCainiac?
Eric Dondero| 11.12.08 @ 7:15AM
Please note, Ryan's views do not in any way represent the views of the broader libertarian movement. Ryan Sager is not a movement libertarian. Nobody knows of him in the Libertarian Party. He's not a regular at Cato functions. He wouldn't know the Republican Liberty Caucus if it smacked him upside the head.
He's just a lone self-described "libertarian," who thinks he represents our movement. He does not.
Let me be very clear on this: WE LIBERTARIANS SUPPORT OUR CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS AND ARE LOYAL REPUBLICANS! And as a matter of fact, we FULLY recognize the importance of the social conservative-libertarian coalition. We libertarians cannot win our own. You conservatives cannot win on your own. We need each other to defeat the Left. That's just a cold hard fact of life.
Will we agree on drug legalization? Prostitution? Internet Pornography? Probably not.
But we can find some areas of agreement on other key civil liberties issues, like mandatory seat belt laws, 55 mph speed limit, smoking bans, and ending affirmative action.
You wanna piss off us libertarians? Give in to Nanny-state conservatism. When conservatives start signing on to "easy" civil liberties issues, like smoking bans, as they do sometimes, that will seriously call into question our continued alliance.
Look, contrary to Sager, we REAL LIBERTARIANS, have come to accept y'all's hardcore Pro-Life stance, your strong dislike for Pornography, your stuffy views on Drugs. We have bigger problems to deal with these days: The Fascism of Liberal America. Just do us a favor... Don't screw us over by stupidly backing seat belt laws, smoking bans, or lowering the speed limit to 55. Is that really too much for us to ask of our conservative friends?
So, ignore Sager. Let's get to work on defeating the Left!
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican blog
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul
Fmr. Libertarian National Committeeman
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
Laura Like| 11.12.08 @ 7:59AM
When both mainstream political parties have the same ideas the majority of voters will pick the young sexy guy over the old white guy every time. In order to defeat the left we have to oppose them not run with them.
Mary| 11.12.08 @ 8:56AM
Emanuel's strategy in the '06 was to pirouette around the country, identify weak republicans, and run 2A, pro-growth democrats in their place.
According to what I've read there's close to 100 of these guys.
Either summon the courage to stand up for what you believe, or actively run against the republican platform, as a republican.
The Schlafly quote bears repeating: "a choice, not an echo."
The electorate is malleable because there's a lot of ignorance there. And I don't exempt myself from this either. Do I know all the issues? No. But I know poseurs when I hear or see them.
If were going to roll over like fat seals, then let's at least have the guts to admit it, and make governing all about power.
I'm sick of Hollow Men.
Grand Old Elephant| 11.12.08 @ 12:07PM
Eric Dondero,
You have got to be kidding, I hope! (Or else speaking about Local laws.)
A Federal Speed Limit law was a mistake! Federal Mandatory Seat Belt laws are also a mistake. And Smoking Bans are about as nanny-state as you can get, except for smoking "When and Where" restriction laws which are intended to allow people to co-exist with one another.
I am an anti-theocon on liberty issues who opposes those "Libertarians" who support an Insurance companies right to euthanize their high liability clients and also oppose those "Libertarians" who grant slavemaster rights to mothers in the name of "Choice."
A fetus is a human and biologically its chromosome pattern differs from the chromosome pattern of its mother, especially when she is XX and he is XY.
Many Libertarians think that the Confederate Rebellion's argument that a Master has constitutional rights over his property applies to a woman deciding to become a fetus factory for stem cell research! Welcome to Nazi-style dehumanization. "Equal Protection Under Law" is not theological.
SCOTUS decided decades ago that the Ninth and Tenth amendments are moot legally. The USA needs a revival of Federalism which protects all humans regardless of Age (inc. fetuses), Race, Religion, Gender, Ethnicity, etc. etc etc. from any attempt by a local or state Government to dehumanize them or prevent them from receiving Equal Protection and Justice Under Law. A federalism which does not permit local segregation nor discrimination needs to be the policy of the Republican party.