As long as I’m dredging up golden oldies on space, I might as well do one on politics as well. I’ve talked to and emailed (and Usenetted) a few “moderate” Republicans who were turned off by McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, because they thought the choice was simply pandering to the religious right, and they bought the caricature of her sold by the MSM. I don’t agree with that (I think that there was a confluence of factors, including the desire to pick off some of Hillary! supporters), but I really do think that a) he thought that she would be a reformer like him based on her record and b) he did and does have a high regard for her intelligence and capabilities, because most people who meet her, Democrats and “liberals” included, seem to.
Anyway, I really don’t understand this fear of the religious right, though I am neither religious, or “right” (in the social conservative sense). I explained why in a post about six and a half years ago. I think that it’s relevant today, and in fact wish that I’d reposted it before the election (not that the fate of the nation hinges in any way on my posts).
Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:
This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.
This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who’s also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.
While I’m not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don’t think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I’ll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I’ve ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I’d like that one back.
There are at least two reasons for this.
First, I’ve found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I’ve never run into them. That’s the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.
But the most important reason is this–while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions, and there’s good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.
This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you’re ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.
Who can be against a “living wage”? What’s so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn’t rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?–they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What’s wrong with you? How can you be against social security–do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?
To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don’t think any Democrats did.
[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it–John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]
On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they’ll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they’d actually do about it if you voted for them?
The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they’re very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they’re very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
Nothing has happened in the interim to change my views in this regard. The real disappointment was that the Republicans gave us the worst of all worlds this election–a Democrat (in terms of his populist economic thinking and his own antipathy to the free market, despite his Joe-the-Plumber noises about “spreading the wealth”) at the top of their ticket, with a running mate who was perceived (falsely, in my opinion) as being a warrior for the religious right. But that’s what happens when you stupidly have open primaries, and allow the media to pick your nominee.
that last Anon comment was from me.
Karl Hallowell wrote
My belief here is that there is no place in government for morality in the absence of evidence of concrete harm to others
All government is an exercise in morality. The notion that there such a thing as a “right” to free speech is a moral notion. It’s a measure of the foolishness of libertarians that they are oblivious to the reality that they do in fact want to impose their morality on others. “Everyone can decide for themselves whether to have an abortion” is a moral argument.
Maybe you think that your morality is better, but you’d lying to yourself if you claim that you’re not making moral judgements.
Karl Hallowell, you wrote:
2) Just because it is murder, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
Karl,
You are not lending much credence to your claim that secularist individuals are just as moral as their religious counterparts. If one deems something ‘murder’, then yes, it should be illegal. Let’s not lose our bearings.
Ah,
JimmyS is a Cultural Socialist.
Me? I believe in Cultural Liberty and Economic Liberty.
Amazingly, we see the point of the post exhibited endlessly in the comments: the social conservatives don’t like the libertarians, and vice versa. There is not a home for the fiscally conservative, socially liberal people because there are a lot more socially conservative or fiscally liberal people out there. Life sucks.
Abortion is a useless argument; most states that would ban it de jure have already done it de facto. (I’m from Mississippi, population 2.8 million, total abortion clinics 1, wait period 24 hrs; is Utah any different?). Fighting about it does nobody good.
The really funny part is that all this social conservativism has never gotten blacks to vote Republican after the Southern Strategy. Southern black voters are electoral gold in terms of numbers and consistency; like “ethnic” Rust Belters, they’re socially conservative but fiscally redistributionist; unlike their Rust Belt colleagues, they’re adamantly anti- the party supported by white southerners, whichever that may be.
Paul Hsieh,
Sorry, I’m not buying your thesis.
Aside from the ban on federal funding for stem cell research and the Terri Schiavo debacle I can’t think of any socon issue that has passed without abundant support from the democrats also.
What we have here is a clear example of failing to rationally look at the actions of both parties. This is the most rank type of stereotyping and it has produced a situation where the republican socons get all of the attention while the democrat socons get ignored.
The democrat president bill clinton signed the defense of marriage act, the democrat gores provided us with the music censoring parents music resource center, democrat hillary clintion’s has been actively attempting to regulate games, the democrats are primarily responsible for the bans on trans_fats and foi gras, etc, etc.
I’m persuadable but absent a substantial list of socon policies passed by the republicans without considerable democrat support your case is DOA.
I’m persuadable but absent a substantial list of socon policies passed by the republicans without considerable democrat support your case is DOA.
How true. It would be nice if we had a party dedicated to Liberty – Economic and Cultural – and strong National Defense. Republicans used to be that Party – mostly.
Now the Republicans stand for Cultural and Economic Socialism – if behavior is any judge.
Another problem with the idea that conservative religious politicians are the problem with the republicans is this fact.
Many of the republicans who have been absolute stalwarts on economic, regulatory, and fiscal responsibility issues are highly religious. Tom Coburn is the textbook example of this, Jeff Flake is another.
If the republicans had more politicians like Coburn and Flake our deficit would be much smaller, government would be much better, and the republicans would likely not have gotten blown out in the last two elections.
Purging the socons would get rid of most of the politicians who have actually tried to govern as principled free market advocates..
The massive expansion in government spending and regulation under the bush presidency while the republican controlled congress is what wrecked the republican “brand” not the socons and their policy wishes.
JimmyS, you wrote:
All government is an exercise in morality.
This first statement is clearly wrong. Sure it can be an exercise in morality (or more accurately applied ethics, where ethics is the philosophy of right conduct and the good life). It is always the application of power imposed on a group of people. In fact, a common aspect of totalitarian governments is that while there are a lot of rules concerning their citizens, these rules are subject to change at a whim. Further, agents of the government often have authority to just do stuff, eg, shoot people without cause or reason.
An extreme case of this, so I understand, was the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia. A tale I’ve heard is that at some point a group of white collar professions had been rounded up and put to work in a jungle collective farm (apparently this happened to everyone who lived in the cities, but the educated types were often selected for extermination). Apparently, they were put under the lethal rule of a 15 year old girl. Random killings, torture, and beatings were a common occurance, whatever she (or the guards) felt like at the time.
There was no steadfast rules, much less a moral code, to follow. I gather this was part of the indoctrination process. Kill off the ones deemed overeducated and brainwash the rest (via continual random application of pain, hunger, and terror) into becoming loyal tools of the regime. I imagine the lack of a moral code was considered a feature. It meant there was no limit to the barbarism that the agents of the state could inflict.
The notion that there such a thing as a “right” to free speech is a moral notion. It’s a measure of the foolishness of libertarians that they are oblivious to the reality that they do in fact want to impose their morality on others. “Everyone can decide for themselves whether to have an abortion” is a moral argument.
Or it’s an opinion on the intellectual capabilities of pregnant women. Context is everything. The statement need not make a claim on whether an activity ought to occur or not, be allowed or not. If it doesn’t make such claims, then it is not a moral claim. For example, I see no reason that pregnant women aren’t capable of deciding whether to have an abortion any more than I am capable of deciding whether to steal my neighbor’s hubcaps.
Further, you seem to hint that allowing an activity in itself (in addition to the issue of whether harm happens to others or not) somehow imposes on your morality. I see that as a problem in your moral code, not in the activity. Sure I have no problem with the idea that I may commit acts you think are immoral. But I think your moral code is too intrusive, if being allowed to commit these immoral acts is a violation of your moral code.
Maybe you think that your morality is better, but you’d lying to yourself if you claim that you’re not making moral judgements.
Hmmm, do I make such a claim? Doesn’t look like it to me. For the record, I do think that a moral code that has been carefully reasoned out is far superior to one that is established by fiat, emotion, or chance. Assuming the two codes are otherwise similar. And a code that can be questioned and corrected is superior to one which cannot be. Finally, a code that is clearer and more consistent is superior to one with greater ambiguities and contradictions.
jjoakl, you wrote:
You are not lending much credence to your claim that secularist individuals are just as moral as their religious counterparts. If one deems something ‘murder’, then yes, it should be illegal. Let’s not lose our bearings.
Actually that’s a logical not moral error. Murder by definition (at least in the States) is illegal. Thus, legal murder is an oxymoron. I meant rather “killing with the intent to kill”.
Just to restate the point:
2) Just because someone is killing with the intent to kill doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
Media bias is not simply about a few reporters shilling for Democrats, it includes widespread cultural shibboleths and narratives. The great “fundamentalist theocracy” bogeyman is one such shibboleth perpetuated, for example, by the famous map of “Jesusland,” and the jokes about Sarah Palin and biblical dinosaurs.
As I am not religious, I would find the prospect of Republican theocracy alarming were the evidence for it not so scant. The cliche shapes the cartoon-ish mis-underestimation of conservatives by leftists, which I think strongly contributed to their losses in 2004. However, it seems like a lot of people who should know better are being influenced by it.
Paul Hsieh, I generally agree with your criticism of the GOP in your Denver Post column, but I think you have been manipulated into choosing a greater evil over a lesser one.
Karl Hallowell wrote
Context is everything. ..For example, I see no reason that pregnant women aren’t capable of deciding whether to have an abortion any more than I am capable of deciding whether to steal my neighbor’s hubcaps.
I’m sure that you don’t, Karl. But (1) that is a moral argument you are making. And (2) we have laws against your stealing your neighbors hubcaps. We don’t leave it up to you to make your own personal choice as to whether to steal them or not.
The statement need not make a claim on whether an activity ought to occur or not, be allowed or not. If it doesn’t make such claims, then it is not a moral claim.
Nonsense. You are most certainly saying that the activity should be allowed. That is a moral assertion you are making.
for the record, I do think that a moral code that has been carefully reasoned out is far superior to one that is established by fiat, emotion, or chance.
Your moral code is not based on reason. It is in fact largely based on “fiat, emotion, and chance”. The fiat part comes from the courts. Your beliefs have never has any popular support and can only be imposed by ignoring the will of the people. If you are at all familiar with libertarian theory, beyond “pop libertarianism”, then you know that libertarian theorists are firmly opposed to any sort of democratic or representative government, and favor rule by “judges”. Except that the judges are actually what the Greeks called tyrants.
Further, you seem to hint that allowing an activity in itself (in addition to the issue of whether harm happens to others or not) somehow imposes on your morality. I see that as a problem in your moral code, not in the activity.
You seem to think that not allowing an activity somehow imposes on your morality. I see that as a problem with your moral code, not in my activity.
It would be nice if we had a party dedicated to Liberty – Economic and Cultural – and strong National Defense. Republicans used to be that Party – mostly.
When was this?
And it’s amusing to see how many former communists are now calling themselves libertarians. It allows them to keep a considerable amount of their old thinking intact.
Just because it is murder, doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
Thanks so much for sharing your “moral code that has been carefully reasoned out”, Karl.
After all, murder is just another choice. We should not rule it out based on “fiat, emotion, or chance”.
I’m done talking to anyone who thinks like this.
I guess all that stuff about “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” was just meaningless fluff, then.
I respect your rights to believe in nothing, although many of you I personally wish I could convince otherwise. But when some of you start talking about how mankind can organize itself along completely secular moral lines… guys, that’s the kind of governmental justification that led to all those regimes in the previous century that killed millions of people. When you make the claim that morality can exist naturally on its own without a basis in any form of religion at all… well, in theory, yes, you’re absolutely right… but in theory, all utopian governments work, as well. We’ve got something that works, overall, here and now, and if it happens to be based on a few layers of Judeo-Christian morality topped by a few centuries of English common law, Rennaissance moral thinking, and settler pragmatism, then for the most part I’d recommend that you just leave it be. Point out the places where it needs fixing, rather than trying to junk the whole lot.
At any rate, I’m pretty disgusted with this whole thing. A far smarter man than I once said, “We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.” I’m, according to some of you guys, both a “socon” and a libertarian, and if you decide to walk off in a huff and leave the country to those who would dominate both our personal and our economic lives, I would kindly ask you to get a clue.
Now, I’m not going to preach about the Republican party per se; I don’t consider myself one, for many of the same reasons as Rand has often stated. But I will say that for all the groaning about the “socon” conspiracy, you’re more likely to get a hearing for libertarian issues in the next Republican primary than in the next Democratic primary. So, your best bet until then is to work the *real* base… talk to the American people as a whole. Do your own Long March through the hearts and minds of the public. Convince them, one at a time or in groups, that libertarian principles are worth voting for. I haven’t seen half as much of that effort as I’d like, and in the long run, you end up eating your seed corn if you don’t keep re-planting it.
If you manage to instill your values in enough voters, the politicians will be forced to follow. I know that’s overly simplistic in this day of nigh-invincible incumbents and 2-party choices between bad and worse, but in the long run, over a course of years, I believe that it is still possible, just harder.
M. Simon,
This is beneath you. It is quite clear that John McCain never was a social conservative, and not even a conservative except in personal heroism. The Country Clubbers got one of their own in as the nominee, and as they usually do, they lost (GW, Sr., Robert Dole, and John McCain.)
This needs to be accepted.
And then we need to move on from there.
The first obvious point is: No more RINO candidates for President. They lose.
The Standard Conservative cannot offer much to a Moderate because the Party will lose. The Moderates can hurt the Party it is true, but to give in to their demands (past a certain mild bit) is the kiss of death. So, the Standard Conservative, if he wants to win, has no choice.
Here’s the short version: there are essentially only three political urges found in democracies: the desire for a virtuous society, the desire for a socially just society and the desire for a free society. Here’s the catch: as a nation, we only get to choose one. By pursuing any policy designed to satisfy any one of these urges, we must necessarily discriminate against the other two, because at some point the policies will conflict requiring us to choose.
The Democrats are obviously the party of social justice. When it comes to pursuing the goal of making everyone’s social outcomes more equal, they will compromise individual rights and moral codes. At the same time the Republicans are biased toward public morality, and their bias leads them to compromise away large chunks of the small government agenda of freedom as well as policies designed to promote social equality whenever necessary.
Now the two parties alternately gain power and lose power as time passes, and each party uses it’s newly acquired power to tear down the political edifices previously built by the other party while promoting and enacting policies designed to fulfill their own goals. Each party also uses the time they are kicked out of power to figure out a way to get back into power.
Now with all this in mind, does anyone see the problem? The problem is that freedom loses with every turn of the wheel. Freedom loses because neither of the two parties puts freedom first. Now as far as the Republicans go, there are two undeniable facts: 1. the social cons are in charge of the party and have been in charge since at least 1988 (although the classical liberals in the freedom wing of the Republican party haven’t really been in charge since Reconstruction), and 2. The Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 have been handed their political asses and are now almost completely out of power. Given these two facts it is simply impossible to conclude that the social-cons aren’t responsible. The time has come for the Republicans to make plan B plan A, and this will require the social-cons to compromise their moralism when deference to individual freedom and small government make it necessary. Otherwise the freedom wing of the party should refuse to consign liberty to the Republican electoral wilderness and walk. And keep on walking.
Big D sez: But when some of you start talking about how mankind can organize itself along completely secular moral lines… guys, that’s the kind of governmental justification that led to all those regimes in the previous century that killed millions of people.
Actually, totalitarian regimes such as Stalin, Hitler (sorry for bringing Godwin’s Law down on this thread), Mao, Pol Pot, etc., were not totalitarian because of their stand on religion. They were totalitarian because they denied fundamental tenets of human nature. See Steven Pinker’s excellent book The Blank Slate for all the details…
BTW, just to rain on the “Judeo-Christian heritage” folks, according to Willard Sterne Randall’s well-received TJ bio Thomas Jefferson: A Life, TJ was an atheist who refused to capitalize the word “god” in his notebooks…maybe that’s why he was undoubtedly the most complex of the founding fathers :-/
Tennwriter,
How true. I don’t dispute your point. The Republicans have nothing to offer the Leave Us Alone crowd except a strong National Defense.
Which is why I like Palin. She governs as an economic conservative and at least in Alaska made no mention of any cultural agenda.
Still one must look not just at the reality of the candidate but also the party brand. And the Republican Party is branded as being the party of the Cultural Socialists. The Democrats are of course the party of the Economic Socialists.
I’d like a party of Liberty. Cultural and Economic. Palin seems to offer the best hope of that. And she is strong on National Defense. Making her my ideal candidate, providing she sticks to what made her the most popular Governor in America.
TJIT wrote:
“Another problem with the idea that conservative religious politicians are the problem with the republicans is this fact.
Many of the republicans who have been absolute stalwarts on economic, regulatory, and fiscal responsibility issues are highly religious. Tom Coburn is the textbook example of this, Jeff Flake is another.
If the republicans had more politicians like Coburn and Flake our deficit would be much smaller, government would be much better, and the republicans would likely not have gotten blown out in the last two elections.
Purging the socons would get rid of most of the politicians who have actually tried to govern as principled free market advocates..
The massive expansion in government spending and regulation under the bush presidency while the republican controlled congress is what wrecked the republican “brand” not the socons and their policy wishes.”
I agree wholeheartedly with you. The cultural socialists you mention have been absolutely such stalwarts. I trust, if they ever gain control of the fed gov and enact such small government, fiscally responsible policies, that they will then stop right there, ride off into the sunset on a train of federalist horses, and not into my bedroom and my weed stash. Right? Why do I have this feeling that’s not what’s going to happen?
The problem is the right-left political spectrum is fundamentally wrong. The real spectrum is true believers on one end, however self-styled, and extreme skeptical doubters on the other. If you are a true believer, a person who knows they have the secret, they have the knowledge, whether it’s a personal relationship with Allah, or a personal relationship with Marx, you make me really nervous.
Right now the true believer economic materialists have the upper hand in Washington. I’m not happy. So I voted against them. But if another group of true believers of another stripe later get as much of an upper hand as the current ones have, I’ll still be unhappy. And probably not voting for them either.
I worry more about the true believer lefties, I’ll grant you, because they truly believe in government as their god’s temple. So when they get actual control of a government, bad things always happen.
But with the collapse of the Soviets, we now get the true believers of the other type to crawl out of the Soviet shadow, the Taliban, Bin Laden, the twelvers in Iran. They too have a real bead on things, and a cross hair on me.
People who just know they have the answer, just know it I tell you, make me really nervous.
So I’ll vote with the Cultural Socialists for a while, but I’m not going to church and I’m not turning my neighbor over to the police because their kid got an abortion.
JimmyS, you wrote:
I’m done talking to anyone who thinks like this.
Maybe that is still so. I corrected that statement at the end of my post.
Murder is by definition an illegal act of killing. The original statement was a non sequitur.
Karl Hallowell wrote
I’m sure that you don’t, Karl. But (1) that is a moral argument you are making. And (2) we have laws against your stealing your neighbors hubcaps. We don’t leave it up to you to make your own personal choice as to whether to steal them or not.
My point here is that I’m making a statement about capability. It may qualify as a moral argument, but that context wasn’t given. You appear to have an overambitious definition of what is a moral argument. I just gave an example where it need not be.
The thing is I am capable of deciding to steal my neighbor’s hubcaps and any number of other nefarious activities. As is almost everyone else. Law and punishment doesn’t stop me from doing this. It provides consequences for doing the crime and getting caught which in turn may influence my decisions. So someone might say of me, “Karl could steal those hubcaps, but he wouldn’t steal them.” They are simultaneous voicing an opinion on my physical capabilities, and making a moral claim.
Nonsense. You are most certainly saying that the activity should be allowed. That is a moral assertion you are making.
Er, I assume you are still speaking of the hubcab thing. I’m not. Just because I’m capable of getting out a screwdriver, sneaking over to the neighbor’s carport and prying a hubcap off, doesn’t mean I should do it or should be allowed to do it. The laws exist in the first place because I can do such crimes not because I will.
If you mean actual moral statements I made, and I agree I made a number of them, then yes, things that I said should be allowed are moral statements.
Your moral code is not based on reason. It is in fact largely based on “fiat, emotion, and chance”. The fiat part comes from the courts. Your beliefs have never has any popular support and can only be imposed by ignoring the will of the people. If you are at all familiar with libertarian theory, beyond “pop libertarianism”, then you know that libertarian theorists are firmly opposed to any sort of democratic or representative government, and favor rule by “judges”. Except that the judges are actually what the Greeks called tyrants.
If you were at all familiar with libertarian theory, you would know that there are a ridiculous number of flavors of libertarianism. I’m sure that there are indeed libertarian theoretics/ideologues who have the opinions you note, but the subject is a morass and considering it doesn’t really help in our argument.
Moving on, I’m not a strong proponent of libertarianism. Democratic government does seem a convenient way to handle certain issues fairly, and I do see a role for government as the insurer of last resort, what I see as a more or less pure economic role.
I however strongly disagree with the role of government as enforcer of a moral code. Such things as theft and murder have strong economic repercussions where one party is obviously harmed by another. Drug use or sodomy doesn’t in itself harm another party, though those who engage in such activity may practice related activities that do harm others, like operating heavy machinery while intoxicated or spreading sexually transmitted disease.
So as I see it, a key driver for what laws should exist is merely that there is a directly harmed party who can show evidence of the harm. I also happen to think there are other things that are right or wrong, but I do not think those moral choices should be encoded into law.
You seem to think that not allowing an activity somehow imposes on your morality. I see that as a problem with your moral code, not in my activity.
Your activity is not the problem. The “not allowing” part is the problem. Every time you use law to penalize or prohibit an activity, you take a bit of freedom. There are two things that must happen for a law to be considered legitimately enforced. First, it must have a credible penalty. Second, the enforcement mechanism must be able to trigger often enough that “getting caught” is possible. So for example, a law making possession of drugs doesn’t work either if there’s no penalty or no chance of getting caught.
Both aspects hinder a person’s freedoms. If the activity being penalized has no significant consequence (like gay marriage, for example), then the penalty and the enforcement surveillance impose on a group’s freedoms without providing a corresponding benefit.
Even if an activity, such as drug use, does cause some degree of harm, the prohibition effort can outweigh it in harm. For example, a significant fraction of people in jail, are there solely for drug related offenses. Some of the worst abuses of the Constitution (particularly, the asset seizure laws) have been commited in support of the “War on Drugs”.
There is the cost and risk of buying a substance that would be vastly cheaper and safer, if it were legal. This alone probably explains most of the drug related crime, namely, one needs a lot of money to pay for an expensive drug habit and one is already breaking the law so there’s not so much penalty in breaking the law some more. Finally, drug criminalization coupled with high demand for the product has resulted in a deep corruption of US society.
Peter wrote:
Here is something you anti social conservatives may not have noticed. The socons are the ones that actually work phone banks and walk precincts. In three terms as a Republican Precinct Chairman I never once saw the libertarian wing of the Party actually do anything but complain.
Some elections the socoms stay home. 2008 was one of those elections. Perhaps you didn’t notice but the Pubbies lost, big time.
Now, we have a incoming Presidency that will insert their Morals(?) deep into our lives. Unlike that horrid Palin who vetoed the bill that would have barred people in domestic partnerships the right to state benefits.
Great job. I’m so proud of you.
So how’s the “let’s turn the repubs into a single issue party” thing working out for you, and how’s the trend look? To win you need 50% or so, and the Cultural Socialists account for may 25%-30%. So we can’t win without you, right? How do you win without us?
A very interesting article, but would you please attempt to apply that critical thinking of yours to morals/sex/etc. too and see what you get, if you look at stuff like demographics? For examlple, what happens when sexuality will really be seen only as a pleasure and not as a duty to make childrend and therefore intelligent, well-off people start to have less children while poorer and less smart people still have a lot because of welfare and Catholicism? How will the inheritances look like in 2-3 generations, for example?
Miklos,
Rich families are starting to have more children. It is an element of conspicuous consumption.
I’m not talking about purging socons. I’m suggesting they lead by example (Palin) rather than enforcing their positions with government guns.
You know – make the tent bigger in order to win elections. Wouldn’t that be a good idea?
So let me see, If get this straight; you didn’y like Sarah and what she represented; that she is personally prolife, has a religious orientation, You ignored the fact that among other things,she exhibited a atrong skepticism on the bailout and a desire for free market policies, was thepostergirl for the NRA, promoted domestic energy development
would never have supported an atrocity like Kelo.
However, you either supported or abstained in favor of the most anti-gun, pro-tax, anti defense,
anti oil, coal, nuclear, space travel, pro Arabist
candidate duo in all of creation. You think you’re going to get a Kozinski, an Epstein out of this; you’re lucky if you get a Tribe and a Catherine Mackinnon out of this in perpetuity. An apologia for the worst tactical thinking since Custer’s last Stand should be in order. No Mr. Simon, I exclude you, the Doc and a select few, who really did think things through.
Sarah Palin lost me in the debate — when some of the first words out of her mouth was to attack the greed on wall street. It was a major letdown and the rhetoric ever since has not given me any reason to get behind her.
I do not dislike Sarah Palin on a personal level — but she lacks the fundamental understanding of free markets needed to educate and guide the American public out of the trappings of socialism. It may be unfair to compare her to Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher — but go back and listen to the clarity and simple brilliance of their rhetoric. Sarah Palin often sounds like a elementary school teacher by comparison.
I believe the next great champion of American freedom will be a secular individual who is unashamed to name names and laugh both the socialists and religious authoritarians (and that classification certainly does not include every Christian, Muslim or Jew) out of the room. Who that may be — I wish I knew.
Social Conservatives seeking to use government to legislate morality to the masses have been poisoning the well for too long by destroying the practical and ideological consistency of negative rights, thus opening the door to government cooptation by demagogues with various agendas and malignant vested interests from all sides of the political spectrum. Their religiously inspired diatribes against full American freedoms continue to alienate people in droves, particularly because most Americans today are rightfully oversensitive regarding matters of conscience, religion, social institutions, and private behavior.
Until it extirpates this reactionary faction, the Conservative movement
This post sounds a lot like P.J. O’Rourke’s “We Blew It”. Basically, he has the same point: That the Republicans refused to mellow out on social issues, but they always had national defense and economics as fall-back positions. This year they didn’t have those fall-backs, and it bit ’em on the ass.
You know – make the tent bigger in order to win elections. Wouldn’t that be a good idea?
Making the tent bigger is what has reduced the GOP to a minority role, while shrinking their tent has given the Democrats the majority.
The problem with a “big tent” is that the only thing it can stand for is “we’re not the Democrats”. If the GOP tries to take any stand on any issue then some members of the big tent object.
cthuhlu, sorry to take so long to get back to you. For the record, I know you did not mention stem cell research, which is why that comment was put under the category “More General.” Relatedly, you did redefine theocracy by greatly expanding its meaning, but you were not the only one, which is why that was in the “More General” category as well.
To the discussion. The accusation is that socons scare people, especially independent voters, and so the GOP should deemphasize their issues. But libertarians also scare people, especially independent voters. I don’t see any offers from them to deemphasize their issues. Granted that libertarians come in several flavors and do not agree on all issues themselves, it remains true that many folks were scared by the isolationism of Ron Paul and others, by drug legalization advocacy, support for gay marriage, and for a general absolutist approach to issues. Candidates that come from the libertarian side of the party will face just as much questioning, accusation, and rumor on those accounts (and others) as the socons get now. Burying our issues will not give the GOP a magical clean slate with the MSM.
Instead, the libertarians here seem to have hit upon the solution of “Hey, let’s drop all your issues and bring in a couple of ours, so that people won’t be scared.” It’s hard to see that as a kindly, cooperative, good-faith offer.
Whatever else we might do to improve our brand, it is important to remember that McCain was ahead in September, made mistakes on the bailout and was unfairly blamed for the crisis, was brutally outspent, and swam against an historic swooning by the media over the last 6 weeks. It would indeed be nice to have a coalition that could whether even those disadvantages, but let’s not overinterpret events.
Here’s the short version: there are essentially only three political urges found in democracies: the desire for a virtuous society, the desire for a socially just society and the desire for a free society. Here’s the catch: as a nation, we only get to choose one.
The Founders believed that freedom and virtue were inseparable. They went on at some length on this point, even the “secular” ones. In fact they also believed that justice was inseparable from freedom and virtue, although they would not have recognized “social justice” as having anything to do with real justice.
Just because someone is killing with the intent to kill doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
I’m sure that Hitler, Stalin, and Charles Manson would have agreed with you completely.
Such things as theft and murder have strong economic repercussions where one party is obviously harmed by another.
As I say, I don’t see why I should buy into your moral belief system. That remains true even if your moral belief revolves around the notion that economics is the true end of man. In fact, especially then.
mph,
I agree about Palin’s greed statement. However, that may have been forced on her by McCain.
In any case, if you want to help Palin get better educated on economics may I suggest a visit to here:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/11/articulating-economics.html
I have a couple of books I think she needs to read to get her better grounded in economics so that she does not make that mistake again.
I give her address (a government office) so you can send her the books.
Once we get into a big shooting war with the narco government of Mexico the folly of drug prohibition will become more apparent. There are already regular border skirmishes.
And if drugs are so scary, I need only point out that Michigan voted to decrim pot in the last election.
The idea is not so scary any more.
I think losing Afghanistan due to opium will also wake people up.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/11/from-drug-war-to-real-war.html
*
I think we can make the tent bigger without losing our principles.
Say no to Economic Socialism
Say no to Cultural Socialism
Say no to Socialism
Remember Joe the Plumber was a big hit. Republicans have to stop being so scary about cultural issues. Lead by example is fine. Using the force of law (government guns) should be off the table and Republicans need to say so.
Say no to Economic Socialism
Say no to Cultural Socialism
Say no to Socialism
You don’t know what socialism is. Which is odd, since you are a former socialist.
Think back to those days – remember that you had exactly the same cultural views as you do today? You were a cultural socialist then and you’re still one now.
But libertarians also scare people, especially independent voters. I don’t see any offers from them to deemphasize their issues. Granted that libertarians come in several flavors and do not agree on all issues themselves, it remains true that many folks were scared by the isolationism of Ron Paul and others, by drug legalization advocacy, support for gay marriage, and for a general absolutist approach to issues.
Erm, so don’t nominate scary absolutist libertarians. Duh.
To abuse a metaphor, there’s been much made of how the left has been slowly turning up the heat on the frog for the past several decades (through the tool of the Democratic Party). Someone who wants to yank the knob back down to “off” all at once isn’t going to get elected, because the yanking the controls around scares the voters. We need to start slowly turning the heat down.
Moderate well-mannered libertarian-ish candidates are the way to go. Leave the hardliners and their dogeared copies of Atlas Shrugged for the actual Libertarian Party.
JimmyS,
OK you are right. I should have called it by its real name. Fascism. Which is Cultural Socialism and Economic Socialism combined. However, I thought that was a little to incendiary. Any way that is what Jonah Goldberg calls it in his book “Liberal Fascism”
You might find this video with Jonah discussing Cultural Fascism instructive:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-mike-huckabee-republican.html
The deal is: government can no more solve cultural problems than it can solve economic problems.
But I could be wrong. How is the drug war working? A bag of 80% pure heroin can be bought for $4. When the Drug War started a bag of 5% pure heroin cost $30. Now there is one outstanding culture war success. Plus the Drug War finances criminals and terrorists. Price supports for criminals and terrorists. Now there is a socialist program every Right thinking Republican can get behind, eh?
Oh yeah. How did that Alcohol Prohibition thing work out for you? Another Cultural Socialist program. Championed by Billy Sunday – the socon leader of his day.
Or for that matter public schools also championed by socons of the day as indoctrination centers to make Catholics and Jews into Real Americans. Now there is one bit of Cultural Socialism we can all get behind, eh? I guess that one got away from you. But the intentions were good. Which is what really counts with Socialists eh?
Cultural Socialists are as impervious to actual evidence as Economic Socialists. It is like a Religion.
If you want drug legalization, vote for socon aka Standard Conservative candidates. Counterintuitive, I know. Part of the problem is that a lot of libertarians have a bogeyman in their mind that bears very little resemblance to reality. The other part is that human wave attacks into machine gun nests are not good strategy.
1.The Conservatives might be bargainned with (you support me on abortion, and I’ll support you on drug legalization).
2. Whoever pushes for DL is going to have to be fairly secure in power. I think Conservatives can win without Libertarians, but…it’d sure be a lot easier with a horde of screaming, blue-painted Picts at my side.
3. Once the Conservatives ‘own’ this issue like the D’s own the current gov’t, you can put the question to them…is this really the best way to do things? You’re not going to get complete DL this way, but amelioration is likely. Once someone owns an issue, they have to face all the consequences of their choices, and I’m sure that SWAT team raids on marijuana smokers based on secret informants would not pass muster in a Socon ran environment.
Consider this…in pre-Victorian England, you had 256 capital crimes including hanging 13 year old boys for stealing bread and still the society was completely out of control with rampant violence. The Victorian moralists come in, and society calms down, and the number of capital crimes is reduced to below twenty. Morality and public order and justice are reestablished. Freedom is advanced. Libertarians should be happy at this result. But it required letting moralists win in order to get what Tarians want. Its a rum world.
If you want to get to a point where Tarians are anything more than mere gadflies, if you want to get to a point where the Libertarian Party is a national party, you’re going to have to help Standard Conservatives.
I have a dream, a dream of a future in which the Democrat Party is dead. Freedom, prosperity, morality is soundly established (and morality includes property rights and gun rights). And the nation will have two parties. Its simply the way the system is set up. Once the Dems are destroyed, a vacuum will be created, and something will fill it.
And so about 2034, the first Libertarian Party President takes the office of the Presidency from the former Republican holder of the office.
It could happen, but if the Libertarians keep on their frenzied ferret attacks on Socons, it likely won’t. We might just decide to ignore you lot if you keep up this ‘banzai!’, and go our merry way. Or you could engage us, help us be better, learn that Socons are mostly Libertarian already, and eventually emerge from our shadow to fly on your own.
Anyways, best of luck, and see you around the intartubes.
The Founders believed that freedom and virtue were inseparable. They went on at some length on this point, even the “secular” ones. In fact they also believed that justice was inseparable from freedom and virtue, although they would not have recognized “social justice” as having anything to do with real justice.
Freedom has it’s own ethics system based on it’s own premises. So does social justice. When I speak of “virtue” (or “morality”) as a political urge, I’m speaking of a very particular idea of virtue that is desired as an end in itself, and most often a religious end. As religious as the post-revolutionary era was, the Constitution is remarkable for not having any religious content. It is written to secure the blessings of liberty, not the Blessings of God.
yours/
peter.
I’m sure that SWAT team raids on marijuana smokers based on secret informants would not pass muster in a Socon ran environment.
You’re kidding, right? The socons who have been consistently prohibitionist since, well, since John Calvin? Don’t you understand that toking up leads to dancing, and dancing leads STRAIGHT TO HELL?! Machine-gunnings too good for such degenerates — bring out the stocks and thumbscrews!
</exaggeration for effect>
The Victorian moralists come in, and society calms down, and the number of capital crimes is reduced to below twenty. Morality and public order and justice are reestablished.
Sure. And Jack the Ripper’s victims were all “seamstresses.”
The Victorian Era was the ultimate in public morality and private sin. (And all the “morality” really came from the middle class — the lower class couldn’t afford to be “moral” and the upper class could afford not to.)
Yes, there was plenty of freedom. As long as you didn’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses whatever you were doing could be pretty much ignored.