It’s not a new theme around here, but this is one of the reasons that I’m not a conservative:
Conservative legislators are often (but not always) happy to send power down the food chain when economic or regulatory issues are at stake, but are adamantly opposed to the same when social issues like gay marriage, drug laws, and assisted suicide are in play. Now, this fellow seemed willing to entertain the idea that, if we’re going to make a principled case for federalism, we have to be willing to allow state and local governments to experiment with policy that we might not agree with. So maybe something good will come of it. Support for “states’ rights” (a horrible phrase) or local autonomy cannot be a matter of political opportunism and ideological convenience.
Unfortunately, though, it usually is.
Half a loaf is better than none. How often are so-called Liberals willing to delegate authority to the States, rather than usurping it via the Courts?
On same-sex marriage, I think the principle that a state has to recognize a marriage from another state, regardless of its own laws, is a legitimate concern. Exempting SSM from that principle while keeping OSM covered, is problematic in the other direction.
Ha ha, actually Rand, I’d sayt that’s why you are a “conservative” in the old-fashioned “leave me the f*** alone” sense. Maybe what you mean is this is why certain politicians don’t really deserve to be called “conservatives” in the same way as others on the supposed other side don’t deserve to be called “liberal,” meaning “live and let live in matters of conscience,” because they’re actually total intellectual fascists, with zero tolerance for deviance from the groupthink.
Weird world we live in. But I guess all politicians are by definition statists, and must be held in check by the forces of grassroots citizen outrage, occasional hangings, etc. How could they be otherwise? It would be like expecting an aerospace engineer to be anti-space travel and anti-SST.
Ha ha, actually Rand, I’d sayt that’s why you are a “conservative” in the old-fashioned “leave me the f*** alone” sense.
There’s never been a time in my life that this meant conservative. I think that’s called “libertarian.” Or classical liberal (which is why I refuse to allow the leftists and “progressives” (aka fascists) to appropriate the label without a fight).
Well, as Jeff Goldstein aptly observed, it’s time to take back the language from the scum who have appropriated it. Orwell was right about this, as in many other things.