That last post (about Biblical penis control versus liberal gun control) was pretty gloomy, and I am glad I found a few things to cheer me up.

This post (link) renews my faith in the vibrancy of a phenomenon I have praised in this blog before -- and that is "South Park Republicanism":

The Republicans have a moment here that they could seize. They can dig in with the conservatives and continue to muck about with the peripheral issues; or they can shed the conservative tag, embrace the reptilian “South Park Republicans” and get to work on the fundamental issues: freedom, prosperity, promise.

The sooner the Republicans draw up a platform that concentrates only on those functions designated to the government (national defense, protection of individual rights, enabler of free-enterprise) and simplifies all the rest (flat tax, voluntary Social Security), the more futuristic they will look and the more friends they will find they have.

The trouble is, they will be called RINOs by the Biblical penis control people, just as surely as they will be called right wing wackos by the liberal gun control people.

QUERY: Will a true South Park Republican live in fear of being called a RINO?

Let me pause to point out something which is often forgotten. I have no objection to anyone practicing Biblical morality, personal penis control, or even personal gun control. If you don't want to engage in anything but heterosexual missionary position sex and that only after marriage, fine. If you don't want to own a gun, fine. These are personal decisions. What bothers me is when people demand that others live the way they live. I am anything but the libertine many might assume me to be. But my lifestyle has nothing to do with what others should do -- and even less to do with what I would want the government to make them do. Why people cannot understand this distinction, I don't know.

Smoking is bad for one's health and I don't smoke. But I strongly oppose the anti-smoking movement, and would do almost anything to prevent the criminalization of tobacco. It's the same as sex, drugs, guns. Freedom is more important than how you manage the details of your life. Opponents of freedom often like to cite horror stories of ruined lives which, it is argued, could have been "saved" had there not been such an overabundance of freedom. Any form of social engineering which saves lives or prevents misery is seen as good.

But isn't that also an argument against economic freedom? How many lives have been ruined by capitalist oppression? By gambling? By allowing people to spend their money on whatever they see fit?

Social freedom, like economic freedom, does not guarantee prosperity or happiness. There are risks -- most notably the risk of failure.

(And I am not the first to note that without failure, there would be no such thing as success.)

UPDATE: While I would never compare American fundamentalists (who do not kill heretics) to Islamofascists (who do), this alliance is very disturbing:

JewishWorldReview.com has discovered that prominent religious conservatives — Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Christians — are allied with a radical Islamic group to stop gay marriage. Pushing a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals, they work with the Islamic Society of North America. What is ISNA? According to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, ISNA:

* has held fundraisers for terrorists (e.g., after Hamas leader Musa Marzuk was arrested, it raised money for his defense, claiming he was innocent and not connected to terrorism)

* has condemned US seizure of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad assets in the United States after 9/11

* has consistently sponsored speakers at their conferences that defend Islamic terrorists. Recently, a leader denied in an interview with an NBC affiliate that ISNA took any Saudi money but that was a brazen lie as evidenced by a recording of an ISNA conference in which it was revealed that money came from Saudi Arabia.

"ISNA," says Emerson, "is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation." (via Ghost of a flea)

My reaction? Well, the people involved in this alliance are some of the most outspoken opponents of "diversity." And yet here they are, joining with people who are not only advocates of the terrorism this country is supposed to be fighting, but who are known champions of polygamy.

Whose Culture War is this, anyway?

UPDATE: Stephen Stanton (whom I mistakenly thought had first coined the phrase; it was actually Andrew Sullivan), offers new thoughts on South Park Republicans:

The GOP's hold on South Park Republicans could quickly fade. Their vote is clearly up for grabs. You never know what might be the straw that breaks SPR backs, between GOP spending hikes, tariffs, anti-smoking legislation, and the specter of "conservative" laws that might compromise privacy and liberty.

After all, Democrats could start making more sense (free trade, fiscal discipline, libertarian social policy), and Republicans could start making less (anti-vice legislation, federal marriage amendment, nationalizing healthcare under the guise of Medicare "reform"). A party can only remain the lesser of to evils so long as the other remains worse. A certain former First Lady just spent some time in Iraq and Afghanistan saying some sensible things that might raise the bar much higher for the GOP in 2008.

The Republicans must stitch together a tent big enough to house social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, moderate libertarians, and centrist refugees from an increasingly radical Democratic party. The Republicans can't maintain the majority without the South Park Republicans; and they can't keep the South Park Republicans by pretending they don't exist. (via InstaPundit.)