Looking At The Future

Some times you can tell a lot about the future by looking at the past. The past I want to look at was the Bush/Kerry, Keyes/Obama election results in Illinois from 2004.

I'm going to repost a bit I did then in its entirety. Jack Ryan was the Republican who Obama's confederates got kicked off the ballot. I'm not going to go into the details of that - you can look it up. Any way Alan Keyes was Ryan's replacement.

So here it is: Jack Ryan Republicans.

Here is a comment I made to one of my cultural conservative friends who said cultural conservative were the new American center:

Main Stream Media think they are the middle too.

They are no more correct than you are.

Think of how the Senate/Presidential race went in Illinois. Bush got 45% of the vote - 2,313,415 votes. Keyes got 27% - 1,371,882 votes. If you parse the numbers about 130,000 voted in the Presidential race that did not vote in the Senate race (more unhappy Republicans?).

Keyes didn't get the votes of the Jack Ryan Republicans. It shows.

So my Cultural Conservative friends - think of it. Bush would have won Illinois by picking up 6% of the votes (giving 51%). Alan Keyes would have needed to pick up 24% of the votes to get a similar result. What are the odds? I said in 2004 that the writing was on the wall for Cultural Conservatives as a political movement.

Have have words on the wall been written in big enough letters so you can see yet?

Well. We shall see won't we?

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 11.21.08 at 04:53 PM










Comments

Interesting analysis. But you left out one critical detail: Alan Keyes was/is a whack job. A first class whack job.

You can make an argument using the Prop 8 data in California to argue that cultural conservatives are the center. In that plcae, on that issue, they were. But centers are evanescent. The Republicans thought that 2008 would be fought over national security issues and they positioned themselves nicely to win that center. Only the election shifted to economics and, suddenly, the tax-cutting liberal (as The Big O positioned himself) occupied the center.

Rhodium Heart   ·  November 21, 2008 6:43 PM

Also Keyes was a carpetbagger from Maryland.

dre   ·  November 21, 2008 7:48 PM

Keyes in Illinois was the first indication I had that the GOP was flailing.

But RH's point about the election shifting from foriegn policy to economics is straight on. Never mind it was Democrats in Congress that enabled the mortgage mess in first place.

I keep saying Obama is lucky. He certainly lucked out on that.

Eric Blair   ·  November 21, 2008 8:16 PM

What brought social conservatives into politics was Roe vs Wade. They saw the killing of unborn babies as an abomination, and were outraged by the overturn of the democratic decisions of all 50 states in order to enable the agenda of the libertines by judicial ukaze. Ever since then they have been trashed by everybody with influence in the country. How dare they speak up, don't they know their place?

Now they see another goal of the libertines being shoved down their throats because it could not be passed democratically, one they are convinced will put the final nail in the coffin of the institution of marriage, upon which the whole of our society and culture depend. And again they are being trashed by people who believe that the current fad among the avant garde should overthrow thousands of years of experience. Yeah, right. Have any libertarians ever read Hayek on tradition being the experience of trials and errors over long periods of time? Nah, he's just some dead, white Austrian, right?

Get rid of the social conservatives and the libertarians/fiscal conservatives and the national defense conservatives will have no Republican Party to run against the Dems. They also provide you with the best shot at doing something about the Dems' monopoly of black and Mexican voters. Note how 70% of black voters voted for Prop. 8 in California. They are socially conservative, and the only things that keep them from the GOP are their delusion that it is racist (the fruit of decades of Dem propaganda) and the desire of many for welfare (which actually hurts them, as many others realize).

The disdain for social conservatives is primarily based on ignorance, arrogance and snobbishness, as we saw with the reaction of several conservative pundits to Palin. Too religious, too blue collar, too rural too uppity for their tastes. And she was without the elite credentials they consider more important than achievement, such as Ivy League education. Obama had that, so he was OK by them. Palin did not, so she was infra dig. It was the politics of junior high school, deciding on the basis of who is cool and who is not. If the GOP is going to base its future on that sort of snobbishness, it will be in the wilderness for a long time indeed.

Michael Lonie   ·  November 24, 2008 1:56 AM

Michael,

I think Roe was pretty good because it got government out of the business of policing women's wombs.

As to marriage: that power was given to government to prevent race mixing. It is now being used against the decedents of those who instituted it. The answer: government out of marriage.

BTW if tradition is to be a guide the Jewish tradition ought to be considered. It is only slightly less liberal than current law. So for the most part Jews are happy with Roe. And after all they have the oldest continuous culture on earth. That ought to carry some weight.

==

I'm going to cross post a comment I made at Power and Control.

==

Jews are in a peculiar situation when it comes to religion. You can be an atheist and be a Jew. Maimonides (1200s I believe) is a rather famous Jewish scholar still studied by Jews and yet he was of a rather atheist bent.

As I have been trying to explain here. Most people of other faiths have no idea about the oral law tradition which governs Jews. The Torah is not the last word. Jesus was in that tradition so when he says the law must be obeyed I would assume he meant the whole body of the law not just an explicit reading of the Torah. I think the earliest sections of the Christian scriptures must be understood that way. You can't just look at the words and say - I know what they mean. You also have to look at the culture they come out of.

Which is why I say that for Christians to understand their own religion they MUST study Jewish sources. After all for a long time Christians were a Jewish sect before they became a distinct religion.

In fact I have come into contact with people of a Christian sect (sorry I can't remember the name) who celebrated Passover and were mildly conversant with Jewish oral law. IMO true Christians. But you know that could be bias.

In addition according to Jewish law you can be Jewish and follow some, all, or none of the "official" requirements. You have choice. And this was taught to me by an orthodox rabbi who was one of the great legal scholars of the time. Licensed to practice in the Chicago Bet Din.

I studied the "whose ox was gored" section of the Talmud under him. Now given a certain body of facts the Talmud delineates that one rabbi was of this opinion another was of that opinion but most saw it this way. Just as in American common law there is a central tendency with variations around the edges. Sometimes very wide variations.

And like Protestants Jews are big on sects and different interpretations. In reality Catholicism is not monolithic. No matter what the Pope says. If you live in a big city you have the choice of church depending on how a given priest ministers. Father Pfleger? Yuck.

==

Now getting back to my point. Government IS the devil. Social conservatives of a different era got government into the marriage business to prevent race mixing. You are now paying the price for their error.

The only answer that is equitable to all is to get government out of marriage: the libertarian solution. You really do not want government protecting your culture. Because some day in a way you can't imagine the protections sought will be used against your culture.

As I have been harping on since the election. The libertarian view (small limited government) is your best protection. You are now coming against Cultural Socialism. It is just as bad, maybe worse, than Economic Socialism. The answer is not more law to fix the law that created the mess. It is less law.

Government out of marriage.

M. Simon   ·  November 24, 2008 8:08 AM

Now they see another goal of the libertines being shoved down their throats because it could not be passed democratically, one they are convinced will put the final nail in the coffin of the institution of marriage, upon which the whole of our society and culture depend. And again they are being trashed by people who believe that the current fad among the avant garde should overthrow thousands of years of experience. Yeah, right. Have any libertarians ever read Hayek on tradition being the experience of trials and errors over long periods of time? Nah, he's just some dead, white Austrian, right?

So how did that come about? Social conservatives of a different era got government into the marriage license business to prevent race mixing and they did it by passing a law. All nice and democratic like. And now you object when the law is going to be changed (it is coming and you know it) by the same procedure?

Some people wanted to use the law as a bludgeon. And now that bludgeon is being used against their offspring a number of generations down the road. The Devil will always get his due.

Your only protection in the long run is the libertarian solution. Don't give government the power. It will be used against your culture eventually.

In my estimation it is the social conservatives who need the libertarians more. And not just as a voting block. They need to take the philosophy to heart. It is their best protection. Limited government.

Yeah abortion is bad. But it is an individual choice. Now think of what the opposite, putting government in charge of women's wombs, might lead to by popular vote at some point down the road. Roe is cultural conservatives best protection. It keeps the government out of family matters. That is a bigger gain for you than what the wider culture does with Roe. Your problem is that your imagination is limited. and you have not studied the messes cultural conservatives have made by using government guns to enforce their culture.

Government IS the Devil.

In any area that you chose to get government to do something for you it will ultimately be allowed to do something against you.

Which is why cultural conservatives have more to gain from libertarians than just their votes.

M. Simon   ·  November 24, 2008 8:32 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits