Michael Barone thinks the Republicans may be giving up on the culture war. Finally.
The Republicans for the last two decades have been a party whose litmus tests have been cultural issues, especially abortion. The tea partiers have helped to change their focus to issues of government overreach and spending. That may be a helpful pivot, given the emergence of a Millennial generation uncomfortable with crusading cultural conservatism.
I am glad the Republicans are being forced by the turn of events to give up on Cultural Socialism. I have thought for some time that Cultural Socialism was a losing strategy because it did not lead to smaller less intrusive government and fewer black markets. The Tea Party people are forcing the issue because their only (or at least by far their main) issue is taxes and spending. Americans are a cantankerous independent lot who do not take well to government herding. If cultural issues can't make headway on their own, no government force is going to improve their position. In fact such force will be resisted and the culture warriors will in fact be working against themselves. Alcohol Prohibition being a case in point.
It is more than evident that those who pride themselves on a knowledge of history would rather avoid inconvenient history. A documented case in point is the slighting of Thomas Jefferson in Texas' American History books because he was the author of the words:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Obviously a wall like that would be a problem for those who want to use government to ram their religious views down our throats. Fortunately Texas is only one part of America. And the denial of history in the Internet age is going to be difficult. Because, you know, we can fact check your ass. And not just the Internet. We have books too:
First, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists may have calmed one little corner of the electorate back then, but it is hardly proof of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. That it was seized upon by liberal activists two centuries later to justify their ongoing efforts to force religiously motivated citizens from the public square makes it no more relevant.
Second, all laws impose a moral judgement which reflects the judgement of the American people. We all agree on murder; at the time of Roe V. Wade an overwhelming majority agreed on abortion. A majority still does, and when the lies the "pro-choicers" rely on to sustain that usurpation of legislative authority are fully understood, the rejection of a "choice" to ignore science and allow the destruction of unborn human life for any or no reason will again command enough of a concensus of American moral judgement to outlaw or at least severely limit that practice.
Third, I think you neo-property
"conservatives", if you want to build a real majority in this country, ought to consider whether ridding yourselves of those who agree with you on your issues, but see others that are, in our estimation, more important is really the best way to go.
Frankly, this article only convinces me of one thing. Arrogant, elitist snobs are not limited to the left wing.
davejuncer · March 15, 2010 10:29 PM
Having grown up Jewish and having a religion I do not agree with (at least in its particulars) forced on me may have influenced my attitude. It may have created certain antagonisms. Forcing people to do things they do not agree with can do that. And my particular religion harmed no one and from what I understand was the basis of the current majoritarian (in the USA) religion. I advocate getting back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. But that is my personal view. I would never consider using government to foist my views on others.
Ah. Yes. Quite inconvenient that our First Amendment mirrors something Jefferson championed in Virginia when he was there.
I suppose his being in Paris (communication delay of about 12 weeks round trip) meant he could have had no influence on the project or that those he previously influenced were unavailable.
Your logic resembles something seen recently in Climate Science. You are better than that. And you will note that the quote I published came with a date so it is obvious that it was Jefferson's view after the fact but in consonance with his work in Virginia.
And I'm not a secular. I'm a believer (although not in any organized religion). But my attitude is that people should be religious and government should be secular.
As to eliminating folks who agree in part with me? Well I have never advocated that. I would just prefer that where we disagree that I be left alone. It seems like the best way to build a society where most of us can get along.
And yes. Socialism is using government to force people to do what (in the main) they would otherwise not do.
Democrats understand Cultural Socialism, Republicans understand Economic Socialism. I am one of those rare birds able to see the value of both points of view. I'm against Socialism. Period.
You are asking for Christians to stop being Christians and to become the sort of muzzy-headed "safe" religious types who believe in nothing very much.
Let us say that you and I live in a house. I wake up in the middle of the night and believe that the house is on fire and in imminent danger of collapse.
If I say, "ah, we are all in danger. The thing to do here is to save myself and leave everyone else to their fates! If they don't know to get out of the house without me telling them, they deserve their deaths," I am at best a cowardly, disgusting creature.
So, what you appear to be asking for is for Christians who do not believe their own religion. People who wake up in the night and see or imagine that they see the house burning down, but who simply shrug and go back to bed saying, "My, what an odd dream I'm having."
Certainly you can say that their goals for society are WRONG, but how can you reasonably say they are allowed to have their faith, but try to stop them from practicing one of the basic tenants to SPREAD the religion and save others?
"I'm okay with you being alive, Christianity, but so help me, if you eat or drink anything, there will be TROUBLE!"
Put out of the religious realm, it seems to me that you could very well be a Statist saying you're perfectly okay with people believing in fiscal responsibility and limited government, then turning around and demanding that people stop VOTING that way just because they believe in those ideals. "Why do conservatives insist on forcing their small-government ideas on others? Never mind that you believe that crushing debt and spreading government are destroying the nation, just be quiet and go along with the rest of us!"
Appealing to what the founders say is no good for one who believes in power and authority above the mortal realm; you might as well be appealing to the authority of your uncle Frank. I may respect uncle Frank very much, but after all, he is only human. A believing Christian is not likely to go, "hmm, so Jesus disagrees with Jefferson? Goodness, what was Jesus thinking?"
Flakbait · March 16, 2010 3:40 AM
"... all laws impose a moral judgment which reflects the judgment of the American people"
The first clause is true, but limited government promotes a limited morality--the defense of the individual rights to life, liberty and property.
The second part of the clause is only occasionally true, as the governing classes have long since abandoned Constitutional restraint.
Brett · March 16, 2010 8:05 AM
"... all laws impose a moral judgment which reflects the judgment of the American people"
So... the American people decided that improperly labeled wood is immoral and should be a felony?
And if you can't get people to behave in a moral way voluntarily what makes you think you can get them to be moral at the point of a gun? My threshold is 99% or better voluntary compliance and/or public safety. When you have less compliance than that policing gets exorbitant. When you get public disorder (theft - robbery - murder - child molestation - etc.) it is bad for business.
My cut off is: do both parties to a transaction (drug sales for instance) enter into them voluntarily. Is it consensual. And we have age of consent laws to protect the children. They are not perfect. But they do indicate a line which is not to be crossed.
And me a Statist because I want less government? That is a truly novel construction.
A believing Christian is not likely to go, "hmm, so Jesus disagrees with Jefferson? Goodness, what was Jesus thinking?"
Putting aside how Jesus could have disagreed with someone who wasn't born yet, how is Christian being defined? Does anyone or any group own the label? Aren't all people who call themselves Christians in fact Christians? If not, who gets to decide, and on what basis? There are a lot of denominations, but I am sure some think that theirs is the only Christianity, and they are the only Christians.
Is it not possible, Flakbait, that you and Thomas Jefferson are both Christians?
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Cultural Socialism- cute. Dumb, but cute.
First, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists may have calmed one little corner of the electorate back then, but it is hardly proof of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. That it was seized upon by liberal activists two centuries later to justify their ongoing efforts to force religiously motivated citizens from the public square makes it no more relevant.
Second, all laws impose a moral judgement which reflects the judgement of the American people. We all agree on murder; at the time of Roe V. Wade an overwhelming majority agreed on abortion. A majority still does, and when the lies the "pro-choicers" rely on to sustain that usurpation of legislative authority are fully understood, the rejection of a "choice" to ignore science and allow the destruction of unborn human life for any or no reason will again command enough of a concensus of American moral judgement to outlaw or at least severely limit that practice.
Third, I think you neo-property
"conservatives", if you want to build a real majority in this country, ought to consider whether ridding yourselves of those who agree with you on your issues, but see others that are, in our estimation, more important is really the best way to go.
Frankly, this article only convinces me of one thing. Arrogant, elitist snobs are not limited to the left wing.