|
December 03, 2010
Family Values
I love discussing the wedge issues between libertarian Republicans and Christian Conservatives. Evidently it is a subject that interests Instapundit who sent me to Dana Loesch. Who is hot on the subject. Since they brought It up I'm feeling a few words coming on. First a redefinition of sorts: Uh it is not Christians vs Libertarians. It is Statists vs Libertarians. On the Right Statists manifest mostly as Christians On the left they are Socialists. I see no value in choosing between Secular Socialists and Christian Socialists. It is rank bias of course that I do not care to rank the factions. A commenter said:
According to my rough surveys about half the Christian "Conservatives" are really liberals. i.e. "It is not The State that is the problem. It is who is in charge. Put good Christians in charge and all will be well. And BTW the dopers deserve it. I don't care about no durn Prohibition Amendments." And why do I call Christian "Conservatives" liberal? Because like all liberals they believe that there are a lot of things that can be fixed with a liberal application of government. They believe in the Daddy State. Liberals are more inclined to the Mommy State. Family values. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.03.10 at 10:23 AM
Comments
rrr, Evidently you are a Daddy Stater. I feel your pain. M. Simon · December 3, 2010 01:45 PM Resolved: The apostles of the Mommy State and the Daddy State are big children. So what makes them think they have any wisdom to offer the adults? Brett · December 3, 2010 05:33 PM I have long advocated a coalition between libertarians and social conservatives. As I keep saying, not all social conservatives are statist conservatives. I reread this post several times in search of "hate" but I only found what amounts to another discussion of disagreements. Obviously, there will continue to be disagreements (except on areas of mutual agreement). What these disagreements are, and how much we discuss or ignore them is one thing, but I think to equate disagreement with hate and call people "haters" is helpful mainly to the cause of the MSM. I also didn't see anything in the post to indicate that M. Simon is "self-absorbed." So why say that? Is the idea that it is self-absorbed to disagree? (I guess not, because that would mean the pot was calling the kettle black, wouldn't it?) Eric Scheie · December 4, 2010 12:34 PM Simon, I am tempted to quibble about definitions and the use of specific terms, but don't have much to argue on the larger points. ...Which reminds me of one of my pet peeves: the misuse of the term fascism. After "Liberal Fascism" came out, far too many people have been throwing the word at every liberal or progressive they see. Recently over at Castle Arggghh! Quartermaster reminded me that not only is Fascism expressly capitalistic, the milder form can be termed "clerical corporative," wherein collectives of big business owners cooperated with the Church in several countries to maintain control. Unions and dissidents, not so fortunate. The major difference I see today is that in Europe the Church was nearly always the local Catholic hierarchy, where in America the type is usually Protestant. Casey · December 4, 2010 07:24 PM "family values" is a rationalization for expanding the welfare state and for that matter the scope of government. Christian conservatives don't belong in the party and should be kicked out. Michael · December 5, 2010 09:54 AM Michael, I certainly wouldn't go that far. I prefer education and changes of heart. M. Simon · December 5, 2010 12:19 PM Casey, when it comes to characterizing leftists as fascist, I honestly believe the shoe fits. Both German and Italian fascists were explicitly socialist, as in National Socialist German Workers' Party. Private ownership of the means of production was purely nominal--the important decisions were made by the government--as is more and more the case in America today, to our shame. I am quite confident that comparisons between contemporary Western leftists--who knows what false label they will accept for themselves tomorrow--are in no way unjust. At the very least, their policies have much more in common with mid-twentieth century fascism than any American advocate of individual liberty through limited government. Said policies are diametrically opposed to the American founding principles. Brett · December 5, 2010 10:18 PM Um, Brett? neither the NSDAP nor the Italian Fascist Party were "explicitly socialist." I invite data to the contrary. In fact, about the *only* datum most observers can cite is that the word "socialist" exists within the acronym National Socialist German Workers Party. My response is that -if one follows this form of logic- then the People's Republic of China is a republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is a democracy, and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was both a democracy and a republic. I would be quite interested in specific proof that "fascists were explicitly socialist." Citations of fact, as opposed to claims of fact, are preferred. :) But then it is self-evident that Brett accepts the right/left paradigm without understanding that said paradigm is at best severely flawed, if not fatally inaccurate. Casey · December 6, 2010 01:47 AM Stow the sneering tone, Casey. It disinclines me to accept you as an equal. I offered one datum in the name of the Nazi party, which you ignored. Then you changed the subject to the inappropriateness of the left/right paradigm, which merits a long conversation, and I may agree with you on that issue to some degree. But changing the subject is a dishonest tactic, which disinclines me to regard you as an equal. How about this?"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) You've lost the argument; change your mind. You pet peeve is nothing more than a peeve.
Brett · December 6, 2010 06:51 AM On the whole, I'd say the wedge strategy works better with centrists.
Segment A is highly associated with the Republican party. There is another significant segment of the population, B, that view themselves as modern, rational and enlightened, believing in equality of the sexes, and in the value of science and empiricism as a means of determining the nature of objective fact. Many members of Segment B are also prone to uncritically accept the crazy snake handling smear, and having accepted it, reject, on a visceral level, members of Segment A, and therefore run screaming into affiliation with the Democratic party. I have no doubt in my mind that this accounts for at least 10% of the vote in many areas. geekWithA.45 · December 6, 2010 05:13 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2010
November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Letting people in nursing homes suffer is a small price to pay...
Gratuitous and premature prognostication Hating Democrats Practice Run moral lessons from the war on drugs Is that a cucumber in your underwear or are you just happy to be pickled? Frozen in denial "you don't know who's enemy" Good Lovin Holiday Recipes
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I saw this and thought of you instantly. Because I knew you're so filled with hate you'd twist it so that someone who's an evangelical and says something THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you think they believe can still have their words twisted by you to affirm what you believe.
Hater. You think there'd be no place for hate in your self-absorbed world.