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:

There is no doubt that the Left Wingers would LOVE to drive a wedge between the various factions in the Tea Party movement, especially between Libertarians and Christian Conservatives.

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


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.

rrr   ·  December 3, 2010 11:22 AM


Evidently you are a Daddy Stater. I feel your pain.

M. Simon   ·  December 3, 2010 1:45 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 5:33 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 7:24 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 9:54 AM


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 1:47 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 6:51 AM

On the whole, I'd say the wedge strategy works better with centrists.

There is a segment of the population, A, that is extremely vulnerable, whether they deserve if or not, to being painted as regressive, crazy snake handlers who reject modernity, equality of the sexes, and the value of science in determining the nature of objective phenomena.

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 5:13 PM

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


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits