Where's the war? And who are the warmongers?

A lot of people are hoping to start a war between social conservatives and libertarians in the Tea Party, and I think that represents wishful thinking on their part. That there is no denying the existence of sharp differences in philosophy within the Tea Party tent has long been obvious; I have written a number of posts about it, and I make no secret of being in the libertarian camp, nor have I ever denied my disagreements with social conservatism (especially the statist variety). But because I have also long favored a coalition between libertarians and social conservatives on issues they can both agree upon, I see no more reason for starting a "war" than the social conservatives I have encountered. Because of the horizontal, grassroots nature of the Tea Party, I think it would be very difficult to start any real war. For starters, the Tea Party is based largely on showing up at a given event. If local Tea Party organizers in, say, the RTL camp decided that a mass demonstration in front of the local Planned Parenthood headquarters was in order, they would be as free to show up as those who disagreed with the demo would be free to stay home. There is nothing new about disagreement on that issue. Ditto gay marriage, marijuana legalization, or demanding that condom lessons be stopped in schools. Individual Tea Partiers have different positions on these issues pro or con, which means that large turnouts from "THE TEA PARTY" in its entirety could hardly be expected. Few would show up. So how do you start a "war" that way?

I'm reminded of the old slogan "what if they gave a war and nobody came?"

For there to be a "war" between libertarians and social conservatives, they would have to agree to have one. I might be wrong, but don't see such an agreement as forthcoming. It certainly isn't going to come from me. I merely disagree with social conservatives on those areas where I disagree, just as they disagree with libertarians on those areas where they disagree. As these disagreements are well known, and as the coalition enters its third year, I'm not seeing anything resembling a call for war within the Tea Party movement itself.

The whole thing seems awfully contrived, and I am tempted to ask "who benefits?"

In that regard, an article in Reason (Class War:How public servants became our masters) sheds some light into what drives the Tea Party more than any other issue.

Our rulers, that's what!

They -- and I do mean they -- are the uniting force that motivates libertarians and social conservatives to show up together in strength. They make disagreements on other issues pale by comparison. They want to bury us all. And they aren't checking cards at the gates of the nation's doom to see whether we are libertarians, social conservatives, or some non-conforming mishmash of both.

...54 percent of the economy is private, 28 percent goes to the feds, and 18 percent goes to state and local governments. The trend lines are ominous.

Bigger government means more government employees. Those employees then become a permanent lobby for continual government growth. The nation may have reached critical mass; the number of government employees at every level may have gotten so high that it is politically impossible to roll back the bureaucracy, rein in the costs, and restore lost freedoms.

People who are supposed to serve the public have become a privileged elite that exploits political power for financial gain and special perks. Because of its political power, this interest group has rigged the game so there are few meaningful checks on its demands. Government employees now receive far higher pay, benefits, and pensions than the vast majority of Americans working in the private sector. Even when they are incompetent or abusive, they can be fired only after a long process and only for the most grievous offenses.

It's a two-tier system in which the rulers are making steady gains at the expense of the ruled. The predictable results: Higher taxes, eroded public services, unsustainable levels of debt, and massive roadblocks to reforming even the poorest performing agencies and school systems. If this system is left to grow unchecked, we will end up with a pale imitation of the free society envisioned by the Founders.

That's what I think drives the Tea Party, and that's why the latest divide-and-conquer strategy will fail. Every day I see examples, large and small, and I don't have the time or energy to blog about all of them. (Just yesterday I read about the mandate for back up cameras on cars, and about bureaucratic insistence that doctors be chaperoned when examining patients even though neither the doctors nor the patients want chaperons.) These people are running our lives, ruining the country, and they are doing it with our money, and even though it is clear that the money has run out, they demand it anyway.

Which naturally leads me to suspect that it is they who want the Tea Party to have a war.

They can make all the noise they want, but I for one am not about to go to war on their say-so. Sure, they might be very powerful, but they don't have the power to declare war within the Tea Party, do they? Well, I guess maybe they can declare a war within their media echo chamber, but they can't draft me or make me fight, can they?

UPDATE: Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all.

I appreciate the comments, including the disagreements. I'm not inclined to go to war, and I don't think disagreement constitutes war.

(As I pointed out in a comment to M. Simon's earlier post, I don't even think disagreement necessarily constitutes hate!)

posted by Eric on 12.08.10 at 10:52 AM










Comments

If you look at the popular "scariest chart ever" of unemployment recovery from this recession versus past recessions, and then look at the growth of government over the last 30 years, the correlation is obvious: as we learned in primary ideological struggle of the 20th century, government does not grow an economy, and the greater the proportion of GDP government spends, the less dynamic the economy will be.

That's why I'm fairly indifferent to the tax cuts (or more accurately, the absence of tax hikes) because what we really need are massive spending cuts. We've been chasing the quick-fix aggregate demand mirage for decades and now we're paying the piper with sluggish growth.

TallDave   ·  December 8, 2010 3:10 PM

Just from empirical evidence in my neck of the woods, there are many Social Conservatives who like to fight, are used to fighting, and have decided the "Tea Party" is in fact a neo-Christianist movement and are ready to fight over that point. That isn't to take anything from your post, but I think that the Tea Party (and my fear for it) is likely its worst enemy. From how I read some of the media reports, I don't think they're trying to start a war -between- the disparate groups that amalgamate to form the Tea Party movement, but instead incite one side (clearly the Social Conservatives) into insecurity to cause the amalgamation to dissolve. And just mentioning the recent history of the Republican Party seems to cause frothing at the mouth.
To point I have witnessed members of my local "Tea Party" openly and publicly "shaming" non-Christian and less-than-Christian participants to the point of those folks walking away, all over social issues.
I believe it remains to be seen where the "glue" holding this consortium together is strongest: social values or fiscal values. Different areas of the country clearly have different ideas.

Scott   ·  December 8, 2010 3:11 PM

I have noticed a few, both social conservatives, and liberal leaning libertarians, trying to prevoke a war, but I agree it hasn't amounted to much. Right now, both factions in the Tea Party are far too worried abour fiscal issues and big gov to have any kind of war os social issues.

I think the key is for the Tea Party to retain its present neutral position on social issues, and stick to fiscal and size of gov issues, where all factions agree. The Tea Party should be prepared to back social conservatives, provide they are also fiscal conservatives, just as they should also back libertarians who emphasise their fiscal conservatism (you can't have a fiscally left wing libertarian, they would be a contradiction, and would be a poser, trying to hijack the libertarian brand, like some dems tried to do in 2008)

richard40   ·  December 8, 2010 3:20 PM

I was at the first TEA protest in our city on April 15. I went to a few more and volunteered to help at one.

At the first event, a speaker quoted Ayn Rand and gave a talk on the virtues embodied in capitalism. Along the way, things morphed into some sort of "God and Country" circus.

I quit paying any attention when the head of the local organizing committee said that he was eager to move on to his personal passion of putting God back into America.

This conflict is real. It was bound to come up.

This libertarian is out. I'm sure I'm not alone.

It would be good to find a resolution to this conflict, because it needs to be resolved NOW, not in the week before an election when it can be exploited by certain elements in the national media for their not-so-covert campaign on behalf of Democrats.

Barry D   ·  December 8, 2010 3:24 PM

"This libertarian is out. I'm sure I'm not alone."

That was seriously the only "Tea Party" available to you? The nice thing about the concept is that you don't have to follow losers like the guy you described. Walk away and join another, or start another. If you think that there is a better hope for keeping us from going down the path to state control of our lives, I would like to hear it.

tim in vermont   ·  December 8, 2010 3:32 PM

If we can get the Federal Government out of social issues (as per the original design), then both libertarians and SoCals will be happy to discuss any differences of policy at the local level.

But this isn't just a size of government issue, it's also one of scope. Though the two are often related.

LarryD   ·  December 8, 2010 3:35 PM

This is a classic, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' situation. If we got the deficit under control, I'm sure libertarians and social conservatives would readily get back to snarling and sneering at each other, but so long as the most pressing immediate concern is out of control government spending social conservatives are very likely to table concerns about homosexuality, abortion, and the like until such time that other values they admire - like thrift, industry, honesty, independence and fairness - are restored.

Honestly, you may hear this being about 'putting God back in the country', but if you get to the specifics of what that means you are going to find even the social conservatives mean reducing the size of the federal government. Sadly or not, a whole lot of 'rolling things back' can be sold to social conservatives as 'bringing God back'.

celebrim   ·  December 8, 2010 3:38 PM

I seem to recall a recent post by a co-blogger here who said he'd fight to elect socialists before allowing socons a place at the table. And yet responses like Scott's always manage to make it sound like socons, if not the problem to all the world's ills, are at least an impediment to anything a right-thing person wants to accomplish. But when I come here, it's not the socons that are frothing.

It's also hilarious how my conservative Christian friends, when they don't like the direction of the party, decide not to vote or even run their own hopeless candidates. But when a libertarian faces the prospect of, gasp, having someone with socon values around, responds by running to Obama or vows to help socialists get elected.

I guess on a few issues I can be labeled socon (well, primarily, abortion). At the same time, there isn't a statist bone in my body. But I come here and read some of the posts, and then add responses like Scott's, it's clear to me that the average libertarian (if this site represents the average) says, "Come, vote with us! But sit down and shut up, you statist bigot hater whom I loathe." And if socon does speak, it's labeled "frothing." I'm going to vote less government every time, even, believe it or not, if someone who disagrees with me on social issues is running. The pages of Reason and some of the bloggers here indicate that there is something more evil than government controlling every area of your life: it's the socon. And yet I'm the impediment to what the Tea Party wants to accomplish?

rrr   ·  December 8, 2010 3:40 PM

Social cons are a major contributor to government spending, and have no place in a small-government movement.

The link above pretty much clarified my thoughts about socialcons being the most easily duped faction in all of American politics.

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 3:44 PM

"Social conservatives can be tricked by leftists into supporting any and all government spending, as long as it is packaged as 'chivalry'."

Appearing like a needy whiteknight is the highest priority of the socialcon, more so than any other right-wing principle.

This makes social conservatives wholly incapable of cutting government spending.

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 3:47 PM

Personally, I am pretty po'd at the social conservatives telling me I can not play poker online.

I am a registered conservative in NYS that strongly believes in fiscal conservativism. The Tax and Spend Liberals have all but destroyed New York.

If the socons keep pushing for nanny govt laws to protect us from ourselves, I may just change my voting habits.

Art   ·  December 8, 2010 3:50 PM

"This libertarian is out. I'm sure I'm not alone."

How about "This Democrat is out, I'm sure I'm not alone."?

I am concerned about the number of "Libertarians" who would rather vote against the anti-progressive, than against the progressive. Who insist upon their own version of doctrinaire purity. Who whine about how they do not like having to comply with the latest regulation, but at least they didn't vote for the Republican.
Right now, the Big Issue is the growing Government. Right now, all who oppose a bigger government are on my side. I do not care if they are selfish non-theists, altruistic non-theists, Christian Reconstructionist or Anglo-Israelite Zionist (Reformed) - how do we stop the Government, at all levels,from getting more and more power over the individual's life?
Unless we want to abandon the system entirely, preventing government intrusion is going to require everybody to work together to stop what _is_ happening. That means working phone banks, walking precincts, getting the vote out and getting the progressive in office unelected. Because thsoe who consider themselves too pure to be involve in politics will be ruled by those who are not pure. In the mean time, we will have to be tolerant of those who are not as doctrinally pure as us. In the words of Dennis Miller "Tolerance is pretending the world is not populated by freaking idiots." And that is especially true when one is attempting the unelection of incumbents.

Anonymous   ·  December 8, 2010 3:51 PM

It is not that socialcon values are bad...

...It is that they can be duped into abandoning their stated values so easily...

...AND they have an astonishing inability to see the forest from the trees..

...AND they are not capable of holding women accountable for the same things they would punish a man severely for.

...AND they have zero capacity to understand how women really think.

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 3:52 PM

rrr has it nailed (and the cooperation between Ruling Class republicans and libertarians, to disparage and attempt to marginalize those icky socons from flyover country, is a case of strange bedfellows if I've ever seen one).

Here's a recipe for libertarians who want to "get along with" socons: "Let's both work together to return these social issues to the states. We will be on opposite sides in the legislative battles there, but we can agree on WHERE the fight belongs. Libertarians think X is not properly the domain of government at all; many, if not all, socons believe that X is properly the domain of state legislators, and not the federal government nor any judge. The intersection of these two beliefs is: Get The Feds Out. Let's work on that, together -- when we have time. But right now, reigning in out of control spending is Job #1."

I think that a huge majority of libertarians, and a similar majority of socons, can agree at least THAT far, right?

BobInFL   ·  December 8, 2010 3:55 PM

Another example of socialcon stupidity is that :

A small government would lead to a traditional society FAR MORE than any nanny-state socialcon programs would.

Marriages would happen, and last, due to LESS government, NOT MORE. Instead, socialcons are the ones destroying marriage even if they think they are preserving it, by making it unattractive for MEN to marry.

Aren't conservatives the people who supposedly understand economic incentives? I guess not...

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 3:56 PM

All depends on where you live. Last March people had a rally under the Tea Party banner in Huntsville, Al. seeking MORE government jobs and spending for the space program. Purely coincidental that they had jobs in that industry in Huntsville. A real welfare state mentality here in Alabama. seems like everyone works for the town, city, county, state or federal government. Even the liquor store workers are government employees here. GIMMEE GIMMEE. I'm Entitled!

SPQR   ·  December 8, 2010 4:08 PM

I'm very surprised I'm saying this, but I enthusiastically agree with Mr. Scheie. Changing my favorite sentence from his post slightly I can say: "I merely disagree with [libertarians] on those areas where I disagree, just as they disagree with [social conservatives] on those areas where they disagree." This is no barrier at all to cooperation where we agree.

Roger Conley   ·  December 8, 2010 4:22 PM

I have to admit to being terribly tired of the "holier than thou" crowd that tend to vote Republican. Talk about one trick ponies . . . while I wait for Liberty and Freedom to be talking points on a new direction in American politics, these folks talk about jailing people for smoking pot.

I cannot vote democrat because they act like unabashed Statists; on the other hand I have a hard time with a number of these, so called, conservatives who enjoy controlling peoples lives as much as Ted Kennedy did.

Good day.

Denver   ·  December 8, 2010 4:32 PM

To BobInFl.
I am a libertarian/conservative, and I think your idea of getting social issue decisions from the fed level, either fed legislators or fed judges, back to the states, is a good one, and a position that many socons and libertarians should both be able to agree on. Once that transition is complete, I might oppose you at the state level, but the advantage of the state level approach is if either of us does not like the result, we can always move to a state more to our liking, but if the issue is decided by the feds there is noplace to run. Another thing socons should try to emphasize is trying to get gov out of this area completely. For example, on school prayer, sex ed, and creationism, push for school choice vouchers, so you can teach your values in your own christian schools, and we can teach our values in secular schools. Ironically, I might end up sending my own kids to the religious type schools also, if the secular ones get taken over by left wing idiots.

As far as libertarians being manic in their opposition to socons, it depends a lot on the type of libertarian, and whether they value libertarian economic policy, or libertarian personal freedom, most. I am more worried about economic freedom, and can work with socons with no problem at all as long as they are also reliable fiscal conservatives, although if given a choice between a full conservative, or a full libertarian, I would take the full libertarian.

However, I also agree with others here that socons can be more easily duped by big gov libs with talk about compassion and caring. Libertarians cannot be duped by that, since they universally beleive that real compassion can only be practiced by individuaols, or voluntary groups, and gov "compassion", in the form of gov handouts, is nothing more than theft. Not all socons realize that simple truth, as we found out under Bush, but all of them should.

But you are also right that some liberal leaning libertarians have been duped into supporting dems that betray their libertarian small gov fiscal beleifs by their fear of repub socons. I think your solution, for socons to emphasise returning social decisions back to the state and even better the local or individual level, rather than pushing for fed level socon legislation, is a good way to defuse those fears.

richard40   ·  December 8, 2010 4:38 PM

Good Lord, the Left is truly in a frenzy. I can't remember when liberals (or conservatives or libertarians or Communists or the Red-Headed League) were in such obvious despair and panic.

Desperate people do desperate things, and it doesn't take a crystal ball to see that they will almost certainly attempt provocations and false flag ops. So be prepared for an American political version of the discovery of "uniformed Polish soldiers" attacking a German border crossing.

These people aren't terribly balanced to start with; and they have been moved to attempt such provocations before in when their future didn't look nearly as dismal.

This is what happens when those who think they are born to power have it wrenched however slightly from their clutches.

Sardondi   ·  December 8, 2010 4:38 PM

Gee, "Toads", maybe you should try meeting some real social cons, instead of the stereotypes and cartoons you have in your head.

Rob Crawford   ·  December 8, 2010 4:45 PM

Rob,

I have years of direct contact with socialcons. I liked them until about 2008 or so.

It took that many years for me to figure out why they have such a massive cognitive dissonance.

Apparently, you still don't get it.

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 4:51 PM

In case you hadn't guessed:

'lanched.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111113/

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 5:09 PM

@Barry - Stop letting you atheism interfere with your libertarianism. Also did anyone ask the guy to tone it down? That usually works.

@richard40 - I have seen this to a degree as well, with either gay issues or the believer / non-believer line being the preferred area of attack.

For me, the Tea Party cannot help but be pulled into some of these issues as these are being pursued all the time in courts and other arenas. It would not hurt to have the libertarians support the so-cons on occasion, like with opposing the removal of religion completely from the state, such as the LA County seal modification. Removal of the cross was an unnecessary expense and no one was being harmed by its existence.

The tea party can help the so-cons, who are a big part of the group, but I would suggest only in ways that do not add cost to the bottom line.

pwr   ·  December 8, 2010 5:17 PM

There are a number of areas where socons such as myself and libertarians disagree, but reading the angry comments above, it is hard to see the socons as the initiators of battle on this.

We can both agree that the federal government is too big, too powerful, and too controlling. We can agree that following the Constitution by returning many of these questions to the states is better than leaving them in federal hands.

In any case, the economic damage that these massive deficits are producing takes precedence over everything else. Let's get this disaster solved, and then we can discuss what each state should do on particular questions.

Clayton E. Cramer   ·  December 8, 2010 5:20 PM

Toads,

I'm probably more Libertarian than you, and I'm the Socon who kicked the doors in and burnt the stables, and salted the fields around this place.

And I do believe in Chivalry, but Chivalry is a System for both sides. It is not strictly a set of obligations on the Man. What we have now is Men still hanging on to a bit of High Culture, and Women not so much. We can all become Barbarians, or we can reconstruct High Culture.

And since you like stereotypes, here's a couple for you...

1. Libertarianism is the political adolescent mind seeking cheap certainties.

2. Libertarians, like Atheists, tend to be half-clever. They are an example of the saying 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.

3. Libertarians are so schismatic they make Baptists look like Catholics.

The point here is that both sides have faults, and the Libertarians are worse.

Tennwriter   ·  December 8, 2010 5:29 PM

I think the common ground should and must be, as some have said, that social issues need to be pushed down to the state and local level and addressed there. If the states end up "solving" these issues in different ways, that's fine, and how it is supposed to be. Utah doesn't need to be the same as New Hampshire.

Let us hope the republic survives long enough for us to be able to hold these local debates in the future. For now we need to remember the ancient Klingon proverb, "Only a fool fights in a burning house."

Peter Porcupine   ·  December 8, 2010 5:32 PM

@Clayton

It is true that one cannot herd Libertarians, they refuse to be labeled; they refuse to be lied to and they refuse to take direction from their inferiors.

Denver   ·  December 8, 2010 5:42 PM

I hesitate to disagree with Mr. Cramer, but I don't think suggesting that other people rearrange their priorities to establish a coalition is appropriate. If a libertarian thinks drug legalization or fighting the militarization of the police or opposing no-knock raids is the most important issue, I can't imagine telling him that he has to get with the program. Similarly, when someone tells me that I'm allowed to get back to working to protect pre-born babies after the government's finances are in order, I do not respond pleasantly. I think Mr. Scheie is exactly right. There's no fight until people start fighting. We shouldn't want to tell people what priorities to have. People who agree on things, though, can cooperate on everything they agree on. No one should hesitate to say what they believe and should work on the issues according to their own priorities.

Roger Conley   ·  December 8, 2010 5:44 PM

As the above shows, the "there's a war" folk are hand in glove with the mobys.

Andy Freeman   ·  December 8, 2010 5:58 PM

I seem to recall a recent post by a co-blogger here who said he'd fight to elect socialists before allowing socons a place at the table.

Actually what I said is that if social issues become the focus I was going to vote for the Communist. Same as I did the last time the issue came up. A lot of voters feel the same way.

You can read the numbers here:

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 6:01 PM

My main point about SocialCons is :

They WANT the right things...

....but when the rubber hits the road, they :

i) Exhibit massive cognitive dissonance
ii) Can't see the forest from the trees
iii) Toss aside every other right-wing principle rather than risk having a woman disapprove of them.
iv) Feminists know they can get Socialcons to support left-wing programs by threatening to call them misogynists. This can be done ad infinitum.

Thus, SocialCons are a liability to the right, and to small-government advocates.

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 6:01 PM

A lot of people are hoping to start a war between social conservatives and libertarians in the Tea Party, and I think that represents wishful thinking on their part.

Have you ever read anything by this guy "M Simon"? Libertarian blogger, you see him around the web always trying to pick a fight with social conservatives. I guess you haven't heard of him ...

flenser   ·  December 8, 2010 6:17 PM

I said I hesitated to disagree with Mr. Clayton. The truth is that I didn't hesitate enough. Reading the post again, I wholeheartedly agree that the time for a social conservative-libertarian alliance to get social issues resolved on the state level has not arrived, even though there is a lot of potential for agreement on the topic.

Roger Conley   ·  December 8, 2010 6:17 PM

I said I hesitated to disagree with Mr. Cramer. The truth is that I didn't hesitate enough. Reading the post again, I wholeheartedly agree that the time for a social conservative-libertarian alliance to get social issues resolved on the state level has not arrived, even though there is a lot of potential for agreement on the topic.

Roger Conley   ·  December 8, 2010 6:18 PM

Similarly, when someone tells me that I'm allowed to get back to working to protect pre-born babies after the government's finances are in order, I do not respond pleasantly.

Nor should you. The question is: do you want to enlist government guns in your fight? If so you have just lost my support an all your other issues.

The error of the Right and the Left is to go grabbing for enforcers when people are "misbehaving".

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/12/faith_in_force.html

If you need armies of enforcers you have abandoned small government.

BTW my Cong Critter is a socon and I'm happy to support him because he is a business socon not a morals socon - when it comes to governing.

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 6:19 PM

I don't give a f if it's the Baby Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or Buddah who cuts Gov spending, I'm voting for him.

dr kill   ·  December 8, 2010 6:20 PM

flenser,

Yeah. I'm around. Pick fights? Hardly. All I ask is that the Republican Party live up to its small government principles. If that is picking a fight with socons then I guess we know where they stand on the small government issue.

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 6:23 PM

I seem to recall a recent post by a co-blogger here who said he'd fight to elect socialists before allowing socons a place at the table.

Actually what I said is that if social issues become the focus I was going to vote for the Communist.

Wow, now there's a meaningful distinction. So what you are really saying is that you're still a communist and not an ex-communist. If the "social issues become the focus" you're going to say screw all the other issues and vote for Joe Stalin.

This is the problem with you, Simon. You're not even a genuine libertarian. You're a communist temporarily posing as a libertarian. But when the chips are down your ultimate allegiance is to your "former" totalitarian friends.

flenser   ·  December 8, 2010 6:27 PM

If the movement wants to push socons away, they should be honest enough to change the name from "Tea Party." While dumping the product into the sea, Sam Adams and the boys broke out the chant that would become the signature slogan of the Revolution: "No king but King Jesus."

Jim Nagle   ·  December 8, 2010 6:29 PM

All I ask is that the Republican Party live up to its small government principles.


You would not recognize a small government principle if one bit you on your "formerly" communist ass.

flenser   ·  December 8, 2010 6:30 PM

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 6:35 PM

If the government is small enough, which is to say the correct size, the social cons don't matter.

Let them do their worst at the state level. They will anyway, and I can always move.

MarkD   ·  December 8, 2010 6:42 PM

So what you are really saying is that you're still a communist and not an ex-communist.

Well no flenser. If government is going to be of the enforcer model rather than the peace keeper model I prefer Communist oppression to Calvinist oppression.

As did a lot of folks in Illinois:

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush

What ever camp you have me in I'd say I had a fair number of compatriots. Reality. Now do you want the votes or don't you?

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 6:44 PM

Well, then Denver, you should have no problem taking direction from me. Not only am I smarter, and wiser, but better looking (taller too), and I have four Nobel Prizes (not counting the one for Peace which doesn't really count after all.) and a couple of those Emmy things and a Pulitzer and a Heisman Trophy Award. As your superior, I direct you to stop being so disrespectful to people who are smarter than you.
==================

More seriously,
Libertarian influenced Republicanism is less popular than Soconism. If anyone needs to go, its Libertarians. I'm willing to accept Libertarians as Junior Partners, which is what they deserve based on their power level, but if they don't want that, the Small Gov't Movement would be better off to kick them out.

Its better to have a smaller, but fully enthused group, than a group with rampant divisions. And a fully enthused group won't stay smaller for long. We'll suck in the Independents like crazy.

So if I have to toss M.Simon off the troika, well, I'm not too upset.

Tennwriter   ·  December 8, 2010 6:56 PM

Libertarian influenced Republicanism is less popular than Soconism.

So true. But it doesn't matter. You can't win National elections on soconism. You need that 15% to 25% libertarian/independent to put you over the top.

In politics you compromise your base to win over the least attached so you win elections.

So the fact that socons are the majority is irrelevant if the majority is not large enough to win elections on its own.

And then there is always the problem of government programs morphing into something else. As in the Drug War becomes the TSA aka "The War On Airline Passengers".

Always a problem with government. Methods used to "solve problems" in one are get generalized.

Small government is safer.

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 7:13 PM

BTW my tendency is to play balance of power politics rather than Party politics.

Or to put it another way: GRIDLOCK.

M. Simon   ·  December 8, 2010 7:20 PM

I. Libertarian influenced Republicanism is less popular than Soconism.

It is? Maybe, and maybe at the moment, but bear in mind that the statists have accomplished the near-takeover of our institutions by engaging in a "long march" through them which began with college students in the 1960s. Demography is destiny; if love of liberty is to grow, it must be fostered in the young.

We might bear in mind the following about to-day's young people (such as my 20-year-old daughter and 17-year-old son):

1. They are more likely to support the rights of gay people to marry, and (re)legalization of marijuana/other drugs, than the populace at large. They understand (correctly) that the only real difference between heroin and beer is that one is advertised by word-of-mouth, and the other is advertised by Madison Avenue.
2. They also are, by and large, opposed to abortion on demand. They have seen themselves in utero via sonograms.

On social issues, young people defy easy categorization, but their viewpoints must be taken into account if the Tea Party movement is to have any chance at opposing the march of statism long-term. As Churchill put it, few people change the opinions they acquire in early adulthood.

II. Having a conversation about the Drug War with many Republicans, or about national defense with many libertarians, is roughly akin to having a discussion about mortgage banking with Barney Frank.

All of us have to be more honest with ourselves - some of our own sacred cows will have to be gored. If limited government is to survive, we're going to have to be more realistic.

MikeC   ·  December 8, 2010 8:48 PM

i wouldn't call it a 'war' but i have a problem with the religious con's belief that the last election was a signal for them to exert more power over the GOP. i'm one of those 'libertarian conservatives' who believes in small government, low taxes, and individual liberty so i'm certainly more attracted to the republican message than to the democrat's. however, when i run into bible-waving folks who are determined to strip gay citizens of their legal rights, for example, i have to stop to reconsider my affiliation with a party that welcomes and encourages that sort of thing. i didn't vote to put the republicans back in power to resurrect the ghost of jerry falwell.

el polacko   ·  December 8, 2010 9:10 PM

M. Simon,

You jest. 15-20%? How about 1% of the population is hardcore libertarian.

We do not NEED you.

Its possible, we'd do better without you and yours. I can't say.

MikeC,
I'm trying to get Libertarians to be realistic. They've got this massively inflated notion of their power that needs to be brought back to earth.

If they said 'hey, we're Junior Partners, and we'll take our Junior Partner share, and try not to stab the socons in the back', then we could think of an appropriate deal to be arranged. But, you gotta start from reality first.

As to the future, well, 'the future, always in motion, it is'. I'm looking forward to some sort of Preference Cascade where a lot of Liberalism becomes a Bad Joke. Where people lie to their grandchildren...'oh no, I was never in favor of those bad liberal ideas you learn about in school.'

Tennwriter   ·  December 8, 2010 9:14 PM

How about 1% of the population is hardcore libertarian.

But at least 60% of the population wants small government, which socialcons are unwittingly obstructing.

Bush lost the small government crowd in his final 3 years. Obama lost them quickly.

The GOP certainly does not need hardcore libertarians, but it DOES need to cut spending, which it presently is too terrified of feminists to do.

Toads   ·  December 8, 2010 9:25 PM

"Only a fool fights in a burning house".

John Stephens   ·  December 8, 2010 9:33 PM

Toads,

And Libertarians are more obstructive. Libertarians have helped keep the Socons on the defensive.

You see gay marriage correctly as less of a problem than no fault divorce. But socons primary stance has been a defensive stance.

Once they go on offense, then things change back for the better.

Tennwriter   ·  December 8, 2010 10:15 PM

Toads,

Let me highly reccomend George Gilder's 'Men and Marriage'. It may be OOP now, but it was one of the 'lightbulb' books for me.

Tennwriter   ·  December 8, 2010 10:20 PM

Mike C., you make a lot of sense about demographics and libertarianism. Social conservatives have lost the battle and I believe they know it. To paraphrase Ayn Rand's famous metaphor from Atlas Shrugged, the "people's clock that hung over Manhattan" which bothered Eddie Willers so much - their days are numbered.

M. Simon, the person who posts under the handle "flenser" is either a provocateur or jew hater, or both. In case you haven't guessed.

Frank   ·  December 8, 2010 10:32 PM

Tennwriter:
Where does LOS and American Renaissance fit into your world view? Just asking. The Tea Party is a big tent, so no judgment calls here.

Frank   ·  December 8, 2010 10:40 PM

Two things.

First, I live in a comparatively small city, though it's the largest one for hundreds of miles in any direction. There are no other TEA Party groups "available to me" and I have other concerns than to "start one".

One of the TEA Party strengths is that it has been spontaneous. I just don't find that I have a whole lot in common with a lot of those who have made it up in this area, because I am not a social conservative.

Secondly, I certainly don't vote for progressives, EVER, under any circumstances. Having no particular interest or involvement in the local TEA Party does not make someone a Democrat. I voted McCain for the sole reason that he was running against Obama, despite the fact that, just months earlier, I couldn't have fathomed voting for the slimy, vile RINO SOB.

In fact, to the guy who suggested that having a major disagreement with the local TEA Party makes someone a Democrat or a Democrat voter, you are a blithering idiot.

I'm glad that my enemies have enemies, and they're certainly my friends in that sense. But I won't be marching in the streets alongside those whose real goal is to enforce the Christian version of Sharia, and whose interests are simply to combat progressives so that they can implement their own agendas which I find abhorrent.

They don't want liberty, and I do.

The fact is that the TEA Party should air this stuff openly and resolve it. There's no reason that there shouldn't be an alliance of people with certain things in common -- but at some point it will be necessary to state openly what those issues are, and to acknowledge those that are only of interest to various factions.

Barry D   ·  December 8, 2010 11:04 PM

Frank,
I went and Googled 'los American Rennaissance' and saw a page with a bunch of links, and something about the hoax of Affirmative Action.

I'm still in the dark here. Care to shed some light?

MikeC, while its clear we need to do something different, I expect the legalizers would produce worse. Get back to me when you have a GOOD plan. :)

Tennwriter   ·  December 8, 2010 11:58 PM

Oh come now, Tennwriter, LOS is ALL about Chivalry. Why should you care, owning up I mean. What matters is reclaiming our glorious heritage. With enough courage, you can do without a reputation.
Can't a reprobate be chivalrous?

Frank   ·  December 9, 2010 2:06 AM

I find Libertarians to be closing the gap of the circle with anarchists and reading the comments of those who would vote for communists before a Social Conservative I would say my opinion appears to be quite right. If anyone who is not a progressive votes for anyone who believes government can fix your ills they are idiots, simple, to the point. I am sure progressivism sounded kewl leading up to the moment they had the whole shebang but if 2 years of pure financial pain does not focus the mind to the insanity of their fascism then nothing ever will.

JadedByPolitics   ·  December 9, 2010 3:06 AM

Frank,
Sorry, man. When I see LOS, I think Line of Sight, or I think 'los' which is some Spanish word, I'm not sure what. I'm sure you're not discussing lasers, but I'm going to need more help here.


Tennwriter   ·  December 9, 2010 9:34 AM

"Christian version of Sharia" - that phrase combines so much hatred and ignorance, it had to be the work of a gaggle of tax-funded Obamarrhoids.

One area where SoCons and Libertarians can and should cooperate enthusiastically and immediately: separation of school and state. It will be a hard sell, but if it sells, it will be comparatively easy to get government out of other endeavors to which it is ill-suited.

Gregg the Obscure   ·  December 9, 2010 11:49 AM

Tennwriter:
Sorry if what I wrote seemed obtuse. But to quote your response to Toad,
And I do believe in Chivalry, but Chivalry is a System for both sides. It is not strictly a set of obligations on the Man. What we have now is Men still hanging on to a bit of High Culture, and Women not so much. We can all become Barbarians, or we can reconstruct High Culture.

Those sentiments, and your avowed Socon status, would more than qualify you for membership in the League Of The South (LOS), which despite being trashed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), is only mildly a racist organization. You would be in good company if you did belong, since such Lib/Conservative luminaries as Robert Stacy McCain are proud members.

...I'm the Socon who kicked the doors in and burnt the stables, and salted the fields around this place

Ahem, that sounds like a metaphor for ACTION!

I'm not a Tea Party member or even much of a supporter. But if you guys want to make it work, you need to focus on one or two issues that you can agree on, and agree to not bring up other issues you're passionate about.
The libertarians have compromised in this last election, by voting for politicians who campaigned on fiscal sanity and stopping the encroachment of liberal statism, but with maybe a few exceptions are really social conservatives who have for now been quiet about their other agenda - repealing Roe/Wade, stopping the march of gay rights, expanding the drug war, etc.
So, Tennwriter, if you really think you can expel libertarians, and go it alone with your Socon agenda attached and out in the open again, go for it. The Tea Party will then become just another front group for Christian religious conservatism.

And some of us freedom lovers will see to it that they, and the hangers on with all their racism, homophobia, anti-feminism, jew-baiting, & drug prohibition, are exposed.
It would not be in our interest, anymore than in yours, to go this route. That is exactly what the statist Democrats want. Is that what you want? Exclude libertarians, by pushing your agenda to the front, and that is probably what you will get.

Our economy is in shambles, our government so broke that they're printing money to borrow, socialists and worse are in charge of the executive branch and openly challenging congress, our basic rights and dignity are being assaulted by the TSA, and Socons think they don't need to compromise maybe just a little and put aside, for now, a little of their moral fervor, to stop this madness?


Frank   ·  December 9, 2010 5:40 PM

As proof of Republican priorities, after the Tea Party helped them get in power again, here is Congressman Wally Herger, California, introducing a bill to expand federal reach fighting marijuana plantations on federal lands.
It was passed 404 yea, 4 nay. He was a coordinated effort with ALL federal agencies, fully armed, brought into it. He wants a literal war on growers. The excuse is Mexican Drug Cartels.
But hey, maybe he can get gunship helicopters and drones brought in. Then WE can get first hand experience with collateral damage.

Here he is introducing his resolution yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQprySSzAM

Frank   ·  December 9, 2010 6:12 PM

Frank, the last two paragraphs of your 5:40 post could easily be rewritten:

"And some of us conservatives will see to it that they, and the hangers on with all their race-obsession, promotion of sexual depravity, euthanasia and overall permissiveness are exposed. It would not be in our interest, anymore than in yours, to go this route. That is exactly what the statist Democrats want. Is that what you want? Exclude SoCons, by pushing your agenda to the front, and that is probably what you will get.

Our economy is in shambles, our government so broke that they're printing money to borrow, socialists and worse are in charge of the executive branch and openly challenging congress, our basic rights and dignity are being assaulted by the TSA, and Libertarians think they don't need to compromise maybe just a little and put aside, for now, a little of their libertine fervor, to stop this madness?"

Everyone wants compromise from their opponents, but it's rare that anyone is willing to compromise on things they find important. I'm still not entirely convinced that this polity should be spared the consequences of its stupid fiscal policies before the cultural rot is addressed, but I'm willing to work, to a degree, with anyone who won't try to use government to eradicate Christianity. Sadly, that excludes many who call themselves libertarians.

Also if a bill passes 404 to 4, it's pretty silly to blame only one party.

Gregg the Obscure   ·  December 9, 2010 6:47 PM

Gregg, the compromise does indeed go both ways. But it was libertarians who compromised by voting for social conservative Republicans, not socons who voted for libertarians. So don't give me that crap about how you've compromised to elect a libertine congress.
There is no one, repeat no one, in congress on the Republican side who is spearheading repeal of drug laws, pushing for the right to die (euthanasia), an expansion of any state interference in religion, or for that matter "sexual depravity", unless you want to call Susan Collins a Republican.
So what did we get out it? Hopefully some fiscal sanity, a block on the extreme left, maybe a chance at rebuilding our economy, & perhaps a move of the middle into this fold.

What I see is that your primary concern is cultural rot. If that is the case, you will lose us. We're not asking you to abandon your beliefs, only to focus for now on what is really important for the survival of the republic.

As to Wally Herger, he's using this resolution to expand a military presence into our country. If anyone who's studied our history since the Civil War should know, there is a law expressly banning this kind of activity. He wants to circumvent it by arming the DEA, the US Forest Service, and a host of other agencies as though they are the military. The SOB actually took part in a drug raid this year, all camo-ed up in an armed helicopter. He wants to throw more money at it, when the priority should be cutting back on government abuse of authority like the TSA, rather than expanding this shit. But like I said, you guys think cultural rot is more important than individual rights. By ignoring what this election was all about and going right back to weeding out (pun intended) cultural rot, the Republicans are just reverting to form. Cultural conservatives first, freedom lovers last.

Frank   ·  December 9, 2010 7:27 PM

Frank, I am second to no one in conservatism on the most prominent cultural issues, and I'm for drug legalization. It isn't SoCons that are pushing the drug war. I live in Denver where progressive Chris Romer is doing all he can to thwart the will of the people regarding the decriminalization of marijuana. The culture wars have raged for so long that every faction has been fractured several times over.

I suspect we can agree on this: get the federal government out of EVERYTHING that isn't expressly mandated by the Constitution, then duke it out at the state and local level. I'd probably move to Wyo, SoDak or South Carolina if that were to happen.

Gregg the Obscure   ·  December 9, 2010 9:21 PM

Also please note that abortion is simply the most common form of euthanasia.

Gregg the Obscure   ·  December 9, 2010 9:23 PM

I suspect we can agree on this: get the federal government out of EVERYTHING that isn't expressly mandated by the Constitution
Yes!

Frank   ·  December 9, 2010 9:52 PM

I'm the Socon who kicked the doors in and burnt the stables, and salted the fields around this place

Well, someone had to do it. I was always hoping someone would kick my doors in, and I was sick of having to clean out the stables, and the planting, and the harvesting.

Who said war was hell?

Eric Scheie   ·  December 9, 2010 10:16 PM

Mr. Scheie,
Well, I 'imposed' on your castle. And I think it was Sherman who said that war was hell, and it could be neither refined or softened (something like that.)

Frank,

I did recognize that RSM uses that phrase, but he admittedly is quoting which is no shame. Its arrogance to think we in the present have the monopoly on wit and discernment.

I think RSM said he was no longer associated with them, that they had changed.

I don't want to associate with the mildly racist if I don't have too. See, I'm not an Evolutionist. I don't believe Blacks came from Gorillas and Whites came from Chimpanzees. Michael Jordan and Colin Powell are cousins of mine, albeit fairly extended. Race doesn't exist.

And I can summarize my response to your last several paragraphs pretty quickly: I think Socons need to Compromise Less. Much of the reason we got to this strait is we compromised too much. We should have had this knock-down drag-out fight with the RINOs earlier.

Let's see tho'...Jew-baiting. What rot. The biggest supporters of Israel in America for the last couple decades have been the Conservatives. To repeat: What rot!

Anti-feminism....I'm a Palinista. Perhaps you'd better define what 'feminism' means.

But I will be glad to join you in the Susan Collins Is NOT A Republican Club.

Tennwriter   ·  December 9, 2010 10:41 PM

Compromise has nothing to do with a coalition. Where we agree, we agree. Where we don't, we don't. Those of us who are involved with the Tea Party agree on Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. So I see no need for war.

(And as I tried to point out, I was unaware that I had had a war here, much less lost one.)

I'm glad to hear it" isn't SoCons that are pushing the drug war."

Eric Scheie   ·  December 9, 2010 10:52 PM

if I have to toss M.Simon off the troika

Is he on some troika of which I am unaware? And are you in charge of its membership?

Eric Scheie   ·  December 9, 2010 10:58 PM

And other Tea Partiers agree on more than that. As the fellow at the Sundries Shack admitted...most of the TP are evangelical rightists.

Is there a war? Yes, one that Libertarians started. I've listened to too many uninformed and bigoted rants about how if only the Socons would leave the R party, or shut up and play by Libertarian ideals, then all would be swell.

Its continued Attack, attack, attack by Libertarians on Socons. And all that wasted energy goes to keep Socons on the defensive, and promotes internecine warfare, and thus keeps the RINOs in charge and the Statists keep winning. Well, if I have to blast the Libertarians out of the way to get at the RINOs, so be it.

As to the war here, well, in the case of imposing morality, I, as an impartial :) debate judge have awarded myself the resounding victory.

The troika, or Russian sled, would be the coalition. And M. Simons claims to want to be a member, in between threatening to vote for Stalin. As to my ability to throw him off...well, I'm just a commenter out in Blogland, perhaps a prophet in the wilderness (doubtful) saying a few obvious truths. And one of them is that if, in order to keep M.Simon and his like from voting for Stalin, we have to sit on the Socons, then we really don't need M. Simon that badly.

Tennwriter   ·  December 10, 2010 12:36 AM

most of the TP are evangelical rightists

Funny, but in nearly two years of attending Tea Party events, I have not seen that at all.

Libertarians started a war? How? Is disagreement a war? I don't think so; I don't even think disagreement constitutes hatred.

Its continued Attack, attack, attack by Libertarians on Socons.

What is an attack? A disagreement? If I disagree with a social conservative, how is that an attack?

And all that wasted energy goes to keep Socons on the defensive, and promotes internecine warfare, and thus keeps the RINOs in charge and the Statists keep winning. Well, if I have to blast the Libertarians out of the way to get at the RINOs, so be it.

Which is the equivalent of saying this:

And all that wasted energy goes to keep libertarians on the defensive, and promotes internecine warfare, and thus keeps the RINOs in charge and the Statists keep winning. Well, if I have to blast the socons out of the way to get at the RINOs, so be it.

(Not that I'm advocating blasting anyone out of the way, but this wasn't my idea.)

As to the war here, well, in the case of imposing morality, I, as an impartial :) debate judge have awarded myself the resounding victory.

What happened is that you disagreed with me, and I disagreed with you. And now you say that you have won, and now I disagree with that too. This is victory in war?

As I say, if only all wars could be that easy to win and lose.

I don't feel imposed upon by any of this. But that's because I am under no obligation to debate it. However, you think you are imposing your morality on me, and you also think I am imposing my morality on you. I disagree.

Eric Scheie   ·  December 10, 2010 1:18 AM

Mr. Scheie,

Well, I'm taking the word of the libertarian at Sundries Shack.

If you don't like 'war' as of course, there are no bullets flying, then 'severe prolonged disagreement with many Libertarians gratuitously (um, I'd say 'attacking', but you don't like that) so, expressing strong disaproval and bigotry in response to nothing other than the day ending in 'y'.

After a few years of Severe Prolonged Disagreement, some Socons are starting to think its time to launch our own Severe Prolonged Disagreement back.

And at least on the Libertarians side, I do think an awful lot of the disagreement does constitute hatred. Because if this was just tactics, or if love of freedom was the most important value, then you'd have different actions by libertarians.

You can't reverse things and subsitute words because the worst thing Socons usually do to Libertarians is ignore them. And because Libertarians have next to no chance of blasting Socons out of the way and getting anything done. While the reverse is not true.

Mr. Scheie, your moving plea for unity founders upon the hard rock of mistrust and by the neccessities of winning against the Immoralizing Statists. You lead your side into attacking the Ruling Class, and enjoin them from gratuitous slams against allies, and you'll be most helpful.

Next time S.E. Cupp, or some other notable comes out and slams Socons. A bunch of other Libertarians need to come out and say 'although we don't totally disagree with your points, we feel that this is unhelpful at this time'. Otherwise, the Severe Prolonged Disagreement needs to continue.

My wish would be as yours, to avoid a fight. But you can't have that until both sides wish for it, and I'm not convinced Libertarians want peace except the peace of conquest.

Tennwriter   ·  December 10, 2010 9:50 AM

Teenwriter's belittling of libertarians and snide but gentlemanly put-downs, barely hide his overall contempt. A disagreement over tactics becomes conquest. When such social conservatives are called on their background of bigotry they go on the attack defending it through selective references to the Old Testament's prohibitions, and appeals to tradition rather than logic or even a humble regard for the healing words of Christ.

The reason it is important to bring up organizations like the League Of The South is not to imply racial prejudice, but rather to source the difference between a large group of social conservatives who are circling the wagons to fight off modernity, and those scattered outside the Old South who are primarily religious and open. The LOS types like Tennwriter (and I would included Rush Limbaugh from Missouri) are not just defensive. As Teenwriter shows they have an agenda outside stopping the advance of leftist tyranny, and that is vengeance. Libertarians are to be meek followers, otherwise they can get out of the way of their kicking the doors in and burning the stables.

Not my cup of Tea.

Frank   ·  December 10, 2010 11:50 AM

Frank, I have my disagreements with Tennwriter, but I don't consider him a spokesman for social conservatism, any more than I consider myself a spokesman for libertarianism. A disagreement with him is not a disagreement with all.

I also think it has to be borne in mind that this blog allows anonymous comments from anyone. There is no way to verify the bona fides of anyone's political background.

Eric Scheie   ·  December 10, 2010 12:00 PM

Mr. Scheie is of course correct. I am as much, or perhaps less, of a spokesman for Socons than he is for Libertarians. I hold no great influential post. I'm just a guy. Of course, Sarah Palin is just a girl. Its the truth we bear that is so fearsome.

I impute to libertarians the motivation of conquest for their chosen tactics.

I think its time for Socons to change from a defensive posture toward the Left, and go on the attack. We need to roll back the Immoralist Statists, not just protest the latest outrage. Attacking Libertarians is a means to an end. Its not the goal.

Tennwriter   ·  December 10, 2010 12:12 PM

Those Libertarians who aren't obsessed with defaming and marginalizing SoCons can be an ally in the greater struggle until such time as the bigger threat is defeated. Sadly that omits many who describe themselves as Libertarians, but who would be better described as Libertines.

One good model is the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Tancredo. Despite his late start, third-party status and furious opposition from national and local media, he did pretty well. He campaigned on both limited government and social conservatism. (E.g. he is for de-regulation, cutting spending, drug legalization, pro-life and opposed to further devaluing marriage.) Candidates who use that platform - omitting his "nuke Mecca" comments and perhaps emphasizing immigration a bit less than Tank does - could do very well indeed in most, though clearly not all, states.

Gregg the Obscure   ·  December 10, 2010 1:27 PM

I know this post is old, but it has to be asked:

I make no secret of being in the libertarian camp, nor have I ever denied my disagreements with social conservatism (especially the statist variety).

What other variety is there?

The genesis of this "social" vs. "fiscal" conservatism distinction, was to undo a deliberate confusion. It began when people seeking a pro-liberty, constrained government found that according to the mainstream political "spectrum", their home was on the so-called "right". Unfortunately, already sitting there were religious statists and busybodies who sought to use the power of the State to suppress individual behavior they didn't approve of (such as being gay). So what's a pro-liberty individual to do? Seek to set themselves apart from the statist busybodies they find themselves wrongly lumped in with, of course. Hence, "fiscal" versus "social" conservative. It's not ideal -- it isn't a repudiation of the whole fraudulent "spectrum", which exists for the purpose of fostering such confusions -- but it helps.

By suggesting that there can be such a thing as a non-statist social conservative, you do everyone a huge disfavor by sabotaging the meaning of that distinction.

Statism, anti-individual rights, is a *defining* attribute of socons. They are the conservative heirs of the old Church establishment which got its butt handed to them by the rise of the Enlightenment and political liberty.

WHile you may still be deluding yourself about this fact of their basic hostility to everything you profess to support, they certainly don't. Observe as they make clear what their priorities really are.

Individual rights are not their priority.

Seerak   ·  January 1, 2011 12:40 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