GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You
Republicans are rightfully celebrating their recent successes in the midterm elections, recapturing the House and making major gains in the Senate. But before House GOP leader John Boehner starts measuring the curtains for the speaker’s office, he and his fellow Republicans would do well to remember the old proverb popularized by legendary University of Texas football coach Darrell Royal: “Dance with the one who brung you.”
In this case, that means: Don’t forget who put you in office and why — namely, the independent-minded Tea Party voters.
Hence, the Republicans should take to heart three key lessons:
1) Americans don’t want “ObamaLite”
The 2010 vote was a powerful message from Americans rejecting the socialist policies of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid — including the bailouts, the out-of-control federal spending, the higher taxes, and the nationalized health care scheme.
Voters elected Republicans to halt and reverse these policies — not compromise to pass watered-down versions of those same bad ideas.
Some Republicans like Congressman Mike Pence appear to understand this:
[T]here will be no compromise on stopping runaway spending, deficits and debt. There will be no compromise on repealing ObamaCare. There will be no compromise on stopping Democrats from growing government and raising taxes.
In contrast, others like Congressman Darrell Issa appear willing to compromise:
It’s pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda. … They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree.
Whichever philosophy takes hold amongst the Republicans will determine whether they succeed — or fail.
Americans don’t expect the impossible from the GOP. We understand that Obama still wields the presidential veto. But we do expect the Republicans to fight as hard as they can for principles of free markets, fiscal responsibility, and limited government.
For example, with respect to ObamaCare, we understand that the Republicans may not have enough votes to immediately repeal it. But a GOP-controlled Congress can “defund” it (i.e., not allocate money to implement the program) until they gain a sufficient majority in 2012 to fully repeal it.
For Congressional Republicans, preventing President Obama from inflicting yet more bad programs on this country might be the best (and most important) thing they can do until they have sufficient power to pass their own positive alternatives.
One of the first things aspiring doctors learn in medical school is the principle of “Primum non nocere” or “First, do no harm.” In other words, sometimes doing nothing is better than making things worse. This is just as true in politics as it is in medicine.
2) Don’t mistake this as a mandate to pursue a divisive “social conservative” agenda.
The Republicans’ electoral rebound has been driven by millions of independent voters like the Colorado small businessman Ron Vaughn, who told the New York Times, “I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom.”
As the New York Times article noted, swing states like Colorado are split such that “Democrats, Republicans and independents each account for about one-third of registered voters.” If Republicans wish to retain power after 2010, they will have to respect the wishes of these independents.
Similarly, the recurrent theme in the countless grassroots Tea Party rallies across the country has been for fiscal responsibility and limited government — not social conservative issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
The Democrats mistook their electoral success in 2008 as a mandate to pursue a socialistic domestic agenda. They overreached and are now paying the political price. The Republicans should not make the same mistake and assume that their 2010 electoral success reflects a mandate to pursue a divisive social conservative agenda. Instead, they should focus on the issues important to the Tea Party voters who elected them into office — namely, fiscal responsibility and limited government.
3) Respect the Constitution
The newly elected (or re-elected) congressmen and senators must remember that rightful authority flows from the U.S. Constitution. In a few weeks, they will all swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Nothing enraged Tea Party protestors more than seeing elected officials betray this solemn promise, whether it was Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) defending his ObamaCare vote by saying, “I don’t worry about the Constitution” or Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) saying, “The federal government … can do most anything in this country.”
And although some pundits like Dahlia Lithwick think it’s “weird” for legislators to consider whether a proposed bill is constitutional, that is indeed one of their primary responsibilities.
More importantly, Republicans need to respect the underlying principle of the Constitution — namely, protecting individual rights. A proper government protects our rights by protecting us from criminals who steal, murder, rape, etc., as well as from foreign aggressors. But it should otherwise leave honest people alone to live peacefully. In particular, government should protect our right to enjoy the fruits of our labors, not rob us to pay for “stimulus packages” or “universal health care.”
Thomas Jefferson understood this well when he said:
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
In conclusion, I’d like to again congratulate the Republicans on their electoral victory. They have been given a chance to block (and possibly reverse) many of the bad policies of President Obama. They have been given a chance to move America in the right direction. And they’ve been given a chance to earn the trust of the American people.
I hope the Republicans repay that trust by showing that they will indeed “dance with the one who brung them” and listening to the Tea Party voters who restored them to power.
Paul Hsieh wrote: > In conclusion, I’d like to again congratulate the Republicans on their electoral victory.
Sounds like you’re singing a slightly different tune now from the one you were singing about two years ago, when, among other things, you “hoped” (as you said) Obama would win the presidential election. What a difference a couple of years makes, I guess.
I wanted Obama to win in 2008 too, because John McCain is defintely “Obama lite” which would have been a worse disaster than Obama since McCain is often mistakenly taken, as a Republican, to represent freedom and capitalism.
Now that the Republican’s have control of the house, they need to take heed of Dr. Hsieh’s points, or they will be voted right back out in 2012.
I agree. I knew an Obama victory would lead to many bad policies, but also knew that complete defeat for the repubs was the only way to reform the repub party and get them away from both the dem lite policies of McCain, or the social conservative/fiscally moderate policies of Bush.
There is only one path that will produce a victorious and unified repub party, small government fiscal conservatism. Repubs can be big tent and moderate on social conservative issues, but not on fiscal conservatism.
Notice that the Tea Party candidate that won the biggest, Ron Paul, was known mainly as a small government conservative, while Tea Party candidates like ODonnel, who emphasised their social conservatism more than their fiscal conservatism, lost.
So true,Maryallene Otis;John McCain has for years been A patsy for the left.Like his number One pal,John(Iwanna be like the viet cong)Kerry.Just as his Valley girl daughter,Is now The Drive-BY Media’s,New patsy;Cindy Sheehan.John McCain has never been an effective leader,Only A follower of the which ever way the wind blows.Mood At the time.Translation;Man with no convictions.If,And when the wind blows,against the constitution again so will he.Beware though.John(Patty Hearst)McCain.Has A Sympathy for the Devil,Side.That is a serious Problem,For the Constitution.,And conservative beliefs.He has a severe addiction,To rescuing those that wish to defeat us.So they can live to destroy another day,The Constitution,And Conservatism.John McCain’s Sraight B.S.Express.Has,Would have as Preident,And will again someday soon.Jump Ship,Bowing to the alter,And surrendering To the power of his progressive liberal wife,Daughter,Marxist Communist Friends,And his Obsessions to Glorify himself,While Sucking-up to the wishes of the liberal Drive-By media,And late night court jesters.No,A John McCain Presidency,Would have sent America ,Into a tail spin.Bowing to the left.Setting conservatism Back another fifty years.By blaming failed liberal policies on the GOP.The same as barack obama,and democrats are doing now.With dead silence,and not one republican setting the record straight.The same as Newt Gingrich,Allowing bill clinton to take credit for the 1994 Contract with America.When his greatest accomplishments were,Getting away with sex crimes,Perjury,Phony political propaganda scheme,With the drive-by media,To use That wakko’ in waco,To con,And manipulate the populace that all christians,and gunowners,Were the same as this nut in waco’.Because Orthodox Christianity,and the N.R.A. this election,and every election has always been the biggest political threat to democrats,Just like they did,then,they do still. The difference then it backfired,and men,women,and children were burned alive,Result;Domino effect;Oklahoma city bombing,And frankenstien monster Tim McVey.Again bill clinton,and media tried to blame it on christians,and the N.R.A.You would think wiser heads would prevail.And folk’s would begin to catch on to their cry wolf,and saul Alinsky tactics.Bill clinton lost a 50 year rein of democrat party superiority in congress by his liberal socialist policies,Now he helps barack obama destroy their party In the house probably for another decade.With the same liberal policies.Yet the republican party continue’s this day to give him credit,For 1994.And I’M amazed how the gop,and so many other groupies of these society predator politicians.Keep saying,With all the damage,and lives destroyed,and complete failure’s of these two self-serving predatorial politicians.How great,and Intelligent they are.Wait;I do know.(WORDS JUST WORDS)Jimmy Joe/The Liarfryer
It may have taken this lurch toward the abyss brought on by Obama to wake up enough people to where we are headed. Obama may turn out to be one of the “best” presidents in showing enough people that the emperor really has no clothes and the ideas behind him will lead to our destruction.
Maybe Obama turned up the heat on that frog in the hot water a little too high, too fast and woke up the frog.
We The People have spoken,the real Americans who actually love their country and the foundations it was built on. Real Americans don’t want to “fundamentally transform”their country,they want honest leaders making decisions based on what is best for America and best for it’s citizens. Liberals seem to have a mental illness that makes them think America is responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the world,they want government to control their lives from cradle to grave,they want the right to murder innocent unborn children,
I am hoping and praying that we will survive the next two years of Obama. I am also hoping that conservatives don’t compromise and instead take the lead in returning America to that “shining city on a hill”.
Two options come to mind:
1 – The rise of a third party which does not fear candidly speaking candidates.
2 – The union flying apart, because some regions are more willing to accept the medicine ladled out by the Tea Party backed candidates, than others.
Dems could have had enormous success, if they had simply continued to boil the frog… but they over-reached.
Pubs could do the same thing, over-reach by going for SoCon issues. It would be nice if they only brought this up tangentially, but they will not have a choice. How can one avoid it? The HealthCare Law includes money for abortion. If you move to de-fund it, how do you avoid the Dems making an issue out of it?
Pubs have to be sure to point out that the other side is bringing it up, not them. Make it clear you are de-funding everything. Do not let Dems define the debate.
If you can stick to very limited objectives, hearings on various things, the budget and taxes, you will gain credibility and build political capital for the next thing, and the next, and the next. Right now you have a little political capital. Invest it very wisely indeed.
You’re right. If the Democrats had taken baby steps, instead of big leaps and bounds which upset the status quo, they could have slipped their agenda through stealthily without awakening anybody. Nancy Pelosi’s power went to her head and she went batty on us. She is certifiably loony. You know that, don’t you?
Prohibiting any funding for abortion is different from prohibiting abortion period. Fiscal conservative/socially moderate libertarians will join the repubs in opposing abortion funding in the health care bill, but will not join then in an outright prohibition for people willing to pay for it themselves. It is one thing to say you can have an abortion, it is another to expect me to pay for it.
OK,Richard 40,Then when these genocidal child molesters.Decide that their population explosion Global Warming B.S now requires your life,Or someone you love.If at all it is possible you could ever love,or care about anybody but yourself.As you have made yourself clear.The love of money,Is more Important than A human beings Right to life.”.For what good is it to gain the world,To only lose your soul”
We’ll be sure to let them know,As long as they pay for it themselfs.You are OK,With it.It’s pretty obvious you are one of those Athiest,That believe human beings,are just Decendents of Pondscum.But the lack of concern for humanity,You will Inherit what all liberal satanic cults will Inherit.God’s version of Global Warming.THE ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE;
For the first time in my life, I, in this election, voted for Republican candidates.
I voted for Republican candidates to protect Israel from genocide, and to protect the well-being of the whole world from the modern Islamic-Supremacist political movement (the overt violent, but, at this time, most importantly, the covert non-violent, aspects of it), and as the most important part of those things, to protect the liberal democratic republic system of government of this country, the United States of America, and to protect the existence of the free open society of this country, the United States of America.
My ethnic background – my ethnicity – is Jewish. I used to consider myself to be politically “Liberal”, but now, after witnessing the anti-Jewish, pro-Fascist pro-Islamic-Supremacist, movement among the political Left, as a whole, I do not identify myself as being “Liberal”.
The political views that I hold are a balance between Classical Liberalism (Jeffersonian Liberalism) and Social Liberalism (modern Liberalism).
I now feel close to politically “Conservative” people and I now hold political views that are politically “Conservative” and I now also hold political views that are politically “Liberal”.
I agree with the essence of everything that I have heard Thomas Sowell say.
I agree with the essence of most of what I have heard Victor Davis Hanson say.
Foolish harmful action (including foolish harmful “Pacifism”) is wrong.
However, violent action is wrong.
Wise non-violent action is right.
The view that I hold of what is the form of government that is beneficial is a form of government that protects the most vulnerable people in society (disabled people and elderly people), and which is form of government that protects the members of society from harm (pollution; destruction of the natural environment; swindling) that would be caused by individuals and groups of individuals (corporations), and which is a government that guarantees and protects the liberty of every individual, and which is a form of government that is a democratic republic. It is a form of government that is a balance. It is a form of government that requires wisdom to develop and maintain and administer, and it is a form of government that requires an informed and politically engaged citizenry in order to have and maintain.
The system of government of the United States of America that is prescribed by the Constitution of the United States of America and that, for over two hundred years, until the present time, has been the system of government of the United States, is the most beneficial form of government that has ever been developed in, and that has ever existed in, the world for, at least, the last two thousand years, and may be the most beneficial form of government that has ever been developed in, and that has ever existed in, all of known human history.
Israel is a free democratic country. The society of Israel is a free open society. Israel provides more intellectual academics resources, and more life-saving and quality of life-enhancing medical technological advances, and more earth-saving environment-saving technological advances, and more information technology technological advances, to the world than does any other country in the world.
Israel is the country of the Jewish people.
The principals of Western culture are based on, and are, the principals of Jewish culture.
Israel is the seed and fountain of the world.
The United States of America is the protector and refuge of the world.
Welcome aboard, brother.
Yes, welcome, Daniel!
An excellent post, Daniel. I strongly recomemnd Lee Harris’
Civilization and Its Enemies
He concludes Civilization and Its Enemies with this:
This is something that really sticks for us all. The forgetfulness of which Harris speaks is the knowledge of how we got here, how we achieved our freedom and at what cost. This knowledge – the fundamental principles of freedom and its attendant duties and responsibilites – has been systematically purged from the general consciousness. Leftist, ‘progressive’ academia scorns the very values and principles that allow them to exist in freedom and prosperity – they believe that they are immune to the consequences of the very bad ideas they advocate. And nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead, we have progressives’ view of history, which reads like a cut and paste ransom note. As witness some of the more egregious and senseless postings from the likes of BC and others. Will Durant, in his monumental The Story of Civilization reminds us that:
We in the West face two barbarian enemies: our enemies within, who wish to destroy our civilization and our enemies without, and that is Islam in its entirety.
Compromise about what? Half of a socialist agenda is still a socialist agenda. Tuesday was good-it’s a start. But there’s a lot more work to be done, in Congress and within the Republican Party. Or without it.
Keep organizing. 2012 promaries are only a year away.
If by “staying out your bedroom” you mean allowing homosexuals to destroy the intitution of marriage, indoctrinate our children and practice lewd and perverted acts in the public square, destroy our military then you can shove your fiscal agenda because our country will be doomed to failure anyway.
The same goes with Roe vs Wade. The Constitution is silent on the horrific practice of abortion. That is a matter for the states.
No one can force you to be gay, or to have an abortion. All your fellow citizens ask is that you don’t force your beliefs on their lives. Let’s focus on improving the economy and, while we’re at it, we could also privatize public schools. Thus, your children could learn only what you want them to.
@Gunner – Being truly free means freedom for everyone, whether or not you agree with the way they choose to live their life. Dr. Hsieh is exactly right. The moment that the GOP reverts to trying to legislate morality is the moment that the country dies. The Right has been given one last chance in this country. The quickest way to blow that shot is to start taking away people’s individual rights, whether you agree with them or not.
God knows I agree with you, but that doesn’t mean I want the government enforcing my moral code.
It also means protecting the innocent and being free not to assent to practices you find abhorrent. Now I will not and cannot prevent homosexuals from engaging in their practices, but they will not get my approval for doing so. The marriage issue, however, is about forcing me to approve of their actions. That I will not submit to.
Concerning abortion, if the government will not punish murder, it forfeits its entire reason for existence.
Do you believe that taxing the rich to give to the poor is morally wrong? Statist theocrat. That forcing others to live up to their word of honor expressed in a contract is right? Statist theocrat. That I should be blocked from car-jacking when I’m bigger than most other men? Stop imposing your morality on me.
All you statist theocrats want to impose your morality on me, but I can’t do the same to you? Heh, I represent a force sixty times bigger, and a lot more energetic than the libertarians. The Tea Party is Socon.
This is just yet another failed attempt for RINOs and their lapdog chihuahuas, the libertarians, to steal the credit for a socon victory. Its as predictable as afternoon rain in winter Florida.
When Prop 8 was voted on in California, the Republicans dragged down by the Libertarians, did worse than Prop 8 (aka the socons). In hard blue, the socons did better.
Now, I’m willing to have the votes of even Marxists who vote for Conservatism, but at some point, we the Base have to ask ourselves….are these chihuahuas who bark louder than they bite, worth the stress they bring? Its time to get some serious work done, get cracking on reducing the scope of gov’t, and the chihuahua in his dog kennel is barking the night away while the master of the house is trying to get a good night’s sleep in his bed so he can get some work done tommorrow.
Now, if you’re good, the boss will make enough money to afford you some biscuits. If you keep distracting him, he’s going to have to give you away to that nice older lady who wants to put a pink bow on you.
Gunner;Iagree with you But you are dealing with Secular Agnostic/Athiest Libertarians.Which are Identical to marxist communist liberals but without the socialist tendencies.In other words Liberals believe they have the right to murder rape,and pillage the village,And others must pay the Damages,Or suffer the consequences.Agnostic/Athiest libertarians,Are QK,With the same as long as they Aren’t the one’s forced to pay the damages,Or Suffer the Consequences.They live in a gray area in life.NO Right,No Wrong.No good No Evil.Unless its against them,Or something,Or someone Important to them.They are selective Constitutionalist just like liberals.Selective to only what is Important to them.Truth,and Justice,According to them.Social Justice According to A collective Council,(POPULAR OPINION)Not the constitution,And Equal Justice under The Truth,And the law.Moderates Stand for nothing,So they will fall for anything.Constitutional Conservatives.Are the Original Constitutionalist.Which are Conservative on All the Above.Domestic,National Defense/Sovereignty,Equal Opportunity,Foreign Policy,Economic,And Social Conservatives.What most don’t get Because we have put Social Issues,On the Back Burner,All these years.We have become Desensitized to what should bring us shame,And Discust.SocialIssues Guarantee’s No-one Can take away any One’s life,Liberty,Or Property,Because we are Endowed by our creator.But Secular Humanist Religions,Like Evolution,Global Warming Alarmist Environmentalist,Fruits And Nuts,And Political Religions,Like Liberalism/marxist communism,And Socialism.Are Satanic Cults.That Destroy’s Human lives,Rights,And Liberty.Those I speak of See themselves as Gods Just Like their God;”LUCIFER”Where their will should be Exalted above the will,And one true God.The creator Of all Life.Ignoring social ILL’S,Or Social Issues Is the Number One Reason. We are Spiraling out of control,On every Other Society Problem,Or Threat.Jimmy Joe/”The Liarfryer”
This was a big victory, but this time I think the Republicans have learned a hard lesson. There is only so much they can do with Obama still in the White House, but there is enough they CAN do to at least show that they are serious about bringing down the deficit, reduce spending, reduce taxes, and reduce the size of the Federal government. I hope they make it because, if they don’t, the Republicans will go the way of the Whig Party in two years. Americans are in no mood to be lied to again.
I don’t think the republicans won, it was the American people – the Tea Party Americans – that finally displayed their distaste for being screwed that won. No doubt the Rs have already forgotten who restored them to power.
I sincerely think a third party is eventually the only way out of this mess.
Anyways, I’m going to smile all day.
The “medicine” of the Tea Parties is “leave us free!”
The DC establishment says “knuckle under or else!”
Well said, Dr Hsieh. The Republicans had better stand for the
former, or the wrath of the voters will fall on them in 2010.
I keep hearing about a 3rd party rise on the right, but I suspect that the left has bigger issues. The democrat party that remains in Washington is pretty much void of any blue dogs. I cant see the party being able to survive long term being this far left.
Last night was a major disappointment to me, with Miller and Angle falling. Depending on the post mortem it will most likely be a good thing.
Dont let the media rain on our day. It was a major rebuke in just 2 short years. We won some state houses we have not seen in over 100 years.
Alaska ain’t over yet. Not all of the write-in votes are for Murkowski, and not all of them will count due to fouled ballots.
None of those Republicans would have won if it hadn’t been for the Tea Partiers?
Yeah, right. Get real.
The good candidates won. The bad candidates lost. Tea Partiers had nothing to do with it.
In fact, there are seats which would have gone to Republicans if Tea Partiers hadn’t meddled.
Take Mike Castle in Delaware, for example. A Rhino who voted with Republicans even just half of the time would have been a helluvalot better than that guy Coons, who will NEVER vote with Republicans. That silly ass, Sarah Palin, isn’t qualified to determine which Republican candidates are more qualified. Hell, that ditz didn’t even fulfill her own responsibilities as governor of Alaska.
Never mind that the Palin’s ill-conceived picks, Angle, Fiorina and O’Donnell, were the trifecta of putzes. And never mind that Palin had no business meddling in that election in Alaska, just to satisfy her own bratty vendetta.
… And, oh yeah, never mind that Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Charles Krauthanner, Michael Steele and their ilk are the savvy professionals whose carefully considered advice and sound judgment should be heeded. Sarah Palin is nothing more than a ditzy and vain beauty pageant contestant, who lost for several reasons, but who won’t get off of the stage. She is a loose cannon whose nutty shenanigans and compulsion to seize the spotlight sabotaged the McCain campaign, also. Only someone who is ignorant and VERY immature would give her any credence, IMHO.
You’re absolutely right: Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers are already taking credit for the wins by Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, and that’s bullsh*t. Marco Rubio was already way, WAY out in front in the polls LONG before he got the Tea Partiers’ support, and to a lesser extent, that was the case with Rand Paul, also. (Marco Rubio is extremely popular in Florida among Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike. Palin had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with his win. That’s the spin that is being put out there by Palin, Tea Partiers and yes, even the MSM.)
That unscrupulous opportunist, Sarah Palin, needs candidates like Rubio, Bachman, Paul and Ayotte A LOT MORE than they need her. She just uses them to fulfill her own ambitions, taking all of the credit for their successes and leeching off of them, and she is so irresponsible anyway that, if you noticed, she distanced herself from O’Donnell and Angle and she left them out there twisting in the wind for the past couple of weeks, as soon as it became apparent that they had slim chances of winning. Indeed, that devious fraud, opportunist, self-promoter and selfish and self-centered, spoiled brat, Sarah Palin, looks out ONLY for herself. She doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the primary in 2012. Most Americans already see right through her.
I, for one, preferred a Coons victory to one for Castle. An enemy outside the gate is always easier to fight than one in your own camp poised to stab you in the back when it is politically expedient.
Biggest Loser of the Night: Sarah Palin
Runner Ups: Tea Party Extremists
Biggest Winner: Haley Barbour
Runner Ups: Karl Rove
Charles Krauthammer
Back from the Dead: William Buckley’s rule
Normally, I wouldn’t use a phrase like “Tea Party Extremists.” Unfortunately, Obama and the press called them “extremists” so long, that, like Sarah Palin, they gained a popularity on the far right that they didn’t actually start out with for the main reason that the far left didn’t like them. Once that happened, the far right drowned out the original message and the Tea Party is now a sad shadow of what it was meant to be. Not sure when the tipping point was, probably whenever it let Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck become its de facto leaders. The real individualists, fiscal conservatives, and independents didn’t have real leaders or real organisation, so it just goes to show that a disorganised movement will have its message co-opted. What started out being about the Constitution, limited government, bailouts and rewarding bad behaviour, somehow became about repealing parts of the Constitution, revolutionary and indiscriminate destruction of popular parts of the federal government, then immigration, and then it finally degenerated with Christine O’Donnell into being about evolution and masturbation. What a joke. She didn’t have to make it so easy for them. Something with such promise has already been tainted by sure-fire losers like O’Donnell. And its not like I didn’t want her to win, just like Karl, but we can’t just be wilfully blind to the impossibility of electing someone like O’Donnell in some place like Delaware. It took progressives 100 years to get this far, people in New England aren’t going to start sitting on all three legs of the conservative stool after a couple years of liberal overreach.
We have to show success in small ways before we will be trusted with more power. Incrementalism is the word. Things are so messed up that small steps can have big positive effects. Finding a way to introduce market incentives to health care consumption and reduce government insurance coverage mandates is the most important thing, because socialised medicine will be the most difficult to undo. Tea Party solutions were supposed to be about creative market-oriented, fiscally conservative solutions to reform the welfare state in order to save it without raising taxes, not destroy it. People don’t want government to go away, they want it to work better and not be overly paternalistic. It was a movement of radical moderates. With luck, it will be able to reclaim its purpose from those who perverted its message for their own gain. If it can, anything is possible in 2012.
Sarah Palin is the big loser because all of her candidates that could lose in this environment did. O’Donnell, Angle, even Buck and Miller in her own home state. The resources these people drew unnecessarily also will probably be responsible for the likely Rossi loss in WA and Toomey’s squeaker in Pennsylvania. Raese might have pulled it out too if he’d had more money that instead went to unelectable candidates. The Senate was where her candidates were high-profile primary winners, and they went down. They brought others down with them. In my opinion, their image problems seeped over into other races, such as in California as well. Don’t fool yourself, if it hadn’t been for Palin in particular, and the most radical elements of the Tea Party in general, Senate gains could have been twice the paltry six we got. I suspect things in the House would have been a lot better too. Sarah Palin will get, and will deserve, a huge amount of the blame for the underperformance last night. Palin would rather be a big fish in a small pond than actually win elections and get things done. Far more than any other conservative leader I can think of, Palin is quite willing to play along with the liberals who seek to elevate her, just so long as she gets what she wants. Her real base is the media, which she is always mouthing off too in an attempt to stay relevant. This alliance can only take her so far, and now it has, and she is done.
The big winner is Haley Barbour. With Sarah Palin seriously weakened, and his own governor’s races being the bright spot, he is the clear frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. And its not like he isn’t conservative.
Why Buckley’s rule is resurrected needs no further explanation, its statement will suffice. Always support the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.
By the way, conservative is inherently moderate and anti-revolutionary. It is concerned with the practical aspects of governing. If the GOP took that to heart, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now. Bush would have pushed Fannie/Freddie hard early on, and passed health care reform in 2005, which would have been more helpful and more likely to pass than Social Security privatisation, and been cautious about spreading revolutionary ideology through force in Iraq and the Middle East. What would have been so wrong about bombing them any time they got close to nukes, invading them if they will not stop letting terrorists plot against the U.S. on their own soil, and otherwise generally ignoring them until they and the movement collapsed under their own obvious weaknesses and contradictions? Why the rush?
We’d all be sitting pretty right now, hailing Bush as Reagan’s equal.
The Tea Party got it at first, despite its revolutionary name. Small claims, hard to oppose agenda, good of the country, etc., etc. Then it was led to go wild into support for a radical, fundamentally non-conservative agenda. When the press leads them on with questions about social security and the 16th amendment, just give a non-answer or a negative one, then talk about what you do support that has real chance of passing in the near term. Like Rubio did with Social Security privatisation. The left has consistently lied about supporting socialized medicine. Being honest is good, but that doesn’t mean you have to spell out your dream government like a college manifesto.
If they can step back from the shrill rhetoric and talk just about solving problems with simple solutions instead of pontificating about the far-reaching change they might enact if they were king for a day, if they talk about returning to time-tested values and lead by example without supporting a morality police or engaging in Terry Shiavo fiasco pandering, if they embrace a foreign policy that is modest about our ability to push revolutionary change by force and has instead the humbler goal of protecting America’s interests, the people will give them victory.
“Never mind that the Palin’s ill-conceived picks, Angle, Fiorina and O’Donnell, were the trifecta of putzes. And never mind that Palin had no business meddling in that election in Alaska, just to satisfy her own bratty vendetta.”
…..Martinez, Haley, Rubio….
Fiorina was a putz?????
The only “brat” in Alaska was Princess Murchowski and her insistence on a right to the seat she inherited from Daddy. You can call it a ‘vendetta’ if you like, but somebody needs to break the crooked Ted Stevens GOP-establishment machine in Alaska.
Susana Martinez, huh? LOL. Tea Partiers didn’t support her. She won on her own initiative and on her own merits.
Marco Rubio, huh? LOL. After he was already way out ahead in the polls, Palin approached him, not visa versa. If you lived in Florida, you would realize that his charisma and his record in the Florida State Legislature had already made him the most popular politician to ever run for office in this state, not just among Republicamns, but among Independents and Democrats, also. He garnered 51% of the vote in a 3-way race. That is unprecedented here in this state, a state where Democrats are in the majority.
Nikki Haley, huh? LOL. Publicity by scandals (and, to a lesser extent, by Tea Partiers) got her noticed. But thereafter she prevailed on her own merits.
BTW, Alaska’s Ted Stevens was a good man, and he was very, very well liked, not just by the people of Alaska, but by members of Congress in both parties, also. Obviously, you don’t know aything about him either.
4 years ago, the Republicans lost their majorities in the House and Senate. On
which side was Ted Stevens? The side taken behind the woodshed, or the side that saw Republicans either elected, or re-elected.
Because the lessons that some learned from 2006 were not learned by all in the Republican Party, and certainly not by all in the Democratic Party.
In fact, there are seats which would have gone to Republicans if Tea Partiers hadn’t meddled.
Correct. If anything, the tea party, which seems to have started as a fiscal-conservative-only movement, became co-opted at about the halfway mark by social conservatives, thus destroying any forward progress. Today’s tea party supporters seem to include plenty of people repeating their vapid “constitutional” argument regarding abortion, which of course is nonsense and detracts from any positives the tea party could otherwise be said to have.
It’s as if they woke up one day and reckoned hitting everyone in the head with their hammer wasn’t working, and… hey, this here tea party thing is supposed to be about constitutional stuff, and… oh…. abortion ought to be left to the states, because that’s constitutional, and… (Rinse/Lather/Repeat until the fiscal core message of the tea party is subsumed and the effectiveness of the tea party is destroyed.)
Neither C. O’Donnell (DE) nor S. Angle (NV) had any business running. Their fate was predictable, and was accurately predicted.
I can no longer imagine the winning that the GOP might do if only the social conservatives were to — for once — stay home and STFU.
That would be no winning at all. We are the Republican Party. Without us, you lose. Period. End of statement. We won’t vote for people who don’t believe in our values, and you can’t win without us.
But Mythbuster, and here’s the big secret….We can win without them.
Oh, it will be a bit harder,and we may lose a marginal seat or two, but we don’t NEED them. We’ll do just fine without them, and frankly not having to listen to this same extensively refuted arguement every six months or so would be wonderful.
And y’know, in the mid-to-long term I think we might do better. We’d have a clearer, less hesitant message, and everyone would be much closer to the same page. Also, soconism is more popular than libertarianism. So there’s a good arguement to be made that for the good of the Republican Party and its electoral chances we need to kick out the Libertarians.
We are the Republican Party.
Not even close. You’re a subset, and not even the largest of such. The vast majority of the electorate and the majority of republicans aren’t in your social conservative subset. To wit:
But Mythbuster, and here’s the big secret….We can win without them.
Obviously, you’re innumerate. You are 15% of the electorate at best.
You keep pushing this simplistic con (‘psss, we’ll pretend we don’t need the socons so they’ll mostly shut up, and let us continue to run the GOP our way’). Well, the con broke down about the time of John McCain’s non-election.
Why did it take so long? Because we’re used to being straightforward. To call socons naive is to say water is wet. We’re also polite. Someone says something ridiculous, and we try to comprehend them. Someone is gratuitously rude to us, and we seek to reassure them that we are nice guys.
There is an elephant, a horse, and an ant in the R party. The elephant is the socons, smarter and bigger. The horse is the RINOs/Big Business crony capitalists, and they’re rich, and dedicated to the principle that power is fun. The ant is the Libertarians. They’re really loud because no one would notice them if they weren’t loud.
For a long time, the ant has stung the elephant which distracted the elephant from how the horse would dart to the head of the parade and guide things.
Well, now that the horse has been leading us straight toward a cliff, the elephant has put his foot down. The horse and the ant can follow him now.
Besides getting a House filled with more do-nothing-right idiots than ever, and a House Speaker, John Boehner, who’s an anti-science nutcase, what’s especially irritating about this election is that its going to be framed as “Americans” have spoken, and not just “idiot suburbanites” and “those living in the flyover states” have spoken. It’s like when Scott Brown won in Massachusetts: a demographic survey showed that he didn’t win in any of the urban and academic areas (Cambridge went better than 4-1 for Coakley), and nearly all of Western Mass. Massachusetts is known worldwide for its universities and liberal politics, but we also have large tracts of suburbia like everyone else, where folks know a lot more about lawn care or what to order at Chili’s than Middle East politics or economic matters.
And country wide, you have pretty much the same thing: confused, not quite-up-on-the facts people went Republican, while smart, well-informed folks didn’t.
So in other words, “Numbnut America” has spoken. But at least we still have a semi-sane Senate and will likely keep it and the Presidency after 2012 if the economy keeps on the mend, if not retake the House.
Dream on!
Hey BC, what would it take for you to vote for Republicans in 2012? Seriously.
Think about it, and let’s see if you can give me a rational answer.
Curious wrote: “Hey BC, what would it take for you to vote for Republicans in 2012? Seriously.”
Think about it, and let’s see if you can give me a rational answer.
Let’s see, that’s kind of like asking me what will it take for me to date a fat, dumb, psycho chick with a bipolar personality.
More seriously, before Bush Jr. was elected, I had little use for either Democrats or Republicans, and considered them to be only 2 sides of the same coin. For every one who was smart, had ideas that made sense and were based on doing some real homework, and was concerned first and foremost about the well-being of the country and the world at large, there were dozens more a bit more preoccupied with the perks of power and random, stupid ideological agendas. But the actions and behavior of Bush, aided and abetted by congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate, pretty much made that side of the coin untouchably toxic. It would now take a very widespread do-over of the types of people running as Republican candidates to even consider any one of them seriously. I have some traditionally conservative friends, who now would be labeled at Libertarians, that I would consider voting for if they ran for office, but even with them, if I ever caught them echoing standard issue GOP talking points…..
You, bc, are nothing but an arrogant, self-centered,elitist.Equating education with intelligence is a typical lib mistake. Iam sure your highly educated associates are the ones you go to when your car needs repaired, your roof leaks, or your washer/dryer quits working.. . . .asshat!!
Um, BC, curious politely and specifically requested a “rational” answer, as opposed to your usual obnoxious and rambling, moronic gibberish.
Apparently he or she doesn’t know you like we do. Otherwise, he or she would have realized that you are incapable of providing a sensible, courteous or rational reply.
You dolt. You had an opportunity to engage in cordial discourse, and you blew it, affirming my belief that you are an anti-social loser and a misfit.
Now scurry back into your hole, you little cockroach.
John Boehner, who’s an anti-science nutcase,
You’re out of your eco-freak skull. Failure to advocate the dismantling of the energy grid for the purpose of dogmatic adherence to a misapplied version of Pascal’s Wager is hardly anti-science. Boehner specifically says that one answer is an increase in clean nuclear power, which is responsible and attainable.
“Massachusetts is known worldwide for its universities and liberal politics,”
Which is why real people reject their ivory tower ignorance…and their politics.
The political or economic view of a lazy, tenured college professor, who knows NOTHING of how things actually function, or get FUNDED is not going to work in the real world.
Thats why the all the elite coastal enclaves are currently BANKRUPT, and need to reach into “someone elses childrens future earnings” to pay for their extravagances today
Translation: “You’re all poopy-heads!!!”
It never ceases to fascinate me how libs continue to believe they’re the “smart” ones, in defiance of all the evidence. Possibly it’s because they all got soccer trophies just for showing up.
Poor ButtCrack. Must’ve been a tough night for our little refugee from reality. Bitter? Oh, a tad.
While the rest of us do what he can only gape at in slack-jawed incomprehension – earning a living and doing productive work, that is – he’s still holed up in his parents basement eating hot pockets and having sex with stuffed animals.
“and not just “idiot suburbanites” and “those living in the flyover states””
Got bigotry?
Dr. Hsieh,
Thank you for yet another thoughtful article. And your example is something we can all benefit from.
The Republicans, who in this case were just the least bad of two bad choices, need to be told this. And the way for every commenter here to do that is to shout it from the rooftops. Write your local paper, your elected officials, the various committees that steer the parties and tell them you want them to protect individual rights and not more watered down welfare statism or crony capitalism and least of all no religion.
If you can’t think of what to say, encourage them to pick up this article. The real battleground is in ideas and it rages every day, to simply vote least bad every once in a while and think you’ve made any headway for freedom is a mistake.
Thank you,
Kevin
Here’s what Pence said:
“There will be no compromise on stopping runaway spending, deficits and debt.”
But the Repubs will be raising the debt limit in the Spring.
Let the spin begin.
I dont have a Sensei, so you cant be mine….
As far as your Imaginary Self Appointed Master of Martial Arts Title goes, I believe Han Solo said it best:
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side”
You guys just got blasted by the masses, so go back to your basement Warcraft games, because the men are in charge now.
Thats not a sexist comment, since Republican women have more balls than any sissy liberal girlie-men like you, Reed, Obama, Franken, etc etc
My WIFE and her girlfriends could kick their butt, and yours too
(Oh, thats right, they just did!)
Another American victory for hate and greed. The engines of corporate propaganda have convinced the White working class to ignore blame Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims for their increasing poverty and not the greedy kingpins in the executive suites.
This is so typical of American politics. While Europe has occasional bouts of greed that lead to atrocities such as Naziism, fascism, and colonialism, they have compassion and love too (socialized medicine). Genocidal racism stemming from corporate greed is America’s only true political tradition. The Holocaust is an everyday reality in American history. While the robber baron capitalists of yesteryear convinced the poeple to slaughter Native Americans, and the same capitalists to slaughter Blacks at home and Asians abroad in the sixties. Muslims and Hispanics are the new target of the American genocidal war machine. Greedy corporate overlords persuade American White workers that People of Color are the source of their poverty and oppression. It’s time for American White workers to realize that slaughtering People of Color will not provide them with food, housing, or health care!
It’s survival of the fittest, and separating the wheat from the chaff, guy. If the people of whom you speak can’t cut it, they deserve to become extinct.
They should be grateful to whites. Until whites colonized their countries, they were living in the stone age.
BTW, life is a bitch for all of us. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.
Who taught you that absurd language of class/race division that you parrot so religiously ?
You should sue them for abuse of brain. (I know, I know, assuming you have a brain is a stretch)
Anyway, I suggest you move to Europe where those compassionate socialist economies are going belly up, where “the French” have been burning stuff in the streets for weeks over a 2-year increase in the retirement age, where “the Greeks” are going similarly bonkers as they’re being informed that all the free lunches are unsustainable, where the so-called green economy in Spain has sent the country into a huge downward spiral, where Britain is trying to pull itself back from the economic debacles spawned by socialized medicine and welfare payments…
Anyway, just go away, Throbbin, ’cause it’s depressing to read such tripe.
And Lefties wonder why normal people think they’re lunatics.
Wow. This character’s really unhinged. It would do him good to emerge from his parents basement once in a while. That’s the trouble with lefties – they are the quintessential refugees from reality. And tools and ‘useful idiots’ for those who mean to rule us.
Nice….
The irrational, race OBSESSED lefties display their ignorance again….
With Socialist Government Employee unions that bankrupted the country now flooding the elections with boatloads of taxpayers funds, they play the race card…
Hispanics are our new target? Sorry dude, its the hispanic (mexicans) who are “tageting” their own kind, rather effectively, in a pretty bloddy turf war right at our (unsecured) border. Death toll of that tiny area exceeds that of the top 5 US cities COMBINED.
I guess leaving the front door wide open while the gangbangers shoot it out on your porch makes sense to you….because only a “racist” would close the door to protect his kids from stray bullets.
And you wonder why we have contempt for you?
You’re a Limey Brit, aren’t you?
Let me clue you in as to why we Americans really rebelled against you: we were tired of being embarrassed by you. Poofters, all.
Now go away and stopped acting like the embodyment of your user name.
Great advice for incoming legislators
What prevents the US Treasury from just printing money and selling Treasuries and then paying the government workers? What prevents the executive branch from doing an end run around the House and just funding their own programs? I am aware of the Constitution BUT — seriously — what would happen if they did this?
Court injunction and impeachment, that’s what. The money would be considered stolen property, since it was removed from the Treasury without the consent of Congress.
Perspicuous commentary!
WOW;The Author of this author used almost the same phase I used to the leaders I’ve talked to.They better start dancing with the one’s that brought them,And not with the one’s that bought them.To the Voters,Make life more difficult for these leaders when they steer off course.Adopt the Tenth Amendment,And Repeal The Seventeenth Amendment,In your state.Then that process begins.When these politicians begin to fear us.They’ll begin to hear us. Adopt the Flat tax,Which is similar to the Fair Tax.Except whenever you dare mention the word fair,To A liberal that automatically means unfair to them,And someone else should pay.Flat,Say’s definite,Engraved in stone.Everyone pays A Cover Charge,Or you can not enter,or Pay to Play.Jimmy Joe/”The Liarfryer”
The author, though he makes many good points, is a fringe Ayn Rand fanatic: pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia. It is the mantra of that particular fringe group (monolithic in its thought) that social conservatives are a drag on Republicans, when in fact surveys do show that social issues are, in fact, important to conservatives. Are they as important as the economy right now? No, of course not: fiscal responsibility is foremost on conservatives’ minds. But don’t buy the line that conservatives need to shun social issues — though Ayn Rand had many sound ideas about the dynamics of the free market system, her atheism (and hatred for Christianity on particular) led her to Utopian fantasies. Her disciples are prone to making the same extremist mistakes that she did.
Name one ‘extremist mistake’ that either Ayn Rand or other Objectivists have made Jean.
Your ad hominem name calling is a pathetic excuse for an argument. Objectivists can supply reasoned, reality-based arguments for any of their positions, including those you stated. Can you? Or do you just repeat the mantras of your monolithic fantasy-based ideology.
Well, except for why anyone who prefers Mozart to Rachmaninov is a life-hating collectivist out to destroy man qua man.
Bill, your snarkiness is uninformed.
Performing an electronic search of the entire Rand corpus via The Objectivism Research CD-ROM, I find only one mention of Mozart, not in Rand’s major work on aesthetics; it is regarding someone’s aesthetic response and positively portrayed. Meanwhile, the first reference to Rachmaninoff has Rand writing that he is Rand’s FAVORITE. Other references to him are unsurprisingly glowing.
While there are plenty of subtle “optional values” (like preferring Indian to Mexican food, or Mozart to Michael Jackson), an Objectivist is rightly able to give the reasoned, reality-based argument for principles like pursuing nutritious food while avoiding poison, and to explain the objective importance of art in human life. Similarly, while there are endless challenging APPLICATIONS of philosophical principle in life (like, how to think about the Ground-Zero Mosque), it is indeed the case that Objectivists can supply reasoned, reality-based arguments for all of the philosophical principles informing the pursuit of their lives — like the objective basis of morality and of rights underlying the example at hand.
People of Reason would have it no other way.
Oh give it a rest, Ryan, and don’t be so touchy. Jean is entitled to her opinions, just as you are, and besides, to some extent, her points were valid. If you choose to disagree with them, that is your prerogative. Just don’t get nasty.
In that vein, let me exercise my right to suggest that you should learn an understanding (and the proper use) of the term, ad hominem. There weren’t any ad hominem attacks in Jean’s comments.
ad hominem being ‘to the man’, i.e. casting aspersions on the person, rather than addressing their arguments.
For instance, calling someone a: 1) fringe fanatic, 2) implying they are a mindless mantra incanting drone of monolithic thought, 3) utopian, and 4) extremist. The general condescension and disrespect of Jean’s entire post is a form of argument by intimidation – i.e. you’d have to be a freak to agree with ‘those people’.
ps. You’ll notice in my “nasty” closing, I added not a single word with negative connotations that Jean didn’t use herself. I may not be back-breakingly polite in turning her words against her, but as the saying goes, what’s good for the goose…
In short, I was no more “nasty” than Jean was, and I used those words to specifically make the point that she was being uncivil. I’m glad you (kind of) noticed.
Gee, Ryan — chill out. Your response hardly constitutes a reasoned response, but instead displays the all-too-common hyper-reactivity of Objectivists who bristle at the slightest hint of disapproval of their goddess Rand.
As I said before, Rand had many sound ideas on economics. However, her atheist views (and thus the views of her disciples) on social issues are not in keeping with the views of the majority of the American people, who, by large majorities, self-describe as Christians and who generally abide by Judeo-Christian values. The majority of those who gave the GOP victory last night do not follow the extremist agenda of gay marriage, approval of partial-birth abortion, and so on. I merely pointed out that, as an Objectivist, Paul Hsieh adheres to those views. Therefore, his dissing of social conservatives is to be expected
The majority of those who gave the GOP victory last night do not follow the extremist agenda of gay marriage, approval of partial-birth abortion, and so on. I merely pointed out that, as an Objectivist, Paul Hsieh adheres to those views. Therefore, his dissing of social conservatives is to be expected
That would have been a much better first post. Minus the “extremist”. I don’t have a problem with you making the argument that Mr. Hsieh may be understating the influence of SoCons in this election, in part to nudge people toward Objectivism which as you stated holds views incompatible with those of SoCons. I do object to your posts disrespectful and defamatory use of emotionally loaded language to discredit the author.
And yes, Objectivists do tend to call people out. We know better than to let bad argument go unanswered and become accepted by default. And in that vein, please stop projecting, I don’t deify anyone or anything.
Then let me call you out. Why is ‘extremist’ bad when describing Objectivists? It is objectively true. Libertarians are a tiny fringe of the R party. Objectivists are a tiny fringe of Libertarians. They are extreme, but then guys who can snowboard down a mountainside at seventy miles per hour are also extreme.
Calling Objectivists an extremist fringe is merely accurate.
Calling them reality based is an opinion based on at least one assumption that does not remotely hold water (the non-existence of God). Ayn Rand is correct that one should respect nobility of soul. However, this means respect for the evidentially favored Deity, and a certain limited amount of respect for Man. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.
Tennwriter:
Used in a different context I wouldn’t have a problem with the word ‘extreme’ or ‘extremist’ being applied to Objectivism/Objectivists, but context modifies meaning. If they could be measured in such a way, my ideas would be many standard deviations away from the average person’s ideas (or lack of ideas).
Objectivists however are not a fringe of a 1 dimensional Republican scale, and neither are Libertarians. Each group holds to distinct principles. Some of those principles may be similar, but we are not more or less extreme practices of the same fundamentals.
For example, your classification would work to describe differences between Islamists vs. moderate muslims, as they both hold to the same basic premises, but act on those premises with different levels of zeal. It would not work to describe the differences between Muslims, Objectivists, and Buddhists, as they hold different fundamentals.
As for your last assertion, if you have such evidence of a deity, I implore you to share it with us. No Objectivist will choose to ignore the evidence of reality in order to maintain a psychologically comforting belief system. It would be a betrayal of our reasoning minds, and by definition make that person not Objectivist. Althought I’m not sure quite what you meant by “evidentially favored”. Facts do not have opinions or preferences…
“We know better than to let bad argument go unanswered and become accepted by default”
But, dear Ryan, you haven’t provided any evidence that my “argument” was “bad”. Is it not quite reasonable to point out that Paul Hsieh’s dismissal of social conservatism, which is part and parcel of the philosophy he adheres to, is not in step with the values of the majority of Americans who helped the GOP to victory last night? The hostility of Objectivists to religion in general and Christianity in particular is, in fact, an extreme position, and represents a very different view of the country than what the Founders had (most of whom were Christians, with some Deists as well).
“No Objectivist will choose to ignore the evidence of reality in order to maintain a psychologically comforting belief system.”
I have known a few Objectivists in my time, having been one in my youth: they are just as susceptible to bending reality to fit their assumptions and premises as any other idealogue. Though this is not the place for a discussion for the existence of God, certainly I have never come across an Objectivist that answered Aquinas’ arguments to my satisfaction. Oh yes, I’m familiar with all of the usual rhetoric employed, having been a true believer myself at one time…
I have known a few Objectivists in my time, having been one in my youth: they are just as susceptible to bending reality to fit their assumptions and premises as any other idealogue.
I think the obligatory remark here “speak for yourself sister”.
As for the first argument you made, I showed it was bad by: 1) asking you to support your premise, which was an unsupported assertion, and 2) showed that your argument was ad hominem and argument by intimidation, both logical fallacies.
We get it, Jean. You really, really don’t like Randian Objectivists.
When I become King, I’ll have them all euthanized. Or maybe I’ll just have them wear armbands with a big “O” on i . . . . Oh . . . Wait . . . the “O” is taken. OK, I’ll have them wear really tall pointy hats; that worked really well for keeping track of the Jews in 14th century Germany.
Actually, Dork, it’s OBJECTIVISM I dislike, not necessarily individual Objectivists.
I have good reason to dislike Objectivism — like many other idealogies, it is based, not on how people actually are, but on an ideal fantasy world, where everything would be wonderful if we can just get humans to stop being human. “Man qua man”….indeed! Go to an Objectivist website, and you’ll find people discussing the characters in Rand’s books — what would Dagney do in this situation; what would John Galt think about this — to the point where you begin to wonder if these people understand that these are fictional works, not historical novels. The America they would impose (because, gosh darn it, you just HAVE to get rid of that irrational religious thought, so there goes 80% of the country…if you can’t gas ‘em, then by all means IMPOSE reason on them by whatever means necessary, the unthinking, irrational swine!) would not look like the country that was founded in 1776. This country wasn’t founded on Objectivist principles, and I have no desire to see it go down that road. Try the Utopian Galt Gulch elsewhere — Russia would be a good place, seeing as how atheism has already been enforced there. But this country has a large Christian majority — it always has — which has had its respected place in the public square. Objectivism’s hostile contempt for Christians means it is hostile and contemptuous of most Americans.
because, gosh darn it, you just HAVE to get rid of that irrational religious thought, so there goes 80% of the country…if you can’t gas ‘em, then by all means IMPOSE reason on them by whatever means necessary, the unthinking, irrational swine!
So what you’re saying here is that you are actually unfamiliar with Objectivism, and your 2nd hand description of it likely came from Whittaker Chamber’s old hit piece, it sounds so similar.
You cannot support your implied assertion that Objectivists or Ayn Rand has ever advocated using force in anything other than self-defense or ever hinted at “imposing” reason on anyone (which is laughably impossible as any Objectivist will tell you). You are a fraud Jean. All it would take is one quote, and you can’t do it, because it doesn’t exist. Prove otherwise.
No Objectivist has ever advocated the initiation of force against any other human being(s). You can’t say the same of your ideology. For that matter, Objectivists don’t “hate” Christianity or Christians, especially not anymore than they can be considered to “hate” any other forms of tyranny over men’s minds. You aren’t special, and like I said, quit projecting.
Objectivists love America as the first (and still the only) country with a moral foundation in all of human history.
ps. Russia doesn’t have enforced atheism. The USSR tried it for a short while, rightly failed, and gave up. If enforced atheism was ever tried here, you’d probably have Objectivists showing up to churches, synagogues, cathedrals, etc. on principle, as a stand against tyranny. More likely they’d have to kill us all before they could even attempt to institute such a policy, we would rally so vociferously against it.
Ditto,Jean;Ignoring Social Issues is the very reason america is spiralling out of control on every other issue/Problem.If these same genocidal pedophile sypathyzers.Were around when Mary was about to give birth to Jesus.They would have told her to go to King Herod;(PLANNED DEADBEAT PARENTHOOD)And Kill Jesus,So she wouldn’t bring embarrasment,Or cause burden to them,A child into the world.Due to her economic conditions.”I knew you before you was in your mothers womb”Which means;God’s Intended.”Jesus said deny me,And mine before man,And I’ll deny you before my father,In heaven.God forbid.Jimmy Joe/”The Liarfryer”
Another excellent piece by the good Doctor. While libertarians are screaming “end the drug war”, the tea parties are addressing the federal government money printing binge that is rapidly devaluing our dollars, and while religionists are praying to ban abortion in the pre-copulation stage, tea partiers are addressing the massive unsustainable welfare state of socialism security and medicaid/care/isms, in light of the fact that 100 trillion dollar liabilities “sort a’” TRUMP other-worldly papal commands and unworldly legalized drug hallucinations. Tea Partiers embrace reality, and are presenting it to establishment Republicans and Democrats, with a bow on top.-Orders of magnitude!
Tea Partiers would have more credibility if they would disassociate themselves from Sarah Palin, who is slyly using them to advance her own strictly self-serving agenda, which might appear to overlap, but which does NOT coincide with their agenda, not by any stretch of anyone’s wildest imagination.
Republicans are politely tolerating Palin’s irresponsible, childish and self-serving behavior. But she is trying our patience, also. If she persists with her nervy and presumptuous arrogance, after never having EARNED a position of prestige and leadership in the Republican Party, and if naive and gullible Tea Partiers don’t recognize her for what she is soon, and if she doesn’t sit down and shut up soon, also, she WILL BE marginalized.
She lost the beauty pageant. It’s time for her to get her fat ass off of the stage, and to let the winners and other adults represent the best interests of this country – NOT little Miss Cutesy’s narcissistic agenda, which aren’t one-in-the-same.
Sarah Palin is One of the main reasons for this landslide.While establishment republicans,And liberatarians Had their noses up Barack Obama’s butt.Then when they see the sunami’They try to ride the wave,While at the same time trying to sabotage her,Then profit off the free ride.They hate her for the same reason you do.ANTI-CHRIST Groupies.Their easy to spot.liberal marxist in gop drag.Come out of the closet.you are an Athiest,Or Agnostic,Liberatarian Addicted,Obsessive.That believes the world would sing KUM BA,If they would just throw the christians,and jews,To the Islamofacist lion savages.Just as you opened the welcome wagon to Margaret Sanger Femnazi’s Licenced Child predator,Death camps,And Indoctrination centers.The N.O.W. Teachers unions,And Planned”Absentee,Deadbeat,And Predatorial”Parenthood.How Pathetic;Jimmy Joe/The Liarfryer”
Dear GOP,
This is not a “second” chance. Its the last one.
LOL, yeah, right. Get real. The GOP will still be around and it will still be a dominant force in politics long after you’re gone and your insignificant corpse is rotting in a grave, long forgotten by everyone.
It will be most interesting to see how this all pans out. But I think you’re wrong to assume that there’s a new mandate based mostly on Tea Party voters. The Republicans have made the most noise in this election and made the most gains (funny how that pattern repeats itself over time) not unlike the 1994 Contract with America which turned out to be a big bust. I, for one, am not optimistic that it will be any different this time. I am one of the independents referred to and would very much like to see Ron Vaughn’s vision come to pass, but the temptation to perpetuate power often destroys the initiative to do the right thing. Consider the Bush administration, for example. And by the way: despite their obvious blunderings, the current administration is not “socialist” in any strict definition of the term. Look it up.
For some reason, I cannot ‘reply’ to Mr. Olcott’s reply to me. So, I’ll restart down here.
Ryan,
You’ve admitted you’re an extremist. That has mostly negative connotations. Oh well. Its fair for Jean to argue that makes you weird, and for you to argue that makes you extraordinary and great.
It is reasonable to have a Sorta Conservative Scale covering politics. Islamics have something similar with People of the Books (Jews and Christians) and further off the acceptable area are pagans and atheists. You could just as reasonably flip things around and have a Sorta Objectivist Scale. Here you would place groups by their similarity (not by levels of enthusiasm), and what extremism would mean would be being to the far end of teh scale….I’m assuming that by the SOS, Soviet Communism would rank as extreme.
Facts indeed have no opinion. But the verdict in a proper trial is evidentially favored. Bob was caught on camera, and by a reputable passerby shoplifting the candy bar. Thus the evidence favors Bob’s conviction.
The balance of the evidence, as in a trial, supports the existence of God. The Cosmological or Kalam Arguement is to my mind irrefutable. You can google it.
PJM only allows comments to nest 4 deep. If you want to keep your comments inline, you have to reply to the 3rd tier comment.
You’ve admitted you’re an extremist. That has mostly negative connotations. Oh well. Its fair for Jean to argue that makes you weird, and for you to argue that makes you extraordinary and great.
That is why I harped on the context of its use. “Extreme” has a slightly different meaning based on its context, Jean’s use connoted negativity to demonize the author, Paul Hsieh; your snowboarder example connotes admiration for unusual skill.
I’ll take a quick look at your Cosmological and Kalam arguments, but I’ll offer this thought to counter what I anticipate I will find (which I discovered while studying cosmology in college): Human ignorance of reality is not evidence for the correctness of their current hypotheses. Guesses and hypotheses are not fact.
From the wikipedia on Cosmological_Argument, under objections and counterarguments:
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience . . . Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.
This one is actually my favorite counter arguments because it also has manifested many times in the fields of physics and astronomy. It is also known as “context dropping”.
In essence, the set of data from which one makes theories has limitations, those limitations are passed on to those theories. For instance, considering the limitations of the data that Tycho Brahe was able to collect of planetary movement, his theory of the celestial spheres was as correct as any theory could be using that data. It was only later with new, larger and more precise data sets, (i.e. outside the context in which his theory was developed) that his theory was shown to be false. Likewise for Sir Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity. Dropping the context of those theories and trying to apply them in areas they never integrated is fallacious (i.e. the ‘unexpected’ rotational velocities of galaxies Newton never observed…helloo dark matter!).
The same can be said for the cosmological/kalam arguments. Without existence, your concepts of cause and effect cannot be shown to hold, as they were generated within existence. In fact, the idea that non-existence is even possible (i.e. Aquinas’s contingency argument) is utterly reliant on existence existing, and therefore fallacious. That non-existence is possible is an unsupported assertion by Aquinas, which he cannot prove. Existence doesn’t have to have a beginning, or a cause.
People of the Book, I think rather than Books. Gah.
We are still many years away from a seismic political shift. The Electoral College system ensures that political coalitions will form two parties of roughly equal popularity. The current “liberal” / “conservative” split is just beginning to unravel (recent examples: Jews vs. Obama, Gays vs. Obama, fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives). The next decade promises severe economic stress due to ballooning deficits and outright monetization of government debt. This will increase political frictions, both here and abroad.
The more natural ideological split (speaking very broadly and loosely) is Individual vs. Community, Freedom vs. Security, Libertarian vs. Authoritarian.
If the Republicans push for serious budget cuts and fiscal reform, as Tea Party supporters demand, then they can be the political locus of Individualism in the decades ahead.
If they revert to business as usual, with earmarks, entitlements, bailouts, profligate nation-building and/or moral authoritarianism, then we may have a viable Third Party as early as 2012. This party would meld fiscal conservatism with the more freedom-loving elements of the current left.
A further thought: it’s unlikely that the current Libertarian party would form the nucleus of a new Third Party. Small-l libertarians have always had the most influence as king-makers between the two other parties. The Tea Party movement successfully demonstrated that this election. Having been an independent third party over the past decades has diluted Libertarian political influence considerably.
In this sense, the big-L Libertarians have always been political amateurs. Should it become obvious that the Republicans cannot handle their mandate of fiscal sanity, then the new Third Party will coalesce in support of leaders who are less amateurish. This will include many members of the current Republican party.
i.e. Vote in the primaries! Re-shape the party in your image.
“As for the first argument you made, I showed it was bad by: 1) asking you to support your premise, which was an unsupported assertion…”
No, asking a question does not show anything of the sort. Now, if I was unable to answer your question, that might make your point, but I can answer your question – the only reason I hadn’t was because the conversation took other avenues. So, to answer your question — “Name one ‘extremist mistake’ that either Ayn Rand or other Objectivists have made Jean”: There are several logical problems with Rand’s Objectivism (the main one being that it’s not objective, but merely subjective), but they’re not what I would classify as “extremist” in the context of what I was referring to. No, what I would classify as an example of an “etremist mistake” would be Rand’s marked contempt for non-atheists, Christians in particular. She and her disciples cannot — and this is the extreme mistake — see Christianity as being at all compatible with reason, despite the long history of Christian scientists, philosophers, teachers, etc.; the Judeo-Christian values of this country’s Founders; and the persistent religiousity of ordinary, intelligent, hard-working Americans. It is an extreme mistake to hate and despise the majority of one’s fellow citizens while trying (as Paul Hsieh obviously is trying with this opinion piece) to influence those same citizens.
“…..2) showed that your argument was ad hominem and argument by intimidation, both logical fallacies.”
Umm, no, you didn’t show me anything of the sort. You merely disagree with my assessement, and disagreeing with my assessement does not in and of itself “prove” that my argument was ad hominem or an argument by intimidation.
It might interest you to learn, by the way, that an ad hominem argument is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Now, if I had attacked Paul Hsieh with assertions or argeuments that had nthing at all to do with his article, THAT would be both ad hominem and a fallacy. However, the points I brought up — that Hsieh’s comments dismissing social conservatives had more to do with his Objectivist philosophy than with the actual values of the people who
gave the GOP the victory — were directly related to his article. You should study these things more…
Jean, you’re going to have a hard time proving that Paul Hsieh, myself, Ayn Rand, or any other Objectivist “hate and despise” Christians. Your argument that we’re trying to use reasoned argument to convince people we supposedly “hate and despise” also makes no sense whatsoever. Why bother if we hate them? It would like hating a child that swears for the first time, when they don’t know any better. Its a ridiculous proposition. I’ve already mentioned that Objectivists love America above all other countries because we were the first and still only country founded on moral principles. That also goes for the Americans that hold to those principles, to the extent that they do.
You wouldn’t make the argument that contemporary Christians hate and despise the gentiles they proselytize to, when they obviously disagree. I would ask that you not cast such stones at Objectivists. The only mistake here is your mischaracterization of Objectivists and Objectivism.
That said, I will unabashedly say that I think most Objectivists will fully the support the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson when he said: “I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” We are hostile to tyranny, not to those subjugated by it.
Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy because it is extant any actual argument. Paul Hsieh could be a kangaroo and it wouldn’t alter the meaning of his argument one bit. What ad hominem does not do is necessarily disprove an argument that has other merits. But your argument didn’t have those.
Your argument had in essence 2 premises – 1) Paul Hsieh is an Objectivist, and 2) Ayn Rand and Objectivists have made mistakes. Your conclusion is ‘don’t buy Paul Hsieh’s argument’.
Argument by intimidation was sprinkled throughout, using uncivil words with negative connotations to portray Paul Hsieh as the ‘other’.
Part 1) of your argument is ad hominem. That Paul Hsieh holds ideas that are incompatible with those of SoCons, and that fact might be coloring his analysis doesn’t address his arguments, and doesn’t offer any counter argument to their substance. It equates to ‘Paul Hsieh is a kangaroo, kangaroos hate wallabies, don’t listen to him.’ If being at odds with someone ideologically is grounds to never listen to their arguments, or dismiss them out of hand, you’re going to have a hard time communicating using anything other than force.
Part 2) of your argument was an unsupported assertion, which I addressed above. I asked you support it by naming a mistake. Thank you for making a sincere attempt.
I have very much enjoyed our discussion. I hope you did as well. I will check back tomorrow to see if it continues
Ryan,
You wrote: “So what you’re saying here is that you are actually unfamiliar with Objectivism, and your 2nd hand description of it likely came from Whittaker Chamber’s old hit piece, it sounds so similar.”
Ahh, I’ve seen this before: criticize Rand, and you will be told that you are unfamiliar with her works. Because we all know that if you read Rand and disagree with her philosophy and premises, it’s either because a: — you’re actually unfamiliar with her works and are just pretending to have read them; or b: you didn’t understand her, probably because you’re too stupid; or c: an EVADER of the truth!
The truth is that I’ve read most of Rand’s works: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal, and other writings and interviews. I’ve also read works about her, both from supporters and detractors (Peikoff, Branden, etc.). At one time, see, I devoured her work. (And yes, I am familiar with the Chambers piece you reference — I have some disagreement with his assessement, though some agreement as well.) So you’re just plain wrong, but it is amusing to see the usual tactics employed. You are such a typical Randroid!
You wrote: “You cannot support your implied assertion that Objectivists or Ayn Rand has ever advocated using force in anything other than self-defense or ever hinted at “imposing” reason on anyone (which is laughably impossible as any Objectivist will tell you).”
You’re correct — good Ryan. Rand opposed using force except in self-defense. That is a clear principle in Objectivism. However, most Utopian idealogies start out that way — the omelet does have to made, you know, if Reason and Will are to triumph, and so eventually a few altruistic, parasitic eggs might have to be broken…you can see the impulse there in Atlas Shrugged: the doomed train that goes into the tunnel carries a number of passengers who Rand clearly sees as partners with the looters, and she seems to think they deserve their deaths — here’s an example: ” . . . The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, “I don’t care, it’s only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.” . . .”
The support for partial-birth abortion is another example — it’s hard to imagine a more grotesque example of force fatally applied to another human being — but that’s OK, right? It’s just a parasite, right? (I actually had a discussion with a Randroid in which she called unborn babies “parasites” — no matter if minutes away from natural birth.)
Yup, just a few eggs…the totalitarian impulse is there.
You wrote: “Jean, you’re going to have a hard time proving that Paul Hsieh, myself, Ayn Rand, or any other Objectivist “hate and despise” Christians.”
Not hard at all — I would recommend to all who are interested in spending some time at an Objectivist website. “Objectivismonline” is as good a place as any. Click on the links to essays, and enjoy “Rush Limbaugh: Voice of the Religious Threat in America”, as well as ” Billy Graham and the Christian Crusade Against Truth and Freedom”, and of course don’t miss the discussion on how evil Glenn Beck is because of his religious beliefs.
Ryan wrote: “That said, I will unabashedly say that I think most Objectivists will fully the support the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson when he said: “I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” We are hostile to tyranny, not to those subjugated by it.”
Another typical Objectivist method: selectively quote the Founding Fathers in order to “prove” that the Objectivist Utopian paradise would, by golly, be just what the Founding Fathers intended all along. Of course, that means ignoring the massive quantity of evidence to the contrary…One of the more amusing discussions seen on an Objectivist website (Noodle Food, which Paul and his Objectivist wife run), purported to show that (despite historical eveidence to the contrary) the important Founders were ALL Deists, and they would have been atheists but for the stigma attached to atheism!! Hah! Isn’t that convenient?
You wrote: “Your argument had in essence 2 premises – 1) Paul Hsieh is an Objectivist, and 2) Ayn Rand and Objectivists have made mistakes. Your conclusion is ‘don’t buy Paul Hsieh’s argument’.”
No, that is an incorrect statement of my premises. My premises were – 1) Paul Hsieh is urging that the GOP dismiss the issues of social conservatives because it was independence-loving Tea Party voters, not social conservatives, who brought the GOP to the dance. This is, however, contrary to reality: though economics rightly dominated this election, surveys of Tea Party voters show them to be largely socially conservative — and religious — as well. My point was that this denial of reality was consistent with Paul Hsieh’s philosophy, Objectivim, which is atheist, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, pro-partial-birth abortion.
Hi Jean, glad to see you’re back.
Since you are familiar with Whitaker Chamber’s review of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps you can tell me if your mischaracterization of Objectivism sounds much like his.
…if you can’t gas ‘em, then by all means IMPOSE reason on them by whatever means necessary, the unthinking, irrational swine!
From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!”
You take the train tunnel episode in AS to be some kind of example of Objectivism’s underlying murderous rage. But there is a significant difference of kind between showing how a tragic train accident was caused by the faulty philosophies of its passengers and operators (and those of many more outside the train), and advocating for the murder of people who hold such philosophies. It is also distinctly different than celebrating the deaths of the people in the accident (which no one does in Atlas Shrugged). It is disingenuous to equate those concepts.
As for abortions, fetuses are entirely dependent on the female that carries them. To force a female to provide that fetus with life against her will, is to make her a slave. That is a grotesque example of force. For a female that does not want to carry the fetus to term, that fetus is indeed a parasite. A parasite feeds on a host and returns no value to it. It does not matter if it is a pre-human, a pre-alien, or a pre-bot fly. Any human that lives solely off of stolen energy, the infringement of the rights of others, has no claim to rights.
For a female that wants a baby this is obviously not the case. She wants to nuture it to life, and will obtain incredible value bringing a child she loves into the world and raising it. For her it is a willing trade, and no rights are violated.
Objectivists have no hidden or otherwise impulses to override the rights of others.
Making arguments that other people are evil or hold evil views is not the same as advocating their death or the initiation of force against them. For the record I happen to very much like Rush Limbaugh’s work. Being correct 99.8% of the time is enough to engender my love of the guy (whom I’ve never met). I can still disagree vigorously on the other 0.2%.
I don’t know how to quote a person in any manner other than selectively. Quoting by its very nature is selective. I can’t reasonably be expected to add everything Thomas Jefferson ever wrote to this comment thread. Nor do I agree with everything Thomas Jefferson said. Quoting is picking and choosing statements, typically to serve a purpose.
As for the noodlefood red herring (which I haven’t visited), I like fish, so I’ll bite. You say there is “historical evidence to the contrary”, yet you fail to produce a lick, so I’ll presume that you were unable to counter their argument until you can show otherwise. That they made an argument that supports their worldview is not “convenient”… it is the point of argument. Like what you are trying to do now, convince people via argument that your worldview is the correct one. If you were stating that they ‘conveniently’ left out salient facts that disagreed with their thesis, you should produce those facts when you bring up their argument, rather than just asserting they exist.
I’ll break down your argument more, correct me if this is a mischaracterization: 1) Paul Hsieh makes the argument that social conservative issues were not the partner that brought the GOP to the dance, 2) Economic issues brought the GOP to the dance, 3) Surveys say a large number of Tea Partiers are SoCons, 4) Paul is an Objectivist, 5) Objectivsts disagree with SoCon ideas, therefore Paul Hsieh is denying reality/lying, and don’t listen to him.
Since you accept 2) which is effectively Pauls argument, I wont belabor how this is known. Your acceptance of 2) effectively renders the rest of your argument pointless. 3) you never supported with evidence, and regardless of what extent it is true or not, was already accepted as not the dominant issue that returned the GOP to power. It is a red herring. 4) and 5) as I already mentioned are ad hominem. Your conclusion does not follow your premises.
If the GOP widely embraces Social Conservative issues, they will alienate the Tea Partiers who are not SoCons. If the GOP sticks to the economic issues that brought the Tea Party coalition together, they will continue to enjoy broad Tea Party support, SoCons included. It is that simple. As long as the Tea Party voters in any given voting block are not 100% SoCons, any GOP person running would risk losing votes if they adopted a SoCon platform.
If you’d like to argue that those votes aren’t needed to win, and that non SoCon support isn’t desired once in office, knock your socks off.
Ryan, you spend much time on matters that don’t directly relate to my point. For one thing, I am hardly going to debate abortion with you. I merely wish it to be noted that the Objectivist position on abortion — absolutely OK, including partial-birth abortion — and on gay marriage do not reflect the views of the majority of those who, in Paul’s formulation, “brung the GOP to the dance”. Here’s a quote from a recent (last month) survey of Tea Party supporters by the Public Religion Research polling group:
“They are mostly social conservatives, not libertarians on social issues. Nearly two-thirds (63%) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and less than 1-in-5 (18%) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.”
Got that, Paul and Ryan? The majority of Tea Party voters are also social conservatives. Note the three judges who were tossed off the Iowan Supreme Court because they imposed gay marriage on unwilling Iowans.
Your mischaracterization of my argument is tiresome, and so I’m not going to bother to respond. You’re either truly incapable of understanding my argument or you choose to distort it. That makes you either too thick or too ill-willed to bother with. When you show either the intelligence or the good will to re-state my position correctly, I’ll engage — but not until.
You wrote: “If the GOP widely embraces Social Conservative issues, they will alienate the Tea Partiers who are not SoCons. If the GOP sticks to the economic issues that brought the Tea Party coalition together, they will continue to enjoy broad Tea Party support, SoCons included.”
I agree completely with those statements. However, my position is that though economic issues are the main motivating issues at this time, the GOP stands to lose far more than it gains by ignoring social concerns altogether. These are concerns that will need to be addressed at some point. Sure, this will alienate Tea Partyers who are not SoCons — but as the survey above shows, they are not the majority. It’s really quite simple: ignore or put off indefinitely the social concerns of the majority of Tea Party voters, and the GOP will lose those voters. Address the issues, and lose a minority. You do the math….
Ryan, I am not going to debate abortion with you. I only pointed out that the Objectivist position on abortion (no restrictions, partial-birth abortion OK) and gay marriage are not the positions held by most Tea Party voters. The Public Religion Research Institute’s recent poll (last month) of Tea Party supporters showed that nearly two-thirds said that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and 45 percent said there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples.
Do you undersatnd that, Ryan and Paul? Did you notice that Iowans kicked out three Iowa Supreme Court justices that imposed gay marriage? Social conservative issues, though not foremost in importance at this time, are NOT a losing issue with most Tea Party voters.
You mischaracterized my position — again. Try again…if you can’t re-state my position accurately, there’s no point in continuing, as it indicates a possible lack of good will.
Jean, how about you break out your premises for me if I’ve done so incorrectly. I’m not going to waste any more time sincerely deciphering your argument if the only correction you’re willing to make is ‘you’re wrong again, and you’re probably being malicious’.
btw you brought up abortion, not me. If you don’t want to argue a point, refrain from inserting it into the discussion. If you want to use is it as a cudgel in your argument, be prepared to defend it.
As for the rest, it looks like you’re saying that SoCons are not willing to make common cause with imperfect allies (from the SoCon perspective) for the long haul, and that any coalition SoCon’s join must eventually adopt all the SoCon platforms or the SoCons will take their ball and go home (or actively work against the coalitions goals), leaving the remainder Tea Partiers to fight for economic issues ourselves.
I doubt most SoCons are so daft. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Note the three judges who were tossed off the Iowan Supreme Court because they imposed gay marriage on unwilling Iowans.
Did you notice that Iowans kicked out three Iowa Supreme Court justices that imposed gay marriage?
I hadn’t heard that Iowa judges were forcing unwilling Iowans of the same sex to get married. Scary. How did they manage that? . . . Oh, they weren’t? They were just against using the power of the state to prohibit consenting gay persons from getting married and pursuing their happiness. oh… ah, who again are the force wielding tyrants? I suppose you think this country should be a democracy, where the mob is always right.
Ryan, you’re doing a fabulous job of demonstrating how the typical Randroid operates in a debate — thank you!
You wrote:”btw you brought up abortion, not me.”
Yup, but only to point out that the Objectivist position — no restrictions whatever on abortion, including partial-birth abortion — is not in sync with the abortion views of the majority of Tea Party voters. It’s an extreme position. Since Paul Hsieh is an Objectivist, and the position expressed in his article was that the GOP should avoid social issues because it would alienate the majority of Tea Party voters, it was relevant to point out that, in fact, addressing the concerns of social conservatives would not alienate the majority of Tea Party voters. A debate about abortion is not necessary in order to make that point.
You wrote: “Jean, how about you break out your premises for me if I’ve done so incorrectly.”
I’ll just re-state my position, OK? Now listen carefully: Paul Hsieh notes, correctly, that economic concerns and an over-reaching government were the primary issues motivating Tea Party voters, which resulted in GOP gains. With me so far? Note that I AGREE with Paul’s assessement. Pay attention now, because this is where I am going to differ with Paul: Paul thinks that the GOP needs to dump social conservative issues, because it would alienate the majority of Tea Party voters. Contrary to this assertion, I pointed out that the majority of Tea Party voters (and I provided survey results to support my view) are, in fact, also social conservatives. Not all, mind you, but the majority. Ignore the social issues important to social conservatives (abortion, gay marriage), and ultimately the GOP will lose the majority of those that brung ‘em to the dance. I also pointed out that Paul Hsieh’s Objectivist philosophy, and not facts, were the likely reason for his comments. I also asserted that the Objectivist view on social issues was extremist, and that their atheism was also completely out of touch with the religious views of most Americans. This isn’t about desiring “mob rule” — this is about a very, very different view of what America is and what Americans value. Does the GOP need to address social issues right away? N0 — other issues are more pressing, and there is a hierarchy of what needs to be addressed right now. But the GOP cannot afford to dismiss the concerns of social conservatives for long — it can kiss the majority its Tea Party suppoorters goodbye if it does.
So far you haven’t said anything that counters my position.
I admire your stamina Jean,
Paul thinks that the GOP needs to dump social conservative issues, because it would alienate the majority of Tea Party voters.
I re-read Paul’s piece again, and I didn’t see him assert that a majority of Tea Party voters would be alienated. In fact his argument doesn’t need that to be true.
2) Don’t mistake this as a mandate to pursue a divisive “social conservative” agenda.
. . .As the New York Times article noted, swing states like Colorado are split such that “Democrats, Republicans and independents each account for about one-third of registered voters.” If Republicans wish to retain power after 2010, they will have to respect the wishes of these independents. Similarly, the recurrent theme in the countless grassroots Tea Party rallies across the country has been for fiscal responsibility and limited government — not social conservative issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
That was the core of Paul’s argument against the GOP pursuing social conservative platforms. He never says that pursuing them would alienate a majority of Tea Partiers, just that it would alienate enough in swing states that the GOP would have trouble holding those states, and likewise a majority in the houses of congress.
Perhaps in heavily GOP states the core Tea Party issues can be surmounted by social conservative issues, and the GOP still win in those states. But elections for national office are not made in 50 independent state vacuums. I’m sure we can agree that the actions of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid affected more congressional races than just their own. If the new GOP platform is seen as too extreme by the non-majority swing voters, the flip-flop could go back on the left foot. Paul’s warning still rings true, whether he’s an Objectivist or not.
Also, Paul linked to his sources of evidence. While I trust that your transmission of the Public Religion Research Institute’s survey is correct, it would bolster your argument if the survey and its methods were made available. Notice that I don’t care that it is a survey performed by a religious institution, which likely holds social conservative views. Data speaks for itself, and will either show bias or not. Without being able to see their survey and methods, your reference to them is merely an appeal to authority, and not a very good one at that since the institution could be construed as having a dog in the fight.
Lastly (for now) I find it interesting that you think I operate like a typical Objectivist. While I can’t necessarily consider you an expert on the issue, and I have no other data points to refer to other than myself as I’ve never met or talked to another person that self identifies as Objectivist, I’ll take your opinion with a grain of salt and make this remark: this would indicate to me that Objectivists must be near or at the maxima in the logic skills curve if we all operate so similarly. You could be snarky and say that Objectivists could also be at the minima, but any casual observer could tell that I am above average in my reasoning skills (for some people irritatingly so), and Objectivism tends to focus those skills rather than destroy them. So thanks for the unintended remark of respect
I had to chuckle and scoff contemptuously at all three of them when I saw on Sean Hannity that he and Sarah Palin and Alaska’s wussy and sleazy crybaby attorney, Joe Miller, are now whining (and I do mean whining) that Lisa Murkowski broke her word by running as a write-in candidate, instead of supporting Miller after Murkowski lost to Miller in Alaska’s primary.
Of course, all three of those disingenuous, sleazy creeps neglect to mention the unethical and outrageously sleazy stunts that Sarah Palin pulled when she viciously interfered in that election for spiteful, petty and vindictive, strictly self serving reasons, thereby fully justifying Murkowski’s quite appropriate decision to run as a write-in candidate (as voters in Alaska obviously agreed).
Hannity has become such an annoying jackass and Palin has always been such an annoying jackass that, put them together on the same show, and how can one help but to go channel surfing in disgust, irritation and in exasperation.
Lisa Murkowski’s win in Alaska vindicates her and exposes Sarah Palin for the sleazy, scheming, petty, spiteful, mean, vicious and neurotic bitch that she is …, IMHO.
I agree, well, sort of. What I dislike about Sean Hannity is that he can’t shut up and listen to some of his guests. Too frequently, he rudely interrupts them, cuts them off or talks over them when they’re trying to make interesting points, believing that what he has to say is much more important than what they have to say, which is never the case. Also, he is like a gossipy, old yenta, and he is one of those insufferable, obnoxious know-it-alls who never asks questions or pays attention, because he thinks that he is an authority on every issue, which he isn’t. In recent years, he has become very boring, also. I rarely watch his show anymore. I dislike him as much as I dislike Geraldo Rivera, who I NEVER watch whenever he is on. I don’t know how his wife can stand him. For her sake, I hope that she has a boyfriend on the side, a pool boy maybe?
Ah, Ryan — good job! You did a nice job of not answering one of my main points — which is that Objectivists like Paul Hsieh are on the fringe in their views on social issues, and thus do not represent the views of most Tea Party voters. There really isn’t anything you can say, is there? I mean, you folks have no problem at all with abortion, euathanasia, gay marriage, etc….
You wrote: “I re-read Paul’s piece again, and I didn’t see him assert that a majority of Tea Party voters would be alienated.”
Whether Paul directly asserts or merely implies, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul advises the GOP to ignore the concerns of social conservatives, ignoring the fact that most Tea Party voters are also social conservatives. Since adherence to Objectivist views trumps reality (so it is with idealogues), it is not surprising that this is Paul’s advice.
Objectivists are merely a nutty fringe, as adamant in their devotion to their goddess Rand as any Muslim is to Muhammed. Objectivists might be as scary, given their delusions of logical grandeur (which you display very nicely, granting yourself logical heights that the rest of us non-Objectivists find “irritating”), but thankfully most of the pimply-faced adolescents who latch on to Randian Utopian fantasies do, in fact, grow up.
Grow up, Ryan.
I’ve addressed all your points, your “main” points and your irrelevant red herrings you toss about willy-nilly. Every time I do so you attempt to move the goalposts. I’ve tried to discuss with you the issues you have with Objectivism, and you’ve offered a steaming pile of vitriol in return. Your issues with Objectivist arguments seems to be that we actually try to support our positions with reasoned arguments and don’t immediately give up. Your only argument against my counter points are that I am of a supposed minority (which you are unwilling to substantiate with anything other than referrals to unsubstantiated evidence) and I should be ignored and trampled in the path to your totalitarian goals. You haven’t even bothered arguing why the asserted Objectivist ideas you mention are incorrect. You are too lazy and inept to even attempt the argument. Making a blustering negative statement is so much easier.
Your argument can be condensed to: “you should ‘grow up’ and be like me. I can’t provide a convincing argument to be like me, you should just do it damnit. Kowtow to my demands already.” If you treat all gentiles (and apostates) as you did me, I can confidently predict inefficacy in your future proselytization endeavors.
Your arguments are non sequiturs and the best you’ve done is insult me (boring insults btw, grow some imagination). I’ve already been more than generous to you in sincerely addressing each of your substantive arguments, while you ignore my counters and belabor already addressed arguments without adding anything new to the discussion. I hope in the future you can find a way to communicate with other human beings who disagree with you that doesn’t involve using a verbal or physical bludgeon/whip
At this juncture I think I’ve provided everything I need to have refuted your main and many red herring arguments for any observer. Any further engagement is unnecessary and unlikely to generate further enlightenment for myself or others. If anyone else has specific issues they’d like to discuss I’d welcome them.
Otherwise, good day to you Jean. May you learn a more civil means of communication for the future.
Already fully matured,
Ryan