Schwarzenegger Republicanism Won’t Save the GOP
McCain lost Ohio, of course, and now a week after the GOP’s defeat, Schwarzenegger is making headlines with his proposals for the future of the Republican Party. In fact, Schwarzenegger is at the center of two big, interrelated stories with tremendous implications for Republicans. First, Schwarzenegger has come out in defense of the street activists who have challenged the passage of California’s Proposition 8 in protest demonstrations since November 4. According to one Los Angeles Times report, Schwarzenegger has urged the protesters not to give up, and he’s quoted saying that if the California Supreme Court is willing to strike down the measure, then we might “move forward from there and again lead in that area.”
But Schwarzenegger’s also in the news for the broader statements he made on Sunday, November 9. According to a second story in the Los Angeles Times, Schwarzenegger is arguing that the Republican Party must abandon some of its core conservative foundations and embrace spending programs popular with the electorate: “I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology.”
There’s a lot wrong with these recommendations. Note first that Governor Schwarzenegger has never been fully accepted by the California conservative establishment. He’s basically a social liberal, and he’s been attacked from the right as without backbone on budgetary politics and fiscal restraint. California’s chronic structural budget imbalances have gotten worse under the Schwarzenegger administration, and a California Field Poll in July found a tepid 31 percent approval rating for the governor’s performance. In an effort to stave off state bankruptcy for 2009, Schwarzenegger is currently proposing tax hikes (including a 1.5 percent increase in the sales tax) and cuts in education spending (which will hammer both middle class and disadvantaged constituencies).
There’s very little in the governor’s record to warm the hearts of conservatives searching for new ideas to fuel a resurgence, and that’s not even mentioning social policy. One of the most important results of the elections nationwide was the sweeping repudiation of same-sex marriage initiatives in several states; California, Florida, and Arizona all voted the initiative down. There are currently 30 state-level bans on gay-marriage on the books across the country. In Arkansas as well, voters approved a measure to prohibit adoption by unmarried couples, a law designed to prevent gay couples from raising children in the state.
One of the more noteworthy statistics in California’s “Yes on 8″ campaign is that 70 percent of the state’s African American voters chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. The black vote was based on the time-honored moral values of the African American religious experience, as well as the feeling on the ground that an affluent white gay community in the state had little interest in the concerns of those in the black community. African Americans are worried about good jobs, good schools, and combating the remnants of racial discrimination many residents still endure. Thus, the GOP’s long-standing defense of traditional values shows tremendous promise among a demographic constituency that voted 95 percent for the Democratic presidential nominee.
The GOP’s values agenda could also be attractive to the Latino community, perhaps the most important voting constituency in the 2008 election. Barack Obama took 67 percent of the Latino vote nationally, and Latinos turned the tide for the Democrats in key states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. Yet just four years ago George W. Bush won 44 percent of the Latino vote nationally 69 percent in his home state of Texas. Some might forget that these voters are not automatically aligned with the Democrats, especially because of the party’s left-wing social agenda based on the philosophy of secular humanism.
Indeed, there is a large, faith-based conservative bloc of Latino voters that should be considered the baseline for winning back that constituency in upcoming elections. On questions of abortion, traditional marriage, education, and criminal justice, conservative policies might hold tremendous appeal for conservative Latino voters. And the GOP’s principled stand in favor of a moral and civil society should put the party in good stead in that community.
Thus, the “Schwarzenegger Model” of compromising core conservative principles on fiscal restraint and social policy is inherently dangerous for those looking to find a “middle way” back to power in the years ahead. Indeed, a Schwarzenegger approach could very well destroy the party by making a new third-party, conservative-libertarian movement entirely feasible. Instead, Republicans need to find an amalgamation of the Palin-Huckabee social forces and the Club for Growth economists that can provide a dependable path back from political exile in the coming years.
I’ll agree with you that compromising conservative fiscal policies is not the way to go, but I take issue with this statement;
“…the GOP’s principled stand in favor of a moral and civil society”
That’s a polite way to be a bigot. Being gay is amoral and uncivil? The Palin / Huckabee route is morally reprehensible, not the other way around. A libertarian shift is exactly what the party needs, Republicans should stand for Freedom in economic and social issues. Freedom is at the core of what it means to be American, not oppression.
I voted for Senator McCain, and while I’m not enthused about President-Elect Obama’s policies, if this is what it takes to bring about change in the party, so be it.
Am I the only person who remembers the Democrats wailing and gnashing their teeth in 2004? All the ‘we’re finished, we have to move to the center, we have to figure out a way to appeal to the bigoted illiterate redneck hicks’ and so on? (They saw no irony in that last statement either, and I saw variations of it over and over again.) And four years later they pull Obama out of a hat like a magic trick.
A lot can change in four years. Republicans ought to take a breather on the issue of what they stand for and work on the more crucial problem: HOW to run in the next election. They need to get up to speed with all the Facebook, Text-Messaging, Branding gimmicks so that they aren’t counting on 30 second commercials to get their message across (in a Tivo world) while the other guy is practically stalking people via their laptops and cell phones.
It isn’t going to matter what the message is if nobody hears it.
Dear Don,
The GOP needs to be less self-righteous about social issues, definitely more quiet about them, and must push conservative economic principles to the forefront and be serious about that. The Dems’ fiscal policies have been ruining many cities and states for years, and now the fed govt for 2 years and we’re in for an awful ride for the next 2. Arnold did not sufficiently fight Sacramento on spending. I don’t know what it would have taken (veto by him and govt shut-down?), but he gave up, and that state is in mammoth-sized trouble. They need to cut state pay and pension by 20%, then cut tax rates. That should be a GOP message, b/c without that, our whole country’s in for a lengthy recession.
Huckabee? Not then, not now, not EVER. He isn’t remotely conservative. The only thing that separated him from Democrats was his pro-life and 2nd Amendment views.
I agree. The strict litmus test for social issues needs to go away. As a matter of fact, gay civil unions should become part of the GOP platform under the separation of church and state, and under human rights. This is an issue conservatives should run with-and I agree that we shouldn’t call it marriage, and I would fight to keep it out of my church.
We also need to become genuine when we mean smaller government.
No it wont, but he does represent a current of thought and its going to take all of us to win elections.
Mr. Douglas hits on an issue I’ve speculated about when he talks about the potential of tapping the socially conservative ethnic communities. Many Latinos and Muslims are indeed very socially conservative. I have always pitied them at election time. What do they do? Do they vote for the party that fits their views on abortion and same-sex marriage even though it’s the party that represents the sheet-wearing cross-lighting elements of America? Or do they vote for the party that is not pandering to racists even though that party is pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage. What a horrible choice to have to make. Why did the GOP lose the Latino vote? It might have something to do with the Republican’s stand on immigration.
Schwarzenegger is a failure as a governor. He had nothing going for him but cleaning up the financial mess the dem legislature and governor made. Now he has stopped doing even that. Rolling over and playing dead to the dems is what got the repubs to wear they are now. It’s not a future for anyone.
Northern, your observation on the right-wing outcry against the McCain bill on immigration is dead right.
That cost the election, in my opinion.
Most of the out of state licence plates seen here in Arizona are California plates. Case closed….
Dave @ 10:
Also in Washington. But most Californians wishing to escape the insanity of their government will find no relief here, nor in Oregon for that matter. Washington projects a $4.5 billion biennial shortfall in ’09-’10, driven by huge increases in spending by an out-of-control Democrat governor and legislative supermajority….certainly not the place to go if you’re attempting to locate fiscal restraint. I suggest Californians try Idaho, Montana, Nevada or Utah.
#2 (Emma) Most excellent point.
Now, regarding the thoughts of the professor, we have a better option than the three paths he outlines. The problem of united social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives has always been with us. Nixon, Reagan, and, yes, the Bushes figured out a way to appeal to all three groups and won. They did not win by pushing one of the groups off to the side or downplaying one of the groups. McCain tried to put the coalition together too late, IMHO, and failed because he never really understood how to connect with economic conservatives. (He had trouble with social conservatives, too, but the Palin pick and fear of an Obama court finessed that one for him.)
SO, quo vadis? I think it really is quite simple. Find, nurture, and support intelligent and attractive people who can speak to all three groups. And stop trying to be justified by the press or the establishment. Do those two things, and landslides will come.
I know the devil is in the details but I don’t want to make this too long. But, to illustrate what I’m talking about, let me touch on some issues that have come up in this threads:
1 – Government Spending. While social conservatives will support $ for Bush’s “big governent conservatism” and foreign policy conservatives support $ for “national greatness”, conservatism as a whole believes in smaller government, and these two wings are willing to let economic conservatives take the lead on general fiscal issues. And voters rarely pick “me too” Republicans over Democrats. We win when the rhetoric is about the bottom line & the size of government & the size of the tax bill. So the GOP will prosper by returning its traditional advocacy of small government, while keeping the social & foreign policy factions happy by not gutting “national greatness” (military, foreign aid, space) and by funding the various small programs that appeal to social conservatives because they help the poor, sick, and needy. (vouchers, prison reform, more cops on the street, AIDS in Africa).
2 – Gays. Moving from economic to social issues, here we need to let the social conservatives take the lead – but not in a way that alienates foriegn policy or economic conservatives. Similar to the economic strategy above, we ask: how can we let the core group on this issue take the lead w/o alienating the rest of the coalition? I believe the answer here is to ask “what really bothers social conservatives about ‘gay marriage’”? The answer is not that religious people want the government to stop sodomites from visiting each other in hospitals or object to homosexuals bequeathing their estates to their lovers. No, the answer is that they don’t want the government to use its force to change what is culturally acceptable: they don’t want the word ‘marriage’ to mean something new, they don’t want gay couples adopting children not their own, they don’t want the schools teaching children that homosexualtiy is healthy or morally neutral. So rather than sidestep the issue, the GOP should clearly oppose Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption – while at the same time officially supporting a type of Civil Partnerships that would not be based on sexual behavior. A GOP-created Civil Partnership law would allow ANY couple of Americans (siblings, friends, or lovers) to pool their resources for the sake of mutual life support. This would address the real needs of gay couples and give the vast majority of them what they seek, and preserve the ‘sanctity of marriage’ for social conservatives.
3. Finally, we need an example of where foreign policy conservatives would lead, and this, of course, would be in foreign policy. Social conservatives and Economic conservatives do not oppose, and indeed usually support, having a country that is a superpower. Let’s face it, national greatness does bring benefits. And foreign adventures such as Gulf War I or the Liberation of Grenada may rankle liberal Democrats, but really do little to alienate social & economic conservatives. HOWEVER, we need to be honest about how THE WAY IRAQ II played out ALIENATED many social & economic conservatives. Social conservatives objected to human rights abuses (and no this does not mean they want Gitmo detainees released into the country or tried in ACLU courts!); economic conservatives recoil at the amount of money this war continues to cost us – even as the inflated price of oil brough a flood of money into Iraq. A winning strategy here would be to convince the American people that the next GOP president will not try to use American force to save a fallen world by promoting the “religion of democracy”, but instead would use our military to protect our national interests and sustain our national greatness. Our current president scored HUGE points in the 2000 debates when he promised a more “humble” foreign policy. Everyone knew that we’d still carry a big stick, but folks thought we would not have any more Bosnias. Instead, we got an effort to bring Democracy to THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST – something that I doubt neither Wilson nor Carter would even have tried. I say this as someone who supports the war as something we had to do. But the rational, execution, and promotion of this war abandonned conservative principles and alienated many social and economic conservatives. McCain saw this, and was at his best on this issue. A McCain/Eisenhower approach is the winning position for the GOP.
These principles can be applied to most any issue. The man or woman who figures out how to do this – while mastering the New Media tactics Emma (#2, above) points out – will be the next GOP President. Any other strategy will knock a leg out from under the stool, and thereby fail to get the coalition to stand up and be heard on Election Day.
What is missing form the Conservative movement is a and effective spokesman for individual liberty and conservatism.
Ronald Reagan’s shoes have never been filled. He actually explained what it was he was fighting for and why – and he did it very, very well. Mark Steyn put it well when he said that the contemporary Republicans only seem to want to drive the liberal bus for a while. What good is that?
Okay Conservatives, enough self-flogging on the reason why we lost this election and how we need to re-invent ourselves.
Consevative thinking does not need to change.
We lost because we are losing the battle on the ground. We cannot compete with liberal colleges, liberal media, liberal hollywood. The liberals we will continue to win also long as they are sucessful in their Bumper sticker politics.
The liberals understand the design/marketing/PR aspect of politics much better than the GOP.
Modern politics is all propaganda and the GOP needs to take a marketing 101 class…
“New” GOP…spend, regulate, subsidize, fight invented crises. Is that what we want?
A terrible actor, a worse governor! Ahnold is a democrat just as McCain is….albeit democrats of 20 years ago before the current DemonRats went socialist. Mexifornia is lost and I pray that not one cent of my taxes goes to bail that disaster-zone out. They made their bed…
Angry White Dude
Cantormaina @ 12:
Well spoken! As a foreign policy, social and fiscal conservative, I agree with your positions and strategy, top to bottom. We will never prevail in National elections using the Schwarzenegger model.
Kudos to Cantormania @#12. It mirrors many of my thoughts. I’m a “moderate” on social issues, which means on some things I am conservative and on others I am inclined to not want the state to step in and mandate certain things. I am very tolerant of gays and I have no problem with them having legally binding contracts with the state for purposes of passing on benefits and estates. But re-defining marriage is something I am opposed to, because I can see the slippery slope involved. Most of all, I don’t want to see Californicate writ large on the rest of the country, since I generally don’t like a lot of what comes out of that state. I see California’s culture as generally a bad influence on the rest of the country. Traditional America is a great thing and should be preserved as much as can be. The California culture has more in common with France than with traditional America. Let is stay out there. I don’t want it here in New Hampshire.
I am a fiscal conservative and a foreign policy hawk. I see the world AS IT REALLY IS, not how some wish it would be. I understand what President Bush was trying to do in the area of foreign policy, and I think it best matches with the nature of the threats. You can’t play defense against Islamic jihad. You have to brutally pre-empt it. Anyone who studies the history of jihad conquest would know and understand this. It’s the oldest surviving totalitarian ideology and, despite the last three hundred years of being on defense, has always been expansion-oriented. If you just play cops and robbers and play defense only against this kind of enemy he ends up eating your lunch.
And I might add: to those of you who are gay activists or feminists, your best interests do not lie in a supine posture vis-a-vis Islam just because you have “issues” with us conservatives in other matters. Your savaging of this President and his policy does not make gays and women safer or more respected. You seem to have no idea at all about what Sharia Law would do to gays and women. Take note of the views of gay writer Bruce Bawer in his books and articles about this subject. He has extensive experience of living in Europe and what being a dhimmi entails for the gay community there. Or women for that matter. Are you aware of the horrendous rise of rape of white female women in Malmo and Stockholm by gangs of Muslim males?
I agree that a libertarian shift is what the party needs. A Palin/Huckabee shift would be a disaster. What religious Republicans have to realize is that this country and indeed the West in general is becoming more and more secular – and when many hear the likes of Sarah Palin telling reporters that she does whatever God wants her to do, it repels them.
Politicians have GOT to stop talking in terms of God and religion. There is no justifiable basis whatsoever for including religion in American politics, except to ensure religious freedom and to protect everyone’s right to practice whatever religion they like.
It’s time to drop mysticism from the business of running a country. There is nothing wrong with promoting Judeo-Christian values – they are a good thing. But it is perfectly possible to divorce these values from the mystic idea of Heaven and Hell.
I’m tired of hearing from religious people that “the Soviet Union is an example of the horrors which ensue when you divorce religion from government.” This is a stupid argument which needs to be addressed. It rests on the false premise that the only thing from stopping men killing each other is a belief in God. This is offensive to the non-religious and quite clearly not true. Religion is quite capable of causing men to kill each other. When your actions are guided by a world of make-believe, then it is possible to justify any atrocity by appealing to this make believe. Marxists appeal to an irrational world of make-believe too: they believe that there is a “greater good,” a common purpose to which it is possible to enslave everyone. This leads to the idea that the individual is less important than the collective and hence the warped justification that it’s OK to sacrifice the individual to this “greater good.” What secular Marxism and religion both have in common is that they are not founded on rational premises and hence easy to use as justification for unspeakable acts of atrocity.
I don’t want to offend Christians by saying this, because quite clearly the vast majority are good, decent people who share most of the values I do. But philosophy is important. For the sake of our future, let’s embrace the world of reason and the heritage of the Enlightenment and move forward as a country in which the individual is the most important unit and in which the only role of the state is to protect the individual.
This does not necessarily mean, as Ron Paul’s supporters and some other libertarians would have it, that America has to take on an isolationist stance. This is naive and short sighted. If national defense is a proper role of government then protecting us from reckless psycho-maniacs like Saddam with preemption is justified as being in our national interest. The coming intersection of religious jihad, secular extremism and WMD’s means we cannot afford to ignore threats abroad just because they don’t constitute a “direct” immediate threat. Such threats, for the sake of our survival, dictate that we act sooner rather than later. We cannot wait for a nuke to explode in New York to decide that we’re under threat.
As much as I disagree with Bush on a number of issues, I fully support his doctrine of moral democratic realism. The only way we’re every going to achieve any kind of peace and stability is through encouraging the spread of liberal democracy and free trade. Any President who doesn’t understand this loses my vote. The liberal media has done a bang up job of brainwashing the masses into forgetting why we’re in Iraq. Rather than just pandering to this mindset – and putting our future security in peril – we should be doing everything we can to set the record straight about the Iraq war and giving Bush credit where it’s due. There is nothing worse than the notion that popular sentiment is a current which has to be followed blindly. It is possible to influence the current, as the liberal media knows all too well. Republicans need to stop being spineless apologists whose idea of “politics” is to get down on their hands and knees and grovel for the support of the masses – they need to be fighting for the minds of the masses.
I see a future conservatism as a form of right-leaning libertarianism with an emphasis on law and order and national defense. Sorry, Palin doesn’t make the grade. She redistributed the profits of oil companies and talks about receiving signs from God. If she runs in 2012, then we’ve lost another election.
12. Cantormania:
Democracy is not a “religion” and I’m afraid I can’t really take seriously the opinions of anyone who thinks it is. Furthermore, it must be recognized that promoting democracy and free trade IS in our best interests.
It can’t have escaped your intention that capitalist democracies do not fight each other. They have a convergence of interests which mean that there is no need to fight among themselves. Free trade has probably been the greatest peaceful influence the world has ever seen. Liberal democracy instills a system of checks and balances on power. The two together have a stabilizing effect.
Bush did not attempt to “democratize the entire Middle East.” He planted the seeds in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they both turn into successful, peaceful democracies further down the road this will have an incredible effect on the stability and peace on the entire Middle East in turn. It has already led to the emboldening of democratic movements in the region. Bush did a great thing and he will be recognized for this in time. We can no longer ignore the threat of WMD’s getting into the hands of a culture of fanaticism which thrives only in a world of totalitarianism, tyranny and oppression. It IS our business.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that what the party stands for and ends up doing is irrelevant? Do you really think that 52% of the voters want what 0bama really has to offer? Do you even think that most of the voters who voted for 0bama can tell you what he’s all about and what he’s going to do?
Run to the right, run to the left, it’s not going to matter. What matters is the kind of image that’s created. Let’s dispense for once and for all with the myth that the swing voters are discerning. They’re easily fooled, and this time, they were fooled big time. Cynical as this sounds, the only way any politician, regardless of party, is going to win is to fool the fools.
If you’re going to win, you have to copy the 0bama formula: don’t talk about any issues, blather about vapid platitudes, and promise the moon. Talking about issues just gets you into trouble. And if you don’t talk about issues, it follows that positions and ideology are irrelevant to getting elected. Stop worrying about issues and ideological positions. They have nothing to do with getting elected.
#21 Self Hating Boomer,
LOL! I might as well take that kind of nom-de-guerre myself, since I’m a Younger Cohort Boomer who was generally appalled by my older cousins during the Sixties.
I agree with a lot of what Jason S writes, even though I am religious (Roman Catholic). But isn’t it fair, Jason, that we INTELLIGENT, THEOLOGICALLY LITERATE, EDUCATED Catholics bring our values to the public sphere? I am not a conservative Catholic. More of a moderate actually. I know, I know… conservative Catholics will say that I’m not really a Catholic because I don’t tow the party line from Rome about everything. But you might as well say that about most of the laity and even maybe most of the clergy (they and we cannot be open about our views). I have just as much a problem with very literalist Christianity as I do with militant atheism, which I think are intellectually untenable positions and are rather extreme. But I do not regard either as a dire threat to our Republic, since their views are outliers on the continuum of thought. And I don’t think either of them want to replace our government the way Islam would like to. Let’s be clear, folks, about who the real enemy of our civilization is: it is decidedly not religious conservatives (and I think I was clear that I’m not one of them); it is Islam and its much younger totalitarian ally of convenience, Communism/Marxism. Both are kind of like The Borg. The want assimilate the individual into the collective, obliterating all liberty.
Educated Catholics and mainline and even conservative Christians of the Protestant denominations approve of and support a pluralistic society with respect for the law and the belief in equality of all before the law. But there are certain outlier attitudes we don’t want codified into law. And if the Constitution is silent about a certain matter, then it should be up to the states’ legislatures and the voters who elect their representatives to decide these matters, not judges on the bench.
Outside of Duncan Hunter I don’t know anyone in that state I want to be governor. Ahnold once again is going against the will of the voters on Proposition 8 I will not express an opinion on that. He is no better than our crooked companies who are going to Washington blubbering about being bailed out. To all I say spend less and get your cr@p together and don’t go begging to everybody else for help.
I will take the part of the evil, right wing monster you’ve all heard about.
The currency of citizenship in the United States has become so devalued in the last 40 years that it is now worthless. Nominally, if you are alive and of the minimum age, you can vote. Now we see that this approach has led us to De Toqueville’s predicted end; we vote ourselves the free access to the national treasure without hesitation
The franchise is not now, nor has it ever been, a right. It is, and should be, an earned privilege. I’m going with Bob Heinlein on this one. If you wish to be a fully enfranchised citizen, then you should demonstrate your worthiness by some test; originally it was a test of maturity and the ownership of property, and perhaps a test of arduous public service, such as voluntary military service, is an option.
I live in NYS, where an electorate that does not own property essentially establishes property taxes, these taxes being born solely by those who do hold title to real property. Guess where NYS property taxes are? Paul really is a co-conspirator here to rob Peter.
If we required a reasonable, service based test on the privilege to vote, my guess is that the voter rolls would decline in this country by 75%. My guess also is that minority representation would increase far above the population percentage of each group, because these folks are already over-represented in the armed forces.
The predicted behavior of an enfranchised citizen who has, at least once in his or her life demonstrated the willingness to put themselves in harms way for the good of the nation, is that they will vote responsibly.
As for those, like my boomer brethren who have never served, nor will they of their offspring ever serve, I say “Enjoy all of the rights and protections of citizenship under this Constitution, but you may never vote and you will never again be allowed to determine the political course of this nation again.”
“They’re easily fooled, and this time, they were fooled big time.”
John McCain is greatly responsible for allowing these voters to be easily fooled. He ran an awful campaign premised on political correctness. McCain essentially gave Obama a free ride to the White House. The Republicans must marginalize the “moderates.” They can remain within the party only if they behave themselves.
I might also add that John McCain is likely going to betray the Republicans. He is going to go out of his way to cooperate with President-elect Obama. In real world terms, of course, this means that McCain is going to do everything possible to push global warming legislation and make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
And then when I return to PJM, this shows up making my point, and building on it:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022076.php
Jason S:
I agree that a libertarian shift is what the party needs. A Palin/Huckabee shift would be a disaster. What religious Republicans have to realize is that this country and indeed the West in general is becoming more and more secular – and when many hear the likes of Sarah Palin telling reporters that she does whatever God wants her to do, it repels them.
Agree 100%. As repellent as the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and those theocrats who wish to blend science and religion together, and craft laws based on their religious beliefs that never existed in Western Law before (abortion as murder, IUDs as murder, miscarriage as somthing needing legal investigation and a death certificate issued, fertilized egg as legally indistinguishable from a child.)
The strict litmus tests on religious, economic, and cultural issues that zealots in “The Base” began imposing, accompanied by creams that anyone who did not buy 100% into Dogma were traitorous RINOs, dumb indpendents, or un-American Democrats – at one time or another tick off and alienate 80% of the public.
Some litmus tests were utterly suicidal.
A. Dependent on Mormons for their strong Republican contribution and for delvering several Western States – we saw Southern Fundies describe Romney as unacceptable because he is a religious heretic, Huckabee slyly insinuating it for months in the Campaign.
B. Going to rallies and telling Reagan Democrats that unrestricted free trade, deregulating financial markets, supply side, and trickledown all worked great..and their complaints were wrong because no idea or economic policy of Saint Reagan can be wrong. And anyone who complained about such high dogma was a disloyal Republican better voting Democrat again. (Many ended up taking that advice as Reagan Democrats and their kids now in adulthood in particular, took that advice.)
C. Republicans have adopted a bizarre “Love the Jews, love Israel” approach in national speeches where all anti-terror and Iraq and Iran policy somehow loops back to “never 2nd-guessing what Israel wants”, (as Palin put it). This homage is driven by the part of the Base that is Southern and Millenial Dispenalist (the Christian Zionists who believe the favor of Israel and Jews is important to their Salvation)
The problem is that American Jews and Israelis are a small but influential block who ALWAYS have the majority supporting American Democrats. (Obama was preferred 80% over McCain in Israel and in Jewish neighborhoods) but get the lion’s share of focus of Republican speeches touching on foreign policy – while other ethnics far more important and in play for voting Reublican are virtually ignored. Everytime a Republican is tempted to spend 10 minutes in a speech saying how everyday Israel and Jews are foremost in their concerns might do well to shift that message to saying that everyday they think about how well hispanics are doing and how events affecting Mexico and Latin America are important to them. When was the last time Republicans talked about the 14 million Vietnamese, Chinese, and Filipino-American voters in Primaries or national speeches?
The litmus test at work is that it is now considered terrible to Base dogma to have concerns and attention on ethnics other than on Jews and Israel that “diminishes” the focus on Israel. A litmus test that expects national candidates to prove they are “even better friends of Israel and the Christian Zionists and the Jews” than their rivals…who seem to “care” more about places like India, Poland, Columbia..
D. How exactly did Republicans end up with a litmus test that declares geography predicates how “reliable a Republican” one is?
E. How exactly did Republicans declare so many old ideas so wonderful and flawless that any new conservative ideas that challenge the old are “by intellectual sorts of people” who think they know better about securities derivatives and the Chinese cyber threat and the libertarian college types idea of de-escalating drug penalties… Than what the Average Hockey Mom or Average House Painter knows in Their Heart?
It is important to realize that the country is not uniform, and the sort of Republican “molding” of policies and issues that fly well in rural Alabama do not fly well in Colorado suburbs. The Governator has swung waaay to far over, but remember that his sort of Republicanism, flawed as it may be, is tailored for California and not a military retirement community in Florida. That his why he was re-elected by huge margins in 2006 and frothy-mouthed “true conservatives, proud Cali members of Karl Rove’s Base” went down in flames in 2006 and 2008.
I disagree with the need for a libertarian shift.
If you try to make the republicans more socially left, you just will alienate the social conservative base, who probably would either stay home, or weaken the republican candidate by voting for a third party. Huckabee proved that.
You’d also have large clashes on immigration, and the war on drugs. There’s a reason why the libertarians remain a separate party, and a marginalized one; libertarianism is very unpopular, and its policies are not election winning ones.
I’m agreeing with the people here who are advocating a Republican path towards a more Libertarian/Conservative idealology – especially Jason S. #19.
Cato’s Letter #33,Cautions against the natural Encroachments of Power
Thomas Gordon (Saturday, June 17, 1721):
“Hence grew the necessity of government; which was the mutual contract of a number of men, agreeing upon certain terms of union and society, and putting themselves under penalties, if i they violated these terms, which were called laws, and put into the hands of one or more men to execute. And thus men quitted part of their natural liberty to acquire civil security. But frequently the remedy proved worse than the disease; and human society had often no enemies so great as their own magistrates; who, where-ever they were trusted with too much power, always abused it, and grew mischievous to those who made them what they were. Rome, while she was free (that is, while she kept her magistrates within due bounds) could defend herself against all the world, and conquer it: But being enslaved (that is, her magistrates having broke their bounds) she could not defend herself against her own single tyrants, nor could they defend her against her foreign foes and invaders; for by their madness and cruelties they had destroyed her virtue and spirit, and exhausted her strength. This shews that those magistrates that are at absolute defiance with a nation, either cannot subsist long, or will not suffer the nation to subsist long; and that mighty traitors, rather than fall themselves, will pull down their country. “
#19 Jason:
“It rests on the false premise that the only thing from stopping men killing each other is a belief in God. This is offensive to the non-religious and quite clearly not true. ”
How about this then. “the only thing stopping men from killing eachother is a belief in morality.”
The problem is that there are competing ethical systems. Only religiously based ethical systems can claim supremacy. Only the appeal to a moral lawgiver can allow one system to claim superiority to another. Several non-religious ethical systems have serious problems. Utilitarianism can justify allmost any atrocity if applied at the right granularity and timescale. Hedonism has lead to disaster whenever tried on a large scale.
How do you encourage your neigbor to adopt an ethical system that doesn’t lead to destruction? On what grounds can you choose between Aristotle and Kant and Nietzsche? But you can choose between Jesus or Buddha and Aristotle or Kant or Nietzshe. You can have faith in Jesus or the teachings of the Buddha and reject all competing systems on those grounds.
Living without religion is like running your computer without antivirus. If you’ve got a good firewall and are careful about what you download and what sites you visit you can get along, but not everyone can. Some people contract hedonism or postmodernism. If you want to stop the botnets you need to encourage people to run antivirus. If you want to stop the leftists you need to encourage religion. You don’t have to choose Christianity, though I’d prefer it, but you need something with a narrative capable of competing with leftism. Locke and Bastiat just aren’t enough for most people.
Jason S. (#20), and anyone else whom I may have inadvertently misled.
No, I do not think democracy is a “religion”. This is why I put that in quotes. That quip was to illustrate the messianic zeal with which the effort to promote regime changes in the middle east was pursued by many. This is in the tradition of Wilson & Carter, not that of traditional Republicanism. (And no, I’m not an isolationist).
It also has not ‘escaped my attention’ that democracies don’t fight each other. (From whence does your hostility come, BTW?) I agree that more democracies in the world is a good thing, and welcome the development when it occurs. But at best it is a fruit of good foreign policy, and generally beyond our mean to ensure. The American people have always supported befriending and supporting democracy, but only wish to guarantee our own.
I think that kind of realism – that we promote democracy but accept that our ability to create it is limited – will regain the support of the American people for the GOP in foreign policy.
It is unforunate that so many so-called Conservatives are trying to redefine what conservatism is.
Taking God out of the marketplace is the same thing as renouncing the Declaration of Independence and Constitition. Both of those documents were put together by men who were living under a tyrannical government and gave up their lives and fortunes to establish bedrock principles this nation could live by.
I, for one, will give up “moderation” long before I will give up the principles the Founding Fathers gave us. They have served us well and to see Christian principles cast aside will not solve the dilemna the GOP finds itself.
If the GOP continues down the road of moderation, it will need more of those on the center-left to get its policies off the ground because the “Constitutionalists” will have started a new party adhering to what enabled this country to be what it is.
The last election lost by the Republicans was because God was not in the picture. To condemn Palin and/or Huckabee on the basis that reason plays no part in the Christian faith is nothing by sheer nonsense. While the Democrats were electing Obama based upon emotions and feelings, the Republicans were split between those who believed McCain was more of a liberal Democrat than a Republican with many chosing a third party candidate instead.
If the MSM has given the Constitution Party more air and print space, McCain’s loss would have been huge: it wouldn’t have been even close. How anyone could have voted for McCain, let alone Obama, in the election is beyond belief. Many didn’t vote for McCain because he was the lesser of two evils, but it was because this election was a matter of the evil of two lessers!!!
I agree. It would have to be Palin President and Mike Huckabee VP because she’s better leader. Huckabee’s a nice guy, but even though I voted for him in the primary, I don’t see him as a leader–especially now that he’s got that talk show gig on Fox. Bobby Jindal is good too. But, yes, definitely, kick all the Rinos out! Stick to your guns, as Sarah might say. Go with your gut. Study up on the foreign policy, girl, and go get em! The middle of the road only gets you squished. The left was motivated this election. The right was not.
To Chris #1 — “Being gay is amoral and uncivil?” Please check out this week-end’s rallies regarding Proposition 8 for your answer.
Schwarzenegger is the quintessential RINO (republican in name only).
I think Governor Schwarzenegger is right; the country needs change right now, needs help and there are things that both parties can and should do for the country. the GOP was not responsive to the reality of peoples lives over the past 8 years and it showed in elections. digging heels into the ground to make an ideological stand that equates with doing nothing for our hurting country is a sure way to bury oneself in the next ellection. this applies to both parties and all public servants, and the simple fact is that on all sides we need to give up a little of our ideology, be pragmatic and work together to help the American people, and make the changes, and do the governance and leadership of vision that the country needs to succeed now and into the years to come.
This is not a center-right country.
What the lib/con self-ID poll tells us is that 22% of Americans use the word “liberal” to describe their political leanings. This is not as important as the fact that a vast majority of the “moderate” self-ID respondents tend to vote for liberal candidates and support liberal policies.
Democrats won all age groups under 65, and made gains in 78% of counties nationwide.
After the 2006 midterms, Republicans told us their defeat was a meaningless fluke. They were wrong. Two years later it seems that once again they have learned all the wrong lessons from their defeat.
If they choke in 2010 it won’t just be a few Senate races but also redistricting that may create major long term setbacks for the GOP.
I’m calling their bluff. Go ahead and run even more far-right candidates. We’ll see you at the ballot box.
These discussions are good, but I hope we remember the natural and necessary progression:
First: Principles
Then: Policies
Leading to: Message
The idea of unrestricted Civil Unions is a good one, though there is room to argue about how it will allow the definition of ‘family’ to be hijacked by … well, undesirables.
The point of Conservatism as a whole is that it is far easier to break society than to improve it; a highly optimized system should be tweaked slowly and carefully. The lessons of the past should be absorbed, not forgotten. Speaking for myself, I think that every Conservative principle must reflect this; if it does not then it diminishes Conservatism rather than preserving it.
I am not religious.
I also do not see the evangelical faction of the Republican party pushing God onto the agenda. I see them as pushing a prolife and profamily agenda and i have no problem with either of these. Even as a libertarian the govenment still has to protect its weakest members and maintain the most basic unit of our society and community.
Having said this, I think the party should push these on the State level while push for strong nation defense primarily on the national level. Other aspects of the Republican party like small government, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility apply equally to State and Federal levels.
The point of a political party should not be about winning elections, nor should it be about pandering to the voters. The point of a political party is to enact positive change to our nation, and that means moving the middle away from the middle. The left understood this very well, why do we not? By moving toward the middle and abandoning out core principles we deserve to lose each and every time.
This writer GETS it.
If the GOP wants to win again in the near future, they have to target minority immigrants who are either religious conservatives or hold onto their old world values consistent with the GOP principles. A good amount of Chinese voted for prop 8 in San Francisco.
It’s true that the GOP must compromise a bit on immigration to win Latino favors, but otherwise, there’s no reason to abandon your conservative principles. The GOP doesn’t have to win minority votes outright. If you win back 35-44% Latino support, they’re somewhat competitive again.
Anti prop 8 groups have already blacklisted Latino owned businesses that donated to yes on prop 8. Some of you probably heard of intimidating protests held in front of mormon temples. A few radicals have even used racial slurs against blacks.
Republicans, where the HECK are you? You’re missing out on the chance to make moral values a campaign issue in the near future. Don’t just sit around waiting for the democrats to tap into minority votes all around the country.
30. Nate:
You say that “only religiously based ethical systems can claim supremacy.” On basis do you make this claim? The trouble with basing any system of ethics on mysticism is that none of it is verifiable by a process of reason and as such no appeal to reason can be made in cases of dispute. The only way to base ethics on mysticism is to insist forcibly that one’s God is the only true God and that his word is to be obeyed above all others. I don’t see any kind of long term future for a civilization based on a sytem of ethics which is based on a standard of value set beyond the grave and which views the universe as a haunted house. To capitulate to mysticism is to concede that no rational system of ethics is possible.
Once you deny that it is possible to derive a set of morals from the real, knowable, objective world, it leaves the door open for anyone to come along with their own make-believe version of spirituality and claim that its higher purpose supercedes all others. With what argument will you object? The claim that your God is more important? By what standard of proof? It also encourages the writing of moral blank checks which justify any means just so long as the end is directed toward a higher purpose outside of a reality verifiable by reason.
“Faith” is not a valid process of acquiring knowledge. It is mindset based on the evasion of reality.
Ethics can be derived using reason, there is no need for faith. You mention Kant and Nietzsche but you neglect to mention that someone else devised a system of ethics that is perfectly geared toward a society in which man lives in peaceful harmony with his fellow man – that someone else was Ayn Rand. A truly civil society is one in which man’s life is an end in itself and in which no man is enslaved to another. A society in which every individual has the inalienable right to pursue his or her happiness just so long as it doesn’t involve the initiation of physical force against another. A society in which nobody is expected to sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value. A society in which the destructive doctrine of altruism is a matter of personal choice, not the rule of law. A society in which the only moral role of the state is to ensure that the rights of the individual are protected.
Rand rightly identified the true, rational nature of rights as derived from the basic metaphysics of human existence and the basic requirements for survival. I’ve yet to hear anyone put forward an acceptable objection to her world view that wasn’t based on a misunderstanding of her words (usually from people who either aren’t paying attention when they read her, or who acquire an opinion of her based on second or third hand objections).
You say that living without religion is like running a computer without antivirus. I say that religion IS a virus and that living without objective reason is to live unprotected from insanity. Do you really believe that religion is protection from “bad” ideas? That it is not possible for those of faith to succumb to an evil, warped and destructive philosophy? Observe history.
Religion is not the antidote to leftism. I see religion and leftism as much the same thing – both are based on an irrational philosophy which is at odds with the basic objective truth of reality. Whether it’s the belief that one’s life is an end to a higher purpose outside of the realm of the living, or that one’s life is an end to a higher purpose outside of the realm of the individual – together they’ve caused more oppression, more wars, more tyranny and slaughter than any other force in human history.
In contrast, the tools of reason – and the rational view of man’s life as an end in itself – have been responsible for virtually everything which has raised man’s standard of living and brought relative peace over the last 250 years or so. There is simply no competition. We are children of the Enlightenment and although I respect the fact that Judeo-Christian values made the Englightenment possible, this doesn’t mean that we have to base our morality on faith for eternity.
31. Cantormania:
My apologies, it seems that in my haste I did misunderstand your intention. Although I still disagree with the idea that the road to political success is to shape ones self to popular opinion. While I concede the reality of the nature of winning votes, I also see the purpose of a political movement as that of changing and winning minds. There is nothing to say we cannot try to educate and to persuade. The trouble with mass opinion is that it is rarely based on a proper consideration of facts or a prudent world view. It’s the stuff of peer pressure, of media persuasion, of group emotion and mindless whim. I refuse to accept that the role of politics is to drift aimlessly with the popular current.
32. Sonny:
It is all very well to promote Christian values, since many of them are reasonable and rational. But if you seriously think that the road to political success is one based on the worship of God, you have another thing coming. There is no rational, reasonable or moral justification for incorporating religion into the state and to be quite frank I’m getting sick of the incessant whining of those who believe their “faith” should be forced upon others.
Here’s why it annoys me so. Your insistence that faith be part of the state is a direct affront to those who either have no faith or whose faith is different from yours. Are you suggesting perhaps that atheists should not be part of government, or that laws should not be drafted without appeal to the Bible? If so, you have a fight on your hands. I wish to wrestle control of this country from the inane, infantile hands of the left. Since the trend of Western civilization in general is headed away from religion and toward the secular, any insistence that conservatism must be written in the language of Christianity is doomed to failure, the extent of which will increase as time goes by. A religious state is one in which the rights of the non-religious are trampled.
In contrast, a rational secular state does not trample on the rights of the religious, for it is one which allows, and protects, religious freedom. MY version of conservatism respects your wish to live your life religiously. YOUR version of conservatism does not respect my wish to live my life without religion. I respect the religious, but they don’t respect me. It’s an asymmetrical relationship.
Swartznegger has bankrupted the state. End of story!
Wonder why there is debate as to which direction the party need to go? Very simple no one knows the proper order of thought to be successful politically, nor do they understand what a Conservative is.
Order of thought, call it the “Holy Triumvirate,” National Identity (American), State of mind (Conservative), Political Party (Republican). Something in this chain has been broken and you have to go back to basics to get it right.
As far as understanding what a Conservative is read Edmund Burke, Alexis Du Tocqueville, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, etc. If you understand Conservatism, you realize it is a state of mind, not an identity or something to be put in a box. Simply put, Liberty with Order. Until Republicans grasp this concept, at a grassroots level, they will be mired in defeat by the Progressives.
Arnie’s a complete failure as a governor, but over the past few years this has been the direction of the Republican Party. Between him, McCain, Graham and a few others they’ve done everything in the power to take it further to the left and be “Democrat lite.” I’d even throw Bush in there in some respects.
Arnie couldn’t manage a state budget whatsoever, is more worried about flying home every night in his luxury plane, yet screams about global warming. No wonder businesses and people are leaving California. All he’s done is cozy up to the state Democrats especially Don Poratta and has made things worse than before he was elected in the recall.
As far as winning over people, you don’t compromise on your beliefs, that’s what got the GOP in trouble to begin with. What they need to do is start at the grassroots level again, but start informing people why the current bailout isn’t working, what these current programs are costing and what they’re going to cost in the future. You start by showing reason and logic, show the facts like we have $55 trillion in unfunded obligations until 2040, the bailout right now is looking more and more like it’s going to cost $5 trillion and that we can’t afford anymore. Tell people why you’re in favor of cutting everyone’s taxes from the top to the bottom, tell people exactly why we should explore for our own energy needs, tell people why global warming is a complete hoax and tell people why hard work, dedication and effort pay off.
The GOP failed because the incumbent in the most unpopular president in history.
The GOP failed because they didn’t challenge the President on spending etc, but rubber stamped whatever he wanted.
The GOP failed because the economy is in the tank.
I’m the Evangelical Christian so many on this board apparently fear. A social conservative in every way. But I’m also pragmatic. And I am admitting there are many Christians that do the Republican party no favor by being draconian and thick-skulled.
I’ve attended a few of these hardcore Republican get-togethers that degenerate more into bitch sessions about all that is wrong. Some of these individuals are as loopy as any liberal I meet.
See, the voting public is not nearly as sophisticated as many pundits like to make it to be. Anyone think me wrong, take your own little survey and ask any man or woman on the street a few basic questions about politics. You would quickly determine there is a huge chasm between perception and reality.
Most voters were far more concerned two months ago about the high price at the pump than they were national security, the looming financial crisis, or immigration reform.
If conservative Republicans are going to regain some measure of power, I would suggest they would fare far better if instead of debating complex issues, they concern themselves with changing the perceptions people like Cedarford have about them.
This cultural war of ideas is not lost because we are right. But I do think it is long overdue to admit that our approach the last 15 years has left a lot to be desired.
You can lurk from one policy to another, but you need a spokesman/woman that can deliver the message coherently and look good doing it (see Obama). The message is almost irrelevant with the vast majority of votes (see Obama), but they want someone that looks good and makes them feel better about themselves. They don’t want to be preached to or told that the situation is their fault in anyway. They just want to get that warm fuzzy from the person trying to get elected. You could tell them that we are shifting to Communism and as long as you had a pretty face and told them how wonderful things were going to be they would elect you. The Republicans failed to realize why W was elected. He was a lot prettier than Kerry and was more likeable than Gore. It had little to do with politics because if that were the case Clinton would never been elected. Wake up people and start realizing that if you want a dog in the fight you better make him pretty and make sure that he doesn’t scare the people.
should be “lurch” vice “lurk”
Sandy got it. It’s not the message, it’s the messenger. Until the elephants figure that out, we’re going to be a one-party country. Even Mexico has two parties these days. Bad shiite is coming our way.
At least this will solve the illegal immigration problem (from south the north, anyway).
Sad to say but yes your have it correct. We are in for one party rule for at least the next two years and then hopefully we will wise up.
Everyone’s a great talker. Here is the truth:
Arnold tried hard–he put four propositions on the ballot his first year to give voters a chance to control unions, state pensions etc. Unions mobilized. The GOP, probably off at church praying to be spared the horrors of gay marriage, did not. All 4 were defeated.
The state grew. And one-issue voters like you all sat back happy that gays couldn’t marry. Meanwhile, the state debt piled up. Shrewd move. You were all a real help.
That was California’s last chance to cut the head off the beast. Arnold’s advisors perhaps were too ambitious. Or maybe the public just needs a good recession to realize that unionized state employees will bankrupt the state if they aren’t controlled.
But right wingers aren’t as free with media money to inform voters (like that Soros fellow) as they are infested with letter writers who congratulate each other in each new post on how the democrats are all screwed up.
Meanwhile, Arnold has tried to keep taxes down. If he weren’t there, taxes and spending would have shot up even more.
But he lives with the legacy of a bumbling group of republicans that thought opposing gay marriage–not fiscal controls and control of the state–was their calling. Its not. Just like banking on the Old South isn’t a strategy for the long term.
People don’t want to elect a priest or a rabbi. We don’t want a saint. The crazy church going people that think they speak for us all, –you don’t.
If I were a GOP govenor I’d:
1. Fight tax increases tooth and nail;
2. Put one inititative a year on the ballot to prune state pensions and health benefits; and I’d ask all you bloated bloggers and commentators to get out of your confort zone and go door to door to help–yes I know that means doing something other than talking to like minds all day, but it might DO SOMETHING instead of filling your empty hours with talk and posts here.(Don’t wait for the GOP to do this–their lusting after pensions too!)
3. I’d publish the state budget–the wasteful parts–on line so people could see who makes what salaries; what we spend and on what; I’d publish worker’s comp awards –a renewed “Godlden Fleece” award to some worker’s comp judges; I’d prune the rights of pro pers to sue “fee free” more than twice.
4 I’d sue to get out from under that prison consent decree or do something to remind Judge henderson that he’s not the governor. I’d sue to void pension plans that were entered into with state employees on both sides in a conflict.
5 And…I wouldn’t pay attention to gay marriage at all.
And unlike you “save us from gay marriage,” types, I’d win!!! I’d stand for something other than denying others a right to be happy. I’d stand for controlling the state not using it for my purposes.
CA has serious issues and not all of them are caused by the state employees. It might have to do with the fact that they are the biggest give away state in the nation. If you can get to CA you have healthcare and schooling regardless what it costs the hardworking citizens of the state. You can do all the things that you want to the state employees, but if you keep paying out more than you bring in taxes you are screwed. Gov should have raised taxes and told the people why. He should have told them that all the welfare programs were bankrupting the state, but go ahead and blame the unions. It is funny how you can blame unions, but don’t blame the illegals.
I didn’t mean to overlook the illegals but Arnold is hamstrung by courts, unfunded by the feds and frankly, given the votes here, he’s doing the best he can.
Remember the old Proposition that denied benefits to illegals and was enjoined?
I’m going to have to agree with Self Hating Boomer….Obama wasn’t elected on issues and McCain didn’t lose on issues. It was all personality. Period. The longer we try and second guess our “message” to the masses the longer we miss the point. This year the election was bought and paid for. I’m thinking we nix the campaign finance rules as per Obama’s playbook and dig into those deep Republican coffers in four!
JASON: What, did you just take anti-religious, marxist philosophy 101. Go read some Aquinas. Or take another couple of semesters.
On and on the “reason thing”, Go read some Wittgenstein; go read some Goedel.
You have an extremely sophomoric — even cartoonish — understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular, not to mention a restricted, parochial view of the notions of reason and logical in philosophy (sorry, I could not resist).
And it is absolutely absurd to claim that you cannot base political practices, systems or beliefs on faith. What was that about “created equal by their creator”. Our republic was deeply bound up in the Christian faith. It is in fact the only “rational” conclusion that can justify the notion of and inalienable right to liberty )or slavery, in the case of Islam).
You know, all of these logical-positivist, utilitarian, scientific materialist, etc. arguements for ethics that you are putting forward have been debunked, some centuries ago. There is ablosutley nothing “objective” about your view at all. You are just carrying around some tacit epistimelogical and metaphysical assumptions that you have not examined. Running on the fumes of Christendom, you are, and you just do not know it. You have your own “faith”, you just are not honest with yourself about it. And it is a “faith” without grace. You are verging on Scientism, which is really just a superstition.
How do you even know what truth is? How can it reside itself in the purely physical world?
I mean truth itself, not a manifestation of it.
And if is in the physical world, is it not bound to be relative, for the physical nature of it may be changed? Do you really think truth is algorithm inside your brain, a physical structure in your cortex? Why would you seek to know it (or Beauty, or Good)?
Truth, Goodness (or Virtue( and Beauty as absolute reside outside of our world, they are an aspect of God, and we are his creations That is how we all know them in this world. Your capacity for reason — and your desire for truth — comes from God, not your central nervous system. Your perceptions of these absolutes are “manifestations” of these absolutes, they are NOT the absolutes.
You have it backwards. Something is logical because it is true. It is not true because it is logical. Reason can accomodate the deepest moral perversity, witness Marxism. Reason is merely a mode of knowing; it cannot be used to know all truths. Marxism is famously rational, it just happens to be false, and it is mostly false because of its scientific materialism (you know, “man does not live by bread alone”). You are confusing your mental construct with “objective” reality. Your “reasoned objectivity” is a construct that you are mapping onto the mystery of being. And is is sterile as most deeply meaningful Truths can not be fully known or expressed by language at all (Love for example) That is why there is religion. Religion (and what you all “mysticism”) is not some sort of failure of reason; it is attempt to go beyond reason into the deeper reality where reason, and the mere logical intellect cannot go. It uses the “higher intellect of man” to decipher divine truth. This is one thing that faith (really faith with grace) is. Faith is not blind belief in something; it is not a primitive substitute for reason. It is about revealed truth whose source lays outside the realm of human creation and reason .
It is certainly not subjective, or Christianity would not have survived all these years. There could be no shared religious experience.
If freedom, liberties and rights are the creations of man, then they can be taken away.
This is why our forefathers were wise enough to understand that are rights are God given.
The is really the capstone of the American ideal of liberty: Mankinds highest aspiration is to seek union with God, and this is best done when he has liberty.
Voice of reason:
None one sentence of the unmitigated religious dirge you chose to bore us with changes this irrefutable fact: religion is just a fairy story, a bunch of unprovable legends and subjective feelings. Whereas objective reality is all around us and is verifiable by empirical proof.
The proof is in the pudding. Look around you – at the marvels of technology and medicine and architecture which surround us and which separate us from the primitive peasants we once were. All of this is the result of man wrapping his head around objective reality…that which you so ignorantly dismiss as “unknowable.” If it were unknowable, if there were no concretes, no laws, no truths verifiable by reason and induction, then none of this would be possible.
Faith does not make premature babies live. Science does. Faith does not keep jet planes in the air. Science does. Faith does not cure cancer. Science does. Faith does not help blind people see, or amputees walk. Science does.
The problems which we will have to face as mankind grows bigger and bigger, as more mouths come into existence, will not be solved by faith – they’ll be solved by science and the application of reason to the objective reality around us.
Your rationalizations of “faith” are entirely circular in nature and are the equivalent of the phrase “it’s true because God says it is and I believe in Him.” This is not a substitute for reason, primitive or otherwise. It’s an outright evasion of reason. Even calling it “subjective” is to credit it with a quality it does not have.
The reason why Christianity has survived all of these years is simple. It is an excellent meme. A meme is an idea that travels from mind to mind. It reproduces itself, rather like a gene. And like genes, its success depends on how likely it is to survive and reproduce. Its qualitative nature determines this. In the case of Christianity, all that was needed to propagate such a meme was the condition of ignorance and the threat of Hell.
The unknown creates fear. Devoid of any scientific answers to explain the world around them, mankind has always looked to fill the void with legends, myths and stories. The concept of a spiritual world goes back way before Christianity. The reason why Christianity became so popular and why it survived to this day was because part of its myth said that those who don’t have blind faith, those who don’t believe and won’t worship, would go to Hell and suffer for Eternity. Those were pretty heavy concepts for people who didn’t know any better. The choice was simple. Believe, like everyone else around you, or go to Hell. Once enough people believe, peer pressure comes into it. Devoid of anything else to fill the hole, people figure they might as well become part of the family – even those who were astute enough to realize that it was probably not true are liable to think, in a world without science, that they “might as well” partake in it on the off chance that it really was true. Why risk the wrath of the God?
The only “shared religious experience” comes from everyone believing the same myths and legends, from everyone hearing about the same “experiences” and thus convincing themselves that they’re having those experiences themselves.
Heck, remember years and years ago when they found that untouched tribe living in the Amazon rainforest and it turned out that they were worshiping an empty Coke can that had fallen from a passing aircraft along with some other junk? This is how myths and legends begin. They always begin with ignorance. Once they establish themselves to a certain extent in the popular mindset, it takes a lot to shake them off. Christianity, along with other religion, survives to this day because its non-existence is unprovable. Whatever science discovers about the universe, however much the laws of physics prove true all around them, people can still have “faith” in their mystic legend, because nobody can prove otherwise. Besides which, those who have “faith” have necessarily suspended the primacy of reason, which means their faith is unshakable by reason. It will no doubt survive for another 1000 years – but you cannot deny that it is on its way out. Fewer and fewer people believe and fewer go to church. Reason is chipping away at the prevalence of religion.
Your claim that “You have it backwards. Something is logical because it is true. It is not true because it is logical” demonstrates the extent to which those of a religious mindset believe in the polar opposite of reality. Something IS true because it is logical. YOU have it exactly the wrong way around.
Furthermore, Marxism is no advertisement for “reason.” There is nothing rational about the Marxist doctrine of collectivism. Its basic premises are irrational. Marxism depends on the irrational idea that the collective is a unit with a common goal and not what it really is – a collection of free thinking individuals each with their own goals and aspirations. Just because something is “secular” does not mean it is based on reason or is legitimate.
Reason is not just “one” mode of knowing, it is the ONLY mode of knowing. Faith is not a legitimate mode of knowing.
Rights are not the creation of religion – and no mythical “god” can grant them. Rights flow naturally from the basic metaphysics of existence. We are all born with the same right – the right to live – and all other rights flow naturally from this. States, governments or spirits cannot grant rights. States can only choose to respect and protect them, or disrespect and abrogate them.
The American ideal of liberty is not that mankind’s highest aspiration is to seek union with God – that is merely some mystic claptrap that you choose to believe, as is your right. No, the American ideal of liberty is that each and every American has the right to pursue his own happiness just so long as it doesn’t involve the physical coercion of others.
I will say this again. If you seriously think that the future of this country lies in the marriage of the state with Christianity, then you have a fight on your hands. I will not sit back and allow irrational mystics to wield power over me or my family. I will however, fight for your freedom to practice your mystic mumbo jumbo as you see fit, just so long as you understand that you have no right to force it down the throats of anyone else. Religion is your business. It has no place in the state, period.
Well you people that want to turn the conservative movement or the GOP into a Libertarian Party can count me out. I can abide libertarians inside the movement as fellow travelers, but I cannot abide them changing the definition of Conservatism. Libertarianism is not really Conservatism to me at all. If Socialism is along the path to Communism, Libertarianism is along the path to Conservatism. Libertarians have figured out that their pockets are being picked, but they have not gotten beyond that yet.
Libertarianism is just another Christian heresy like Socialism. It is still pure materialistic and economic determinism. It is, in fact, a sort of right wing version of Socialism, and just about as unrealistic and as utopia as is Socialism. It, like Socialism, is an abstract, sterile ideology at odds with the true nature of man, the world and civilization. When it collides with these realities all of the problems of ideological collectivism will reemerge.
Man’s ultimate task is the journey back to God, and that is what liberty is for.
“Libertarian Man” is as mythical of a beast as “Socialist Man”. He will never come to be; he will never arrive.
Try as we might, we will never arrive at that libertarian paradise, the depraved and sinful nature of Mankind will derail us long before the promised land is ever reached.
Trying to get there, however, might just cause as much damage as the Socialist’s “experiment with reality”. What do we do while we are waiting for the “libertarian paradise” to arrive? I’d bet most of us would get enslaved by the more brutal and ambitious of “libertarian avant garde”.
And how are the sick, the old, the incapable, the broken-hearted, the orphaned innocent — those that cannot fend for themselves — to live in that brave new libertarian world? How is the necessary vulnerability of fatuous fledgling youth? How are the wise protected from the stupid? The visionaries from the mob? Do we just step over them in the street? License seems to be the religion. Are there holy men there? Is God there? If he is, do we obey him?
Libertarianism at once assumes too much of mankind and too little.
It has a naive (and parasitic) view of history, what it deep value is, how civilizations comes to be, how they maintains themselves and how they decay and die. But most importantly, Libertarianism has childish view of mankind’s relationships to civilization and it to them.
For all but a few men, In all of his social forms, the individual, in a group, in the crowded mass, man is more shaped by civilization than man gives shapes to it. Duty and sacrifice are more pressing than desire often enough. Some will follow nobler men’s examples, but other will resist, what then? War? Self-absorption is not freedom nor is license liberty.
We cannot have civilization without hierarchy, nor without collective histories, myths and reflection on the value and meaning of things past present an future, and all of this take place in time itself too, sometimes across generations. It is much more than the sum of individual actors and their desires and qualities.
How will the mere intersection of all individual desires that do not impinge on another create a truly worthy civilization? How are we assured that these are the best values to have? Will we not end up with the most trivial? Is the common denominator of the satiation of inoffensive appetites liberty, or merely license for the most banal?
How does the libertarian place value — and distribute cost amd reward — of inherited civilization (language, modes of knowing,institutions, traditions, etc.)? How does he maintain one, build anew on it and transmit it across generations? What about its institutions? For example: How is a someone like Einstein and his work (and the facilities for it) subsidized? Valued accurately? Seems like there is some sort of taxation, some sort of collective resource allocation, some sort of suspension of judgment and then a later evaluation. It is starting to sound like sort of aristocracy is needed for all of this. Are libertarians concerned with civilization at all? They seem pretty solipsistic to me. I am not sure that selfishness is the the basis of a civilization, which after God and family is the highest calling. Libertarianism inverts the true longings of man. The superior man seeks to transcend himself, not indulge himself.
Even so:
How are rights claimed? Adjudicated? Enforced? Who decides? Who pays for the judges, the cops? Who are the judges, the cops? Who watches the watchers? Libertarian ethics are hardly tested by the real world, they are little more than wishful thinking at the moment. How do we start? Do we start with the Judeo-christian heritage or start from scratch? If the former, how does that work and make sense? What happens when some decides that might make right? Are rights given by God or man? If that later, then wy respect them?
I am never satisfied with the answers I get to these questions from libertarians.
There is an inherit solipsism and narcissism in the notion that the full gamut of the human is only accommodated by satiation of human desire, of the fulfillment of selfishness. Man does not live by bread alone.
No, sooner or later we are back where we started, and the solution is good old pragmatic American Conservatism as a refinement of the spiritual, practical, social, intellectual and political experiences and lessons of Western Civilization.
We live in a world not of our own making, and have to try to find our way as best we can. Best hold on to what works.
“Libertarianism is just another Christian heresy like Socialism. It is still pure materialistic and economic determinism. It is, in fact, a sort of right wing version of Socialism, and just about as unrealistic and as utopia as is Socialism. It, like Socialism, is an abstract, sterile ideology at odds with the true nature of man, the world and civilization. When it collides with these realities all of the problems of ideological collectivism will reemerge.”
Brilliant post by Voice of reason #59
I know a couple who now are firmly rooted in socialist politics who, years ago, were on the Right and were Libertarians. They were that way when they were making a lot of money, but they are down on their luck and are down with government freebies. Firmly rooted in materialism, both are atheists who deny the spiritual nature of the human being. It saddens me to see people in the throes of these heresies, but we cannot compel them to recant their errors.
I am against recasting the conservative movement in strictly libertarian terms. But I am for having libertarians in the tent. I don’t want to push my Christian views on them, but I will not tolerate militant atheism trying to marginalize us. My experience with most atheists runs this way: I respect them, even if I disagree with them. Many, maybe most, neither respect me nor my views. Somehow we Christians are a threat to them, without us even opening our mouths. I would prefer a respectful truce.
59. Voice of reason:
You’re completely at odds with reality. What really bothers me though is that a libertarian society gives you the full freedom, as an individual, to worship however you please – with no interference or coersion from others. In fact your right to do so is protected – as is the right of anyone of any religion, not just Christianity. Yet your idea of conservatism – based on Christianity – does not give me the chance to escape from religion. Under a government of your choosing, I am ruled not according to laws derived from an objective reality which is real, but from laws derived from a spirit world I do not believe in.
YOUR ultimate task may well some fictional “journey back to God” (which exists only in your mind) but it is not mine, nor is it the ultimate task of millions of others who do not share your faith.
You make the ridiculous claim that libertarianism and socialism are just two sides of the same coin – which means, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have no real grasp of the nature of either. They are nothing like each other. They are not symmetrical in any way. In fact, your religious belief has a lot more in common with socialism than libertarianism. You claim that “man” has an ultimate task. A duty, if you will. This is a collectivist belief. It ignores reality: that all individuals are different and have their own dreams, aspirations, goals and priorities. Socialists evade reality in the same way in their insistence that all men have a “common goal.”
To say that libertarianism is just a “right wing version of socialism” is to know neither. I suggest you go back to your learnin’ books and read s’more.
There is no such thing as a “libertarian paradise.” It does not pretend to be Utopia. It just recognizes the inalienable right of every individual to be free to live his life how he pleases, so long as it doesn’t involve abrogating the rights of others to do the same. There is nothing complicated or “fancy” about it. There is no “ultimate goal” to strive toward. Each man is an individual with his own goal. If he wishes to collaborate with others on his goal, he is free to do so. There is nothing unrealistic about it.
What is also apparent is that you have a cartoon stereotype of “libertarianism” in your head, which you refer to in your condemnation of it. Like many others, you confuse libertarianism with anarchy. It is in fact a wide spectrum of belief, from the leftist “hippy” libertarianism to the right-leaning libertarianism in which the rule of law is essential. I do not propose anarchy, since anarchy is not freedom. Without a rule of law to protect the rights of individuals and to prevent the initiation of physical force from one man to another, nobody is free; they are at the mercy of criminals and savages. You would do well in future posts to presume that I don’t propose anarchy – this will save you a lot of time (and hot air). If you wish to argue with anarchists then I suggest you go find an anarchists forum and vent your spleen there.
To answer your question:
“How are the sick, the old, the incapable, the broken hearted, the orphaned innocent – those who cannot fend for themselves – to live in that brave new libertarian world?”
My answer is that YOU are free to help them. As am I, or anyone else. But unlike your ideal society, I am not forced to help anybody. I may, if I wish, choose to devote my life to the well being of my own friends and family, as is my right. Those who genuinely cannot fend for themselves can appeal to private charity. Please don’t give me the usual “in a liberatarian world everyone is mean and nobody will care” because that is just pure baloney. Left to their own devices, humans help each other. They do not need a state or some religious dogma to force them to do it. They do not need the threat of jail or Hell. But in a world in which charity is a matter of choice, then someone like me has the option of not donating their money to a charity which helps those whose misfortune is of their own choosing, for instance drug addicts or welfare bums who choose not to work. When giving is a matter of choice, those types of people are far less likely to be able to mooch off the generosity of others and will have no choice but to buck up their ideas and work for a living. In a world of religious altruism, or socialism, there is more incentive to evade responsibility and the requirements and responsibilities of survival. Observe the bloated monstrosity that is the welfare state, the living embodiment of the doctrine of altrusim – wherein the poor are paid to stay poor.
You ask: “How are the wise protected from the stupid?”
They are protected from the stupid because they don’t have to deal with them. If “the stupid” threaten their lives or wish to abrogate their lives, that is what law enforcement is for. In a world of socialism or religious altruism, I am less protected from the stupid in that I am forced to be enslaved to the consequences of their stupidity. If their stupidity compels them to make all the wrong decisions and live the life of a parasite, I am compeled to contribute toward their upkeep.
You speak of civilization as if man has a duty toward it, a duty to “sacrifice.” I think your doctrine of self-sacrifice is evil and I will fight it at every step of the way. Civilization is a society of traders who trade value for value. In a fully moral society, individuals trade of their own volition, of their own will. In such a society, a hierarchy exists. But it is a fluid hierarchy, one in which people can move up if they’re prepared to make the effort – and down if they wish to unfocus their minds.
What is it about libertarianism that you believe will eliminate “collective histories”? I don’t ever recall reading anything which even suggests that history should be eliminated. Likewise, you are free to believe in or worship whatever myth you like. I think you are having trouble even picturing the concept of “freedom.” You’re frightened of libertarianism not because you believe it will take away your freedom to practice religion, but because you rightly think that it will take away the power to force religion down people’s throats. This is why you desire a religious conservative state – you wish to use that state to compel people to practice religion. What is it about “stay out of the minds of me and my family” do you religious fanatics not understand? Who is stopping you from being a Christian? Who WOULD stop you? Maybe in a Marxist society, but not in a libertarian one.
The bottom line is that for all of your rhetoric about liberty being the “path to God,” you don’t want freedom. You’re terrified of it. You hate it. You recoil in disgust from it. Every question mark in your previous post represents a morbid fear of liberty. You do not respect the inalienable right of the individual to live his life as he pleases. Either this, or you really DO think that you’re arguing with an anarchist. I suggest that you have a long hard think about what you ARE fighting against here, because it sure doesn’t sound like the libertarianism that I propose.
Most of your questions are irrelevant and nonsensical. For instance, “How does the libertarian place value – and distribute cost and reward – of inherited civilization (language, modes of knowing, institutions, traditions, etc.)?” What the hell does this even mean? It is up to the individual how much he values “inherited civilization.” It is in his best interest to value language. His modes of knowing are his business. Whether or not he follows traditions is his business. It is certainly none of yours if I choose to ignore tradition. Please stop insinuating that it is. What do you mean by “distribute cost and reward” of these things? People do not need the coersion of the state to: discover knowledge, pass information across generations, maintain language, etc. If people value a subsidized system of research then they are free to contribute toward it. There is no need for a system of taxation to fund it. I don’t even know where you’re coming from when you suggest that “some sort of aristocracy is needed.”
It’s actually getting to the point where it’s impossible to debate with you because very little of what you say makes sense – not in the context of itself, or in the context of this debate, or any proposed libertarian society that I know of. You’re basically arguing against something which libertarian is not. As I suspect, you’re of the impression that libertarianism is anarchy. It is not. If it were, we would just refer to it as “anarchy,” don’t you worry about that.
In a free capitalist system, a libertarian system with the rule of law to protect individual rights, the only taxation needed is to provide: law enforcement, national defense and a court system. There are many viable ways even in which this could be funded without taxes. For instance, whenever a contract is made between two parties, an optional fee – based on a percentage of the value of the contract – could be paid by both parties in order to “insure” the contract, so that if one side were to break the contract the other would have the means to appeal to the law courts. The state would in fact be selling a form of “insurance” for contracts – and like all insurance, this would raise a surplus of funds above what was required to deal with broken contracts in the courts. Given how many financial contracts of one kind or another are entered into each day, the percentage required to fund a basic system of law and defense would be very small.
But aside from ideas like this, even a flat rate tax would be acceptable. Without the bloat of a welfare state which interferes in virtually every aspect of our lives and financial transactions, as we have now, the rate at which we would need to be taxed would be very small, and we would only be paying for things which benefit us – the protection of our rights. We should not have to pay taxes to fund welfare or any other form of involuntary wealth distribution.
I will repeat this one more time, so that it sinks in. I am not religious. I do not have any spiritual beliefs at all. This is none of your business – nor is it of any concern of mine what you think of me in consequence. I do not care if you believe I am a sinner who is going to “hell.” I believe in neither heaven or hell. You do not have the right to force any of your beliefs on me and therefore I will fight any attempt by you or anyone else to rule me by laws derived from a mythical fantasy of spirits from beyond the grave. If you wish to occupy your mind with this irrational bunkum, then knock yourself out! In my proposed libertarian society, I will even protect your right to do so.
60. fred:
I have no respect for your friends – they obviously have no integrity, nor in my opinion any sense of morals, if they so easily opted to sponge off the efforts of others. They are no advertisement for libertarianism, either way.
Neither do I understand what on Earth makes you believe that libertarians or atheists are trying to “marginalize” you. Are you of the belief that such people wish to stop you from worshiping or practicing your religion in any way? If so, I can correct you – they’re not.
So what do you want from government in terms of religion? The right to practice freely? You have it. What more do you want? A government BASED upon religion? If this IS what you want, then you have a fight on your hands. However, you say that you don’t wish to force religion on anyone else – well that’s great, I think we’re both agreed then that religion should be completely separate from the state. Suits me.
Why do I even bother trying to explain what I mean when Ayn Rand said it best…here she is, the master, addressing the GOP candidates in 1961 and basically outlining exactly what’s wrong with the conservative movement (a clue: it’s not “not enough religion!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA
One problem with this title – Ahnuld is not a Republican anymore. Politicians who want to raise taxes, nationalize health care, and put in place economic controls (e.g., green regulations) are called Democrats. I don’t even know if we could call him a RINO as he is now an unabashed leftist, unlike quasi-centrists like McCain. Where is the man who used to give “Free to Choose” to his friends?
I think pursuing the mass Latino vote is a pipe dream. The GOP’s only prayer here is to take a segemented approach by focusing on three sub-populations. The Republicans should assiduously court and educate the following three populations (ideally single issue voter):
–The Successful who depend on free markets
–Blue Collar Workers who see their livelihood threatened by a constant stream of new arrivals who drive down their wages (this group is far larger than the press wants you to think)
–and the Faith Based you discussed
With these three segments, the Republicans might start capturing 40%+ again. Hoping to capture an overwheling majority without juicy handouts will never work, just as it hasn’t worked with other groups who are or hope to be dependent on the state.
A Clay:
To hit the second point (Latino Blue Collars) you need a high profile convert e.g. a Sanchez sister gone full to the other side. Also, a fourth subgroup may be victims of crime/gang violence; get to them by being a strong 287g and 2nd amendment party. President Nixon’s “split the country – ours will be the far larger share” could be applied to the Latino community as well (well I’d be happy with 51%).
Tactics. Strategy. To what purpose if there is no underlying discipline of thought behind it or no believable case to be made for the human good of a party’s ideological foundation?
What does it mean to say that you are a conservative? A Libertarian. And I mean what do these lables mean in terms of actual policy.
I must confess that I am rather simple minded in this. I am a conservative, because I wish to conserve the best part of America, which is the Constitution, as written, and as it should properly be enforced. When I joined the military (two branches that cover a span of more than 18 years) I pledged defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am, by disposition, training, and experience, a conservator of the American freedoms so eloquently voiced in the Constitution.
Freedom to succeed. Freedom to fail. The right to be considered equal under law, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation. The right to be graded not by an inherited social caste system, but by my merits. The right to have a level playing field, where a fairly grounded rule of law regulates the players so that the game is not rigged unfairly. The right to speak my mind. The liberty to protect the lives of my children and my neighbors with deadly force, if need be. The right to be contrary, to be able to exist as an individual in a sea of mass movement and groupthink. To defy the tryanny of the many, just as I defy the tryanny of the few. To have an elightened social framework that allows for differences between individuals, that gives succor to aged, the weak, the infirm and the helpless. These are the things that America has written into her very fabric, and these things I will defend.
Give me a party that does that, and I will join it. Today. I guarantee it can win the nation in any fair election.
nice job voice of reason…
if that was jason s two cents worth, i’m afraid the poorboy is owed some change.