I held onto the same position for years, and for the same reason. But sometimes there does come a time to re-examine things, and see if there might be a better way to proceed.
I agree. Let’s start by refusing-refusing- to cede the battle ground of semantics to the left. For years, libertarians and conservatives have essentially said, “Okay, I see your point and therefore move to defend my position using different words.” The result? Our next position is labeled racist, homophobic, etc. I for one have tired of this little game. Words means things, and allowing dishonest folk to distort the clear intent of the utterer on a daily basis has made us weaker.
Ehh, Jeff Goldstein has made- and still makes- this point much more eloquently that I can, so I’ll stop this line of argument. But as others have pointed out, the idea of states rights predates Jim Crow. The fact that some people are either (a) historically illiterate or (b) dishonest (lefties, take a bow) or (c) both, does not mean that I should enable their crap.
A better way to proceed? How about our political opponents debating our ideas honestly and openly, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and distortions? If the Left should choose to engage me in that manner, they and I will have some good back and forth. Until that day though, they can sod off.
