Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

by
Paula Bolyard

Bio

December 27, 2013 - 7:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page
YouTube Preview Image

Neal Boortz, subbing for Sean Hannity on his radio show on the day after Christmas, took the opportunity to unload a heap of libertarian wrath upon social conservatives, saying that Republicans will not win another election if they continue ”screaming and yelling about abortion, about gay rights, about prayer in school.” Boortz spat the words “social conservative Republicans” into the airwaves as he railed against (some unnamed) Republicans who, apparently “obsessed” with social issues, are running around the country raging against the forces trying to take prayer out of school. Boortz seemed particularly upset with Republicans who want to peer into everyone’s bedrooms to find out who is sleeping with whom.

During the three-hour show, Boortz dragged out nearly every straw man that the left uses to waylay Republicans in elections, using a few isolated cases as the exemplars of social conservatism in the GOP.

Perhaps Boortz has missed this development, but Rick Santorum is no longer the face of the Republican Party and he’s not even the face of social conservatism. For that matter, even during the course of his presidential campaign, Santorum was not much of a social crusader. The left and their collaborators in the media are the ones who are “obsessed” with social issues, having put them on the front lines of the 2012 campaign, including their contrived War on Women. Santorum could hardly stick to name, rank, and serial number when he was relentlessly badgered about abortion, gay marriage, and contraception on the campaign trail. At least he had the decency to be intellectually honest about his views rather than taking the politically expedient route.

But social conservatives have, by and large, moved on. If you look at the list of supposed presidential contenders (according to a recent Fox News poll), none are “screaming” about social issues. Leaving Christie out of this discussion because he seems to be evolving at the moment, all of the others on the list have professed, to one degree or another, support for the social conservative agenda. But which one of those potential candidates is running around the country “screaming” about them?

Instead, most social conservatives have shifted the debate to the issue of liberty. There is every reason to believe that it’s a winning strategy for Republicans to defend freedom and liberty — freedom of speech, religious liberty, the right to life. Even many on the left are beginning to reject the absurd and illiberal trajectory of what Mark Steyn has called the Bureau of Conformity Enforcement. When even liberal feminist Camille Paglia describes the fisking of a 67-year-old Christian grandfather from Louisiana as  ”punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist,” we know that support for this battle for freedom of conscience is growing by the hour. Though social issues are necessarily rooted in religious and moral questions, that’s not the only way to discuss them in the public square, as many conservatives are learning. 

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Neal Boortz (I have listened to him and read one of his books) is a pompous windbag who is overly impressed with himself.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Many people here are holding forth on electoral numbers that bear no relation to reality.

Romney was your "value-free" candidate, and people stayed home -- because he did not take a stand on social issues that affect every aspect of the economy, quality of life, and children's futures. Had he done so, he may have won -- this is based on polling, not fantasy.

Every time I've addressed a room in the last two years, which I do often, the majority of people are social conservatives -- being told to sit down and shut up by a loud handful of libertarians, who are also, curiously frequently, the most rigid and obsessive ideologues you'll ever meet. It's their way or the highway -- the highway built only in their minds because otherwise it would impinge on free choice.

Libertarianism avoids hard truths. It imagines that we can avoid social policies that involve family while whining about the welfare rolls -- without acknowledging any relation between the two. It is willful ignorance dressed up in theoretical economics, attractive as a theory but absurd in the face of both reality and reason (wildly ironic that their journal claims that title). From crime to drug abuse to family structure, libertarians imagine they are operating in an ideal world of perfect people waiting only to be freed from their "chains" of government. They are utopians, and utopia does not exist.

They do a great deal of harm to the Tea Party movement, especially when they come calling through the impetus of national groups like Freedomworks and AFP, the latter of which engages in outright deceit towards the grasssroots while bugging them for money -- then they try to conceal where that money is going. It's all extremely unhealthy and not at all "libertarian" in practice.

In order for a conservative candidate to win, what we need is a conservative messenger with a conservative message and nothing more. That is the road not travelled. Meanwhile, I wish libertarians would at least practice what they preach and try to stop demanding blind fealty from everyone around them. They're pretty darn belligerent for people who score less than 1% of an election -- and who put dirty pols like Bob Barr on their ticket.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
My view is that radical leftism (and their boy toy...radical Islam) are the real danger.

All else is secondary to me at the moment.

The defeat of radicalism and its totalitarian inevitability demands that all other squabbles be put aside to win a war of their making.

It must be fought on a battleground that is rife with rigged information. communication and propaganda.

Moreover, the "designated hitter" for "our team"...can't hit a curve ball, a fastball or a slider. They are horrible at messaging and articulating a coherent message.

So...no...I am not suggesting less "debate"...I'm suggesting that self-immolation for your "higher principles" is not the best strategy given the condition of the theater in which this war must be waged...and won.

I'm all for high-minded theory....just as soon as we dig our freedom and liberty out of the dirt.

Moran is someone who likes to elevate himself on the necks of those he pretends to serve. He tries to make his birthday cake brighter by blowing out conservative candles. His constant moral relativism and "half a loaf" style deludes him into believing that he is ' above the fray". That he is "better and wiser and more contemplative" than the two screeching sides of left and right.

He's wrong on all counts. His arguments are weak and sniveling because they are all about making him the holy arbiter and mediator...while positioning an imaginary fight, with an imaginary plot in which he is the hero against two antagonists. He's a fool.

My point is, there IS right and wrong. Totalitarianism IS the enemy. Moran gets it wrong. And, anyone who weakens the fight against it...isn't doing us any favors. No matter how high minded their intent.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (268)
All Comments   (268)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The kids are not buying into the vagina police. They have seen the drug police up close and personal and are not buying it. It is a hole in Rand Paul's armament.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
As a matter of conscience, I will not vote for a third McCain/Romney/______. I have always considered a non-vote as a positive vote for the opposition. But I will not vote for an "evolved" candidate whose principals at this juncture in his career are so maliable that they conveniently change during the primary season. In Arizona we describe that as McCain. Now, a non-vote is a positive vote for a painful and significant change in the direction of this country.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the Federal government stuck to it's authorization, its' job would be limited to: 1. National defense, 2. Court system (contracts/criminal). Also, it should be limited ONLY to controlling the States (which are its' members), not individuals (which is the job of the State, County, Municipal governments). This is what appeals to me about Libertarianism.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Goodbye and good riddance to you, Sean the Stormfronter. You will not be missed.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Libertarians are godless fiscal conservatives who are driven to erase government from any thrill they may one day desire. They suppose Christians must be for theocracy out of ignorance, buying the communist party line intended to wreck fear in their hearts whole cloth, dupes too lazy to investigate the truth but useful to the opposition. An opponent who thinks himself intellectual is easy prey, and may be used against his best friends.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps some libertarians are the godless bigots you make us out.
Some are religious, even morally conservative about our own lives while declining to give others authority over our lives or to take authority over the lives of others.
Some, like me, believe in morality and responsibility but we may disagree with others about what is actually immoral.
I don't assume that Christians favor theocracy, but I do worry about people who think that we should legislate on the sexual activities of consenting adults just as I worry about people who think we should legislate on the terms of healthcare finance and insurance. I am as much in favor of the right of a photographer to turn down any request as I am in favor of a photographer's right to accept any request.
You paint libertarians with as broad and clumsy a brush as you claim libertarians do Christians. That brush is too broad and clumsy in any hands.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm disappointed that Neal, Champion of the Fair Tax, can be so woefully off the mark. The issue isn't "social conservatism," whatever that is. The issue is getting government OUT of the business of social micromanagement, and letting the free citizens of America make their own decisions.

He thinks REPUBLICANS are the ones peering into bedrooms? Major facepalm. Let's ride the logic train -- say that liberals make same-gender marriage the law of the land. Can a single straight guy marry his single straight guy roommate for a few years, for the insurance and tax benefits? Of course not: because the issue isn't "same-gender marriage" at all -- it's "homosexual marriage." And that means you will have to somehow be provably a homosexual. And just HOW will your Federal Government ascertain that you are actively having anal sex with your roommate? Obviously, the only logical solution to this quagmire is to get the government OUT of the marriage business altogether. It's nowhere in the enumerated federal powers granted in the founding documents.

On the matters of abortion and prayer in schools, I can only shake my head sadly and wonder if Neal has read those very documents that he purports to defend. Phrases like "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life", and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" come to mind. Even a cursory reading will reveal to Neal that his gold plated "separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found.

Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans alike in Washington all seem to have forgotten that the purpose of the Great Experiment is to give the people the FREEDOM to live their own lives as they see fit. ANY Federal regulation that curtails individual freedom is antithetical to the very concept of the Federal Government. The only solution at this point is to vote out EVERYONE in Washington, send all the septuagenarian plutocratic career politicians home en masse, and start over with young patriots that will strip this bloated, diseased, insane government to the bone and start OVER. Slash EVERY government program that is not SPECIFICALLY delineated in the text of the Constitution, interpreted as originally understood by its authors.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Social Conservatives have less influence in Republican Party politics now than in any time in decades. The Tea Party is fiscal issue dominated. It's not the moral majority but time and time again all I hear about is Republican so called obsession with social issues.

It's actually the other way around. The left is obsessed with social issues which is why the media always peppers Republicans with questions about them.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bingo. The Left is driving the Culture War and has been for decades.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
And the social conservatives play along instead of dropping out. Well played in a perverse sort of way.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
I suppose that I am a "social conservative". Please consider my problem with libertarians whom I consider to be moral nihilists. I live in Germany, a country that decades ago selected some 6 million innocent people (of course I am refering to the Jews) and killed them. There were millions of others such as Slaves either killed or on the list of innocent people to be killed. This weighs upon me, and heavily. The killing of innocent people is certainly murder, agreed? I thought you all would.

Americans since 1973 (or thereabouts) has killed over 54 million innocent human beings, beings that happened to be not yet born. The killing of innocent people is murder, no? Did not the reader agree with me a couple of sentences ago? Got you! So, following my logic America is invoved in MASS murder. The German murderers have sensitized my conscience. So too the American murderers. And so too the wagging of the tongue my so many libertarians.

Please think this over before you sideline "social conseratives", as you may find that we do not vote. I have, re murder, difficulty in distinguishing between the then commander and chief of Germany and the current American commander and chief. I find myself in a bind, so much so that I cannot recite with full conscience the Pledge of Allegiance (not legally required anyway). For the moment we have an incipient Robespierre striving for tryannical control. I can join with libitarian nihilists against the greater evil, but there are limits. Think it over before you write my type of conservatism off.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
You choose to drive on whichever side of the road that fits your viewpoint, no need for speed laws, no restrictions on taking your neighbor's property, no need to pay for stuff at the store, -- we don't need no steenkin laws.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
No need for drug prohibition and no need for vagina police either.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Most of my friends are libertarians. For the most part, they’re decent folks, better than most in my view. But I’ll never be a libertarian so long as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only applies to the lottery winners of society’s sexual free-for-all. Protection from murder only exists for those who have a birth certificate, for those with the documents, with the legals.

But who’s going to enforce contracts? Are we all going to be men of our word? Marriage? They say: It’s a religious, a private matter. Divorce? They say: It’s a personal matter and the state can’t say who we should marry or who we should stay married to. Divorce? They say: And who needs alimony these days? And there is no such things as alienation of affection anymore!

Who’s going to enforce payments made to care for a child the husband rightly leaves because his inner bliss has been directed elsewhere? His pursuit of happiness is the girl down the street. He says: Hell, we were never married anyway! Why should I give her anything anyway? I have a new woman to support; let her find her own way! Inheritance? We have DNA testing now. Let the state pay for testing for every child born on the other side of the sheets, and give each his share.

Right to life? That’s only for the ones who drew their first breath, and drew it with permission. The others, the unwanted (unwanted by as few as just one person), the discomforting of the mother, of the disadvantaging of the father, and of society; to them No Permission.

Libertarians want to be left to live freely as they see fit. But until they acknowledge the right to be born, they're as bad as any other well-meaning communist dictator.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Flicker, thanks for your words here. This post of yours describes perfectly why I consider libertarians as just liberals with a different name.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy Ken and Flicker
Libertarians cover a wide range. I think the key point of being libertarian is to keep the government confined to public goods and public business -- which includes contract enforcement, incidentally, and thus the dissolution of a marriage with property and children.
Elective abortion is the great stumbling block. I think almost everyone would prefer that no woman want an abortion -- but that isn't the world we have and it never has been. Given that the unborn child has to be within a woman, I remain very leery about using legislation to control that woman's body.
Remember, too, in any area where you want to legislate -- if you grant the power to compel, you grant the power to forbid, and vice versa. It is a power to grant very sparingly indeed.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Uh huh. Libertarians like me consider conservatives as just liberals with a different name. Conservatives love big government every bit as much as liberals, which means they're every bit as bad.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you are confusing Conservatives with neo-cons and RINOs. They may all call themselves Republicans, but they are NOT all Conservatives.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm more a conservative but have definite libertarian leanings, however I take umbrage with lumping conservatives with liberals as big government types. It's a ridiculous argument. Give me an example of a conservative that loves big government, and George W Bush doesn't count.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
A libertarian might say that, if you think Lawrence v Texas was a moral failure, you're a fan of government in an area where we're not. "Big government" covers a multitude of meddling actions.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All