The End of American Conservatism?
Posted by: Editorial Staff | 10/27/2008 6:04 PM
Submitted by Christopher W. Arledge
The Republican Party seems destined to suffer its second consecutive crushing defeat. Democrats will likely have a charismatic young president and huge majorities in both houses of Congress. The Left rejoices, arguing that the American people are about to take their side in a resounding referendum against conservatism. And commentators of all political persuasions believe this may prove to be a nation-defining election, that Barack Obama may, like a latter-day FDR, re-shape this country in dramatic and lasting fashion. It may be time to ask: Is there still hope for conservatives in America?
Conservatives, of course, take pride in realism. Unlike liberals, we are skeptical of any (worldly) schemes to perfect man or achieve an earthly utopia. We seek only to protect -- to conserve -- those institutions and ideas best proven to secure order and guarantee liberty. Thus, for a conservative, there is no point in pining for a world that does not exist. If America is about to lurch to the left, following in the footsteps of its western European cousins, we conservatives have little choice but to preserve what we can from the powerful forces of liberalism, which champion amorphous change over caution and good intentions over the lessons of history. If nothing else, we must, in the words of the father of modern American conservatism, "stand[] athwart history, yelling Stop."
But I suspect there is much we can still accomplish. We must start, of course, by recognizing the importance of fighting for conservative principles. This probably sounds obvious; but judging from the GOP's recent history, it must not be. President Bush, though undoubtedly conservative in his personal life and not without some conservative political instincts, ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" -- apparently to distinguish his philosophy from the cold-hearted, unforgiving conservatism favored by the rest of us. In reality, however, compassionate conservatism was little more than squishy conservatism striving for popularity: by watering down conservative principles to make them more palatable for a public thirsting for goodies such as prescription drugs, we get substantial growth in the federal government, but we also establish a permanent Republican majority. Well, we got one out of two.
And now conservatives turn to Senator McCain, a man with a remarkable biography and love of country ... and one who has spent the better part of his political life self-righteously poking conservatives in the eye on the major issues of the day. Senator McCain is undoubtedly more conservative than Senator Obama -- talk about grading on a curve! -- but he has failed to articulate any consistent conservative message over the course of his campaign. It was probably too much to expect the self-proclaimed "maverick" -- defined as unreliable to conservative causes and inherently unpredictable -- to be an effective champion of conservative ideals. But if 2008 really is to be a referendum on conservatism, it would be nice if we at least had a conservative spokesperson to make our case. Instead, our champion seems to believe that the fundamental prerequisite for the next president is the ability to "reach across the aisle" - that is, work with Democrats in Congress. But if this election is a referendum on a candidate's ability to work closely with Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, we might forgive the American people for thinking that Barack Obama is a more logical choice.
Conservatives must also recognize that while this is still a center-right country, most voters are pragmatic with their politics. Unless a majority of voters understands that liberalism undermines the foundations of this country and threatens what makes it special, the "free" goodies of liberalism will always be a sweet temptation.
Because the current election is dominated by economics, we should begin there. Democratic governments always run the risk of degenerating into a system of plundering the wealthy to enrich the masses. There is certainly a taste of such class warfare in the current election, with the Democratic candidates lambasting as pro-wealthy a system in which the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the tax burden and where about 40% of the people pay no federal income taxes at all. And, indeed, many people are attracted to the promise of government benefits, especially when they are struggling, and most especially when the promisor makes clear that only other people will foot the bill.
But America is different than most other countries in a way that should give conservatives hope. Never having had a rigid class system, this country has always been a place where hard-working people can go as far as their talents will take them. This optimistic belief in upward mobility is so widespread that it spawned its own slogan: the American dream. Most Americans don't want to punish the rich; they want to join them. And most Americans truly believe that they -- or at least their children -- can do just that. That is why we should not be intimidated by the liberals' economic demagoguery. The American people are nervous, and they are attracted to federal-government goodies; but they do not buy into the pictures painted by liberal politicians, who speak as if the slums of a Dickens novel came to life eight years ago and took over our country. As conservatives, we must make clear that liberalism's redistributionist tendencies result in bad outcomes for the middle and lower classes by reducing economic growth and job opportunities. We must also make clear that punishing success threatens the American Dream itself, because a drift toward socialism and reliance on government support means that voters and their children can never achieve the upward mobility and financial success for which they work so hard.
Conservatives must also teach the American people that liberalism is, at its core, a philosophy dedicated to undermining the traditional social institutions that support our country. Liberals deny the importance of social issues, trying to minimize their biggest electoral weakness by calling it a distraction, and writing books to figure out why the knuckleheads in Kansas continue to vote against their (alleged) economic self-interest. But the fact remains that liberals are on the attack against traditional religion, family structures, and even the idea of America itself, and the
American people are rightly troubled by that fact.
Unlike most nations, Americans are not joined together by a common culture or ethnicity. Instead, we are joined by an idea. In Lincoln's words, this nation is an experiment in self-government. Liberalism threatens the experiment in two ways. First, liberalism seeks to sacrifice the shared values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence on the alter of multiculturalism, a belief that the traditional American way of life is not special, and that the only worthy philosophy is that of "tolerance." Hence liberals scoff at conservative warnings that unlimited immigration without assimilation is a threat to the American way of life. But in a country where the people lack a common heritage, language, or philosophy, what allows us to avoid a Balkanization of the nation into warring interest groups that simply share geographic territory? Liberals sidestep the question and scream "Xenophobia!", but they have no historical examples for their assertion that disparate peoples united by nothing can live in harmony. And with the American way of life at risk, faith in liberals' unproven vision is a risky proposition.
Second, by undermining and attacking Americans' faith in our founding and historic creeds, liberalism threatens to destroy our best hope for true equality and progress. The greatest of the liberals, thinkers like Dr. King, pointed to America's founding and the principles enshrined in our founding documents as checks to waiting to be cashed. They saw America as a nation of great promise that had not yet lived up to its ideals. Yet too many modern liberals reject America completely. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American tirades are a glimpse into modern American liberalism. Supporters of Senator Obama called any discussion of Wright a distraction from the real issues. It was anything but. Once we reject America as that shining city upon a hill, as the last best hope for mankind, we have nothing left but a fight over the spoils between the races and classes. This is precisely what Jeremiah Wright promotes. Conservatives must fight to oppose it.
Likewise, in seeking to free people from what they see as the stifling influences of traditional religion and morality, liberals threaten to undermine the social institutions and norms that made this nation prosperous and free in the first place. We can already see the effects of liberalism in our broken families and astronomical illegitimacy rates. Undeterred, liberals continue the assault on religion in the public square, re-writing the constitution to convince Americans that it must be strictly separated from the state, and in their attacks on traditional family arrangements. The breakdown of the family has had and will continue to have dire consequences for our nation. Yet liberals insist on attacking the traditional family in the name of "equality," all for the benefit of a small segment of the population that is already free -- without any additional legislation from representatives or the bench -- to live in their own preferred arrangements without interference.
Finally, conservatives must continue to persuade the American people that liberalism is a threat to America's security. For many decades now, liberals have been unreliable supporters of American strength and willing enablers of dictators and terrorists worldwide. And of course they would be. If you see America as a nation founded in racism and sexism, one which hypocritically proclaims ideals to which it never has and likely never will live up, then it is no wonder that you mistrust American military power. It is also no wonder that you find moral equivalence between America and its leaders and all the other nations on earth, no matter how odious. The natural consequence of liberals' tarnishing of America is an inability to see the American way of life as worthy of defense. Those who scream "God damn America" from the pulpit or cheer such declarations from the pew are not likely to stand up and defend America, especially when so-called allies refuse to support us. Instead, liberals look to world opinion to offer validation that a racist, imperialistic America needs.
Liberals' lack of faith in America probably explains their remarkably, seemingly unlimited faith in diplomacy. Because America's own failures cause many of the world's problems - and certainly cause most of the anti-Americanism and anti-American policies we encounter - liberals seem to believe that we can reform the world and end its divisions simply by talking nice to our enemies. Or maybe by electing a president who spent time in southeast Asia. If only this were true. But conservatives understand that war is not necessarily the consequence of a failure to sit around a conference room. Armed conflict has been the norm, not the exception, for all of human history, and it is unlikely to go away anytime soon. If we rest our security on the naïve belief that the whole world yearns for peace, that every world actor is a rational decision-maker sharing our satisfaction with the current international borders, our desire to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and our support for human rights, we should get ready for disappointment. Simply put, there are states and powerful non-state actors that do not share our values; and some of them want to strike and hurt us.
Liberals have not taken such challenges seriously, not since the party of Truman became the party of Carter. Conservatives must continue to explain to the American people that the world is a dangerous place, and we must have the resources and the will to protect ourselves. This means we must not give in to liberals' unending calls for drastic cuts in military spending. For many years, the greatest force for peace and freedom in this world has been the American military. A world where the American military is led by liberals who mistrust American power and are skeptical of America's intentions and goodness is a world where ruthless aggressors have the freedom to enact their evil machinations, to the detriment of liberty-lovers everywhere.
Mr. Arledge is a partner of the law firm Turner Green Afrasiabi & Arledge LLP. His e-mail address is carledge@turnergreen.com.
The Republican Party seems destined to suffer its second consecutive crushing defeat. Democrats will likely have a charismatic young president and huge majorities in both houses of Congress. The Left rejoices, arguing that the American people are about to take their side in a resounding referendum against conservatism. And commentators of all political persuasions believe this may prove to be a nation-defining election, that Barack Obama may, like a latter-day FDR, re-shape this country in dramatic and lasting fashion. It may be time to ask: Is there still hope for conservatives in America?
Conservatives, of course, take pride in realism. Unlike liberals, we are skeptical of any (worldly) schemes to perfect man or achieve an earthly utopia. We seek only to protect -- to conserve -- those institutions and ideas best proven to secure order and guarantee liberty. Thus, for a conservative, there is no point in pining for a world that does not exist. If America is about to lurch to the left, following in the footsteps of its western European cousins, we conservatives have little choice but to preserve what we can from the powerful forces of liberalism, which champion amorphous change over caution and good intentions over the lessons of history. If nothing else, we must, in the words of the father of modern American conservatism, "stand[] athwart history, yelling Stop."
But I suspect there is much we can still accomplish. We must start, of course, by recognizing the importance of fighting for conservative principles. This probably sounds obvious; but judging from the GOP's recent history, it must not be. President Bush, though undoubtedly conservative in his personal life and not without some conservative political instincts, ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" -- apparently to distinguish his philosophy from the cold-hearted, unforgiving conservatism favored by the rest of us. In reality, however, compassionate conservatism was little more than squishy conservatism striving for popularity: by watering down conservative principles to make them more palatable for a public thirsting for goodies such as prescription drugs, we get substantial growth in the federal government, but we also establish a permanent Republican majority. Well, we got one out of two.
And now conservatives turn to Senator McCain, a man with a remarkable biography and love of country ... and one who has spent the better part of his political life self-righteously poking conservatives in the eye on the major issues of the day. Senator McCain is undoubtedly more conservative than Senator Obama -- talk about grading on a curve! -- but he has failed to articulate any consistent conservative message over the course of his campaign. It was probably too much to expect the self-proclaimed "maverick" -- defined as unreliable to conservative causes and inherently unpredictable -- to be an effective champion of conservative ideals. But if 2008 really is to be a referendum on conservatism, it would be nice if we at least had a conservative spokesperson to make our case. Instead, our champion seems to believe that the fundamental prerequisite for the next president is the ability to "reach across the aisle" - that is, work with Democrats in Congress. But if this election is a referendum on a candidate's ability to work closely with Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, we might forgive the American people for thinking that Barack Obama is a more logical choice.
Conservatives must also recognize that while this is still a center-right country, most voters are pragmatic with their politics. Unless a majority of voters understands that liberalism undermines the foundations of this country and threatens what makes it special, the "free" goodies of liberalism will always be a sweet temptation.
Because the current election is dominated by economics, we should begin there. Democratic governments always run the risk of degenerating into a system of plundering the wealthy to enrich the masses. There is certainly a taste of such class warfare in the current election, with the Democratic candidates lambasting as pro-wealthy a system in which the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the tax burden and where about 40% of the people pay no federal income taxes at all. And, indeed, many people are attracted to the promise of government benefits, especially when they are struggling, and most especially when the promisor makes clear that only other people will foot the bill.
But America is different than most other countries in a way that should give conservatives hope. Never having had a rigid class system, this country has always been a place where hard-working people can go as far as their talents will take them. This optimistic belief in upward mobility is so widespread that it spawned its own slogan: the American dream. Most Americans don't want to punish the rich; they want to join them. And most Americans truly believe that they -- or at least their children -- can do just that. That is why we should not be intimidated by the liberals' economic demagoguery. The American people are nervous, and they are attracted to federal-government goodies; but they do not buy into the pictures painted by liberal politicians, who speak as if the slums of a Dickens novel came to life eight years ago and took over our country. As conservatives, we must make clear that liberalism's redistributionist tendencies result in bad outcomes for the middle and lower classes by reducing economic growth and job opportunities. We must also make clear that punishing success threatens the American Dream itself, because a drift toward socialism and reliance on government support means that voters and their children can never achieve the upward mobility and financial success for which they work so hard.
Conservatives must also teach the American people that liberalism is, at its core, a philosophy dedicated to undermining the traditional social institutions that support our country. Liberals deny the importance of social issues, trying to minimize their biggest electoral weakness by calling it a distraction, and writing books to figure out why the knuckleheads in Kansas continue to vote against their (alleged) economic self-interest. But the fact remains that liberals are on the attack against traditional religion, family structures, and even the idea of America itself, and the
American people are rightly troubled by that fact.
Unlike most nations, Americans are not joined together by a common culture or ethnicity. Instead, we are joined by an idea. In Lincoln's words, this nation is an experiment in self-government. Liberalism threatens the experiment in two ways. First, liberalism seeks to sacrifice the shared values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence on the alter of multiculturalism, a belief that the traditional American way of life is not special, and that the only worthy philosophy is that of "tolerance." Hence liberals scoff at conservative warnings that unlimited immigration without assimilation is a threat to the American way of life. But in a country where the people lack a common heritage, language, or philosophy, what allows us to avoid a Balkanization of the nation into warring interest groups that simply share geographic territory? Liberals sidestep the question and scream "Xenophobia!", but they have no historical examples for their assertion that disparate peoples united by nothing can live in harmony. And with the American way of life at risk, faith in liberals' unproven vision is a risky proposition.
Second, by undermining and attacking Americans' faith in our founding and historic creeds, liberalism threatens to destroy our best hope for true equality and progress. The greatest of the liberals, thinkers like Dr. King, pointed to America's founding and the principles enshrined in our founding documents as checks to waiting to be cashed. They saw America as a nation of great promise that had not yet lived up to its ideals. Yet too many modern liberals reject America completely. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American tirades are a glimpse into modern American liberalism. Supporters of Senator Obama called any discussion of Wright a distraction from the real issues. It was anything but. Once we reject America as that shining city upon a hill, as the last best hope for mankind, we have nothing left but a fight over the spoils between the races and classes. This is precisely what Jeremiah Wright promotes. Conservatives must fight to oppose it.
Likewise, in seeking to free people from what they see as the stifling influences of traditional religion and morality, liberals threaten to undermine the social institutions and norms that made this nation prosperous and free in the first place. We can already see the effects of liberalism in our broken families and astronomical illegitimacy rates. Undeterred, liberals continue the assault on religion in the public square, re-writing the constitution to convince Americans that it must be strictly separated from the state, and in their attacks on traditional family arrangements. The breakdown of the family has had and will continue to have dire consequences for our nation. Yet liberals insist on attacking the traditional family in the name of "equality," all for the benefit of a small segment of the population that is already free -- without any additional legislation from representatives or the bench -- to live in their own preferred arrangements without interference.
Finally, conservatives must continue to persuade the American people that liberalism is a threat to America's security. For many decades now, liberals have been unreliable supporters of American strength and willing enablers of dictators and terrorists worldwide. And of course they would be. If you see America as a nation founded in racism and sexism, one which hypocritically proclaims ideals to which it never has and likely never will live up, then it is no wonder that you mistrust American military power. It is also no wonder that you find moral equivalence between America and its leaders and all the other nations on earth, no matter how odious. The natural consequence of liberals' tarnishing of America is an inability to see the American way of life as worthy of defense. Those who scream "God damn America" from the pulpit or cheer such declarations from the pew are not likely to stand up and defend America, especially when so-called allies refuse to support us. Instead, liberals look to world opinion to offer validation that a racist, imperialistic America needs.
Liberals' lack of faith in America probably explains their remarkably, seemingly unlimited faith in diplomacy. Because America's own failures cause many of the world's problems - and certainly cause most of the anti-Americanism and anti-American policies we encounter - liberals seem to believe that we can reform the world and end its divisions simply by talking nice to our enemies. Or maybe by electing a president who spent time in southeast Asia. If only this were true. But conservatives understand that war is not necessarily the consequence of a failure to sit around a conference room. Armed conflict has been the norm, not the exception, for all of human history, and it is unlikely to go away anytime soon. If we rest our security on the naïve belief that the whole world yearns for peace, that every world actor is a rational decision-maker sharing our satisfaction with the current international borders, our desire to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and our support for human rights, we should get ready for disappointment. Simply put, there are states and powerful non-state actors that do not share our values; and some of them want to strike and hurt us.
Liberals have not taken such challenges seriously, not since the party of Truman became the party of Carter. Conservatives must continue to explain to the American people that the world is a dangerous place, and we must have the resources and the will to protect ourselves. This means we must not give in to liberals' unending calls for drastic cuts in military spending. For many years, the greatest force for peace and freedom in this world has been the American military. A world where the American military is led by liberals who mistrust American power and are skeptical of America's intentions and goodness is a world where ruthless aggressors have the freedom to enact their evil machinations, to the detriment of liberty-lovers everywhere.
Mr. Arledge is a partner of the law firm Turner Green Afrasiabi & Arledge LLP. His e-mail address is carledge@turnergreen.com.
CATEGORY:
SPOTLIGHT (Editorial Staff Only)
Wow! This says it all. Thank you.
"Conservatives, of course, take pride in realism"
Since when? The Bush Administration, supported by cheerleaders in both houses of Congress, said it creates its own reality. Realism has had nothing to do with the last eight years.
Maybe you were thinking of a different political party or something.
Bob
The fact that Sarah Palin has created a new energy for the Republican Party proves that the voters were feeling like the party had moved too far to the left for them. Now Palin has brought those voters back but unless the Party puts up honest, true conservatives in the future, they are likely to fade away. It is still cool to be a Conservative and the silent majority of the center-right had better start to speak up to defend our Liberties under the Constitution because it is quickly becoming too late.
I am a football fan. Much of what I believe politically comes from the game of football.
1. Defend the endzone. No matter if the opposing team is on the one yard line, defend the endzone.
2. Interceptions are game changers. Intercept your opponents passes.
3. Run with the opponents fumbles. Make fumbles happen and then run with them.
4. Play as a team.
5. Never surrender your side of the 50 yard line.
This editorial, in my view, makes a strong case for more of the same. Following the above prescription will NOT serve the Republican Party or the conservative cause well.
When you make false statements you undermine your entire case for conservatism. One of the reasons so many people are abandoning the conservative cause is because they have become weary of being lied to over and over again.
Here's what I mean, as an example. You said above:
"Likewise, in seeking to free people from what they see as the stifling influences of traditional religion and morality, liberals threaten to undermine the social institutions and norms that made this nation prosperous and free in the first place. We can already see the effects of liberalism in our broken families and astronomical illegitimacy rates."
Yet in checking the data I find that the highest rates of teenage pregnancy are in the conservative, evangelical red states of the solid south...Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and a couple of western states, purple New Mexico and red Arizona.
On the other hand the most liberal states have the lowest rates including all of New England except Rhode Island. And states like California and Illinois are below the national average.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf, page 10
Looking more generally at illegitimate births at all ages the state leaders are generally the same as for teens (see above source, page 61).
So how do you conclude that liberalism has caused an increase in illegitimate births? The data says the opposite.
And because you make statements that aren't true about something like this why should anyone believe anything in your editorial?
The fact is conservatism is failing not in spite of social conservatism but -- in part -- because of it. Too many social conservatives want everyone in America to live by their rules, rules they declare are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and in the writings of the founders when that's the furthest thing from the truth. They have laughed at science--remember Doctor Frist's video diganosis of Terry Schiavo? Or how about intelligent design? Social conservatives have overreached by attempting to legislate their own values on everyone else and Americans are responding by rejecting people like Rick Santorum at the polls. It's why Prop 22 got 61% of the votes in California in 2000 while today Prop 8 is likely to fail (although it will be close).
The editorial proposes a continuation of division by characterizing people on the other side of the political spectrum as un-American. Statements like this...
"A world where the American military is led by liberals who mistrust American power and are skeptical of America's intentions and goodness is a world where ruthless aggressors have the freedom to enact their evil machinations, to the detriment of liberty-lovers everywhere."
...do nothing to advance America's foreign policy and national defense. It's almost ludicrous: Let's oppose our foes abroad by opposing our "foes" here at home. Let's be clear: We all love our country but we show it in different ways. Conservatives are unwilling to question America's strategy when their party sets the course. They will ridicule those on the left who criticize the government and the strategy conservatives concoct. But when the tables are turned conservatives are the first to decry the strategy of a Democratic Administration. Look at the Bosnia / Kosovo conflict for a great example.
Of course corruption, incompetence, and profligate spending have not helped the conservative cause, either.
As a former Republican who is one of the many who have left because of divisive politics and the emphasis on dictating social standards over the historical focus on a strong (and prudent) national defense and on sound economic policies that includes a balanced budget while preserving some necessary social safety nets I sincerely hope the dialogue about the rebuilding of the Republican Party evolves differently from the direction recommended in the editorial above.
The debate needs to be factual and needs to recognize and address the causes of the Republican Party's collapse.
Bob
Bob,
First, thank you for reading my piece. I like to know that people are reading my work, even if they disagree with it.
Second, we can continue a more exhaustive discussion at some other time, but I will take issue with one prominent assertion in your critique. You contend that the data shows liberal social policy is unrelated to illegitimacy rates, and because I made a "false" statement to the contrary, I cannot be trusted in any other areas of my analysis.
But, Bob, surely you know that prominent social scientists like Charles Murray have concluded that welfare policies were a substantial cause of the explosion in illegitimacy rates. Now maybe you disagree with Murray (and others), which is fine. But it simply doesn't do to assert that I have made a "false" statement. What you mean to say is that you disagree with the conclusion I draw from the data.
I will also add that your methodology seems flawed. If Murray and others are right, it is not important whether a state is red or blue, conservative or liberal. The question is how much of a state's population is on the welfare rolls. You get the wrong answer because you ask the wrong question.
Christopher,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You are right; two people can loook at the same data and draw entirely different conclusions but I didn't see any data from you just the citation to Charles Murray. I don't see how you can square the high teenage pregnancy rates in conservative states (which have large populations of evangelical Christians--both black and white) and the relatively low rates in liberal states with your statement about liberalism driving higher illegitimacy rates. Where's your data?
I actually think the connection between higher rates of illegitimacy (and to teen pregnancy) is lower educational attainment, not welfare policy. In other words Murray made the mistake of looking at the wrong variable. And because you liked his conclusion you went with it even if it's not generally accepted by scientists. Sort of like the Discovery Institute's bevy of scientists who make what seems to be a strong case for I.D. but who can't seem to get anything published following peer review.
This is one of the things that has driven me nuts about the so many conservatives in recent years...the willingness to ignore science if it doesn't fit a predefined picture.
Bob
Bob, you said:
“Too many social conservatives want everyone in America to live by their rules”
It drives me nuts every time I hear liberals preaching against conservatives “legislating morality.” All laws are inherently based on someone’s morality. Determining what is right and what is wrong is essential to determining what should be legal and illegal.
Yet, liberals persist in trying (and they often succeed) to convince people that conservatives are the only ones trying to legislate morality, when liberals are playing the same game.
Liberals hypocritically point the finger at conservatives and say that we are trying to legislate morality and force people to live the way we want, while they do the very same thing, just with a different moral code. Those same liberals are champions of relativism (all ideas are equally valid), but only as long as Judeo-Christian or “traditional American” values are not considered in the equation.
A perfect example of liberals legislating morality is the anti-Prop-8 movement. Look at the ads: “Unnecessary, unfair, and wrong” is how they describe Prop 8. But “wrong” is a statement of morality. Liberals aren’t offering a legal system free of moral judgments; they’re just offering a new code of morality. And just because you change the moral code on which our laws are based doesn’t mean you change the fact that all laws are based on moral codes.
And as far as Prop-8 goes, the idea that it is trying to “eliminate rights” is ridiculous. Everyone already had equal rights. We all had equal access to a valid marriage. The law determined how a person could have a state-recognized marriage: proper candidate, proper consent, license, ceremony. Prop-8 redefines the proper candidate portion, but without any serious discussion of the merits of the criteria.
In other words, what is the reason for homosexual unions being allowed under the new definition but not other currently disallowed unions of consenting adults? Opponents of Prop-8 are making a moral judgment about other consenting adult relationships namely: incestuous relationships and bigamy. But if we’re really interested in “equality” as the opponents of Prop-8 want us to believe, then why exclude any group at all?
You can’t convince me that liberals are free from the sin of legislating morality. They’re too good at it.
"Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." When it comes to conservatism in America, the Republican party has no exclusive lock. It is true that there are going to be many Republicans who will find themselves without a job come Nov. 5, however many of the gains the Democrats make in this election are going to come from the southern states -- Blue Dog Democrats are not your average liberal when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Don't expect the White House nor Nancy P. to get any blank checks from the Blue Dogs. It's NOT going to happen.
Courtney, the problem with your argument is this: while laws are based on someone's morality as a generality, any good law is based on what's in the interests of the overwhelming majority of average people, regardless of ideology. There are basic right and wrong issues for every person. Murder - wrong. Charity - right (doesn't HAVE to mean just money, but also includes being generous with your time and love and emotional support). What is right for you, i.e., banning abortion, is not necessarily right for MANY someone elses. I don't hold pro-choice views, but ultimately to pro-choicers, this IS an issue of you telling them how they can have sex. To pro-choice women, it is an issue of telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies. If you were being told what you could do with your body, you'd be upset about it, too. But I see that Roe as merely a symptom of a larger issue: personal responsibility. We have steadily worked toward the day when no one is going to be responsible for ANYthing. So, for that reason, I oppose abortion. But, that doesn't give me the right to tell someone else what to believe about the point where life begins. THAT is a freedom of religion issue.