I was talking to a rational liberal friend last night (he is an engineer) and as per usual we got to talking politics. He said something I totally agree with. To wit: “If Republicans stopped trying to get their way on social issues through force of law they would never lose an election.” Think about it my R friends. Long and hard.
Me? As long as we have two parties interested in using big government to get their way by force I will continue to play balance of power politics. Which explains my vote for Obama in 2004.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
They Could Never Lose
by
Tags:
Comments
12 responses to “They Could Never Lose”
Hmmm, doubt it. There is a strong statist streak in most religious folks, so they would probably migrate to the Democratic party (would be an interesting struggle to kick out the leftwing nuts). Notice that in Europe the Christian Democrats usually occupy the center between labor on the left and the (classical) liberals on the right.
So you deliberately, and with knowledge of what he would do, voted for the progressive who would destroy the country over the squish who loves it?
How’s that working out for you?
brian,
It is working out rather well. We have a large Tea Party movement that abjures Cultural Socialism.
Of course if you don’t like it and the many other Republicans who voted my way
Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush
you could always reform the Republican Party.
Obama is the BEST THING EVER to happen to libertarian thought and politics in this country. Not counting 1776.
@Daran:
Agreed on the statism, but they could never amass the numbers needed to revert the Democratic Party to its 1865-1968 variant.
getting a malware warning when trying to visit the site
The problem is that neither libertarians no social conservatives alone have the numbers needed to win elections. So we have to play together. But unfortunately, we’re not very good at it. My hope is we can lop off the extremes of both groups and what’s left will still be a big enough coalition to save the Republic. Eg., no matter where you stand on abortion, surely we can agree that the government shouldn’t be paying for it.
While I surely didn’t vote for O, I can’t help but agree that he’s been a tremendous motivating force for the pro-freedom crowd. I just hope that not too many more lives are ruined before the tide turns.
@Larry:
OK, who’s the next Reagan?
As much as I think Sarah Palin gets the politics and the fiscal issues, she offends the social libertarians to the point that they will leave the tent. Who else in the Big Tent right has both the personal draw and the political draw?
So far, I’m not seeing anyone who appeals to both sides of the right divide.
Simon:
Ever notice how many social conservatives like Keyes have gay or lesbian family members? Besides Keye’s daughter, there is Gingrich’s sister, Phyllis Schlafly’s son, Christine O’Donnell’s sister, Anita Bryant’s son, etc.
Since they can’t cure “sin” in their own family circle, maybe a national crusade and some stiff laws will create a safe environment where weak humans won’t be tempted.
Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachman, Sharon Angle, Marco Rubio, and even Sarah Palin are social conservatives. They are smart enough to focus on economic issues right now, and know the Anita Bryant story of personal ruin.
But if elected to office none of them will vote to repeal the Defense of Marriage law, end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or vote to repeal any federal drug law. Rather they WILL vote to undue Roe vs. Wade, to pass a Constitutional Amendment for one man, one woman marriage, and support all the other Christian religious initiatives.
As usual, we have a lousy choice at the polls.
Captain Ned,
Palin has said some very mild but positive things about pot legalization. And her husband is a flaming libertarian.
So I’m hopeful that as her presidential campaign evolves she will move farther on issues libertarians like.
BTW I totally think the Feds (and the States too but that is another issue) should stay away from my cock and my my mate’s cunt. None of their G-damn business.
What so many socons fail to get is that once you open an area for government to do “good” another government could use that opening to do evil.
BTW my Cong. Critter is a socon in a somewhat left leaning district. He says nothing on social issues and avoids voting them. He keeps winning. I’ll be voting for him in Nov.
What has his focus been ever since his second election? JOBS. BTW he knows where I stand and I have his private e-mail.
Frank,
I’m eternally optimistic. Probably a fool too. All I can do is vote the bums out one election at a time.
BTW compare how the “good” Keyes treated his lesbian daughter in 2004 vs the “evil” Cheney in 2008 or there abouts.
I always keep in mind what my grand pappy used to say, “They are all crooks.”
brian,
I have no more use for a “moral” tyranny than I do for an economic tyranny.
You see once we go down the “moral” tyranny route that opens the door for sharia. I don’t think you would like that near as much.
Republicans in my neck of the woods (SW FL) are pushing me right out of the party through their insistence on conflating religious values with American values.
Sorry, guys, if your religion tells you you should live in a certain manner, then please, go right ahead and live it that way. Neither your nor your religion’s values cut any ice with me, however.