|
|
|
March 05, 2009
On matters of taste there can be lots of disagreement
This debate between Stephen Green and Will Wilkinson on "liberaltarianism" fascinated me. The philosophy is explained here by the latter, and dissected (maybe even deconstructed) here by Stephen. At the heart of liberaltarianism is antiwarism, and as an advocate of strong national self-defense, I side with Stephen on this debate for that reason alone. But now that the war has been largely won, and the economy has tanked, economic issues are on the front burner, and in that regard, there doesn't seem to be a major divergence between liberaltarianism and libertarianism. Nor does there seem to be much difference on social issues. Yet, there's more to this than ideology. I noticed that Green and Wilkinson both acknowledged that young people just plain don't like social conservatism. That's an easy thing for people who get caught up in ideological debates to forget. I don't like social conservatism either, but I'm just one vote, and I can get so hung up discussing the particulars of what I think is right or wrong that I forget political pragmatism. In politics, right and wrong are subordinated to winning. If people don't like something, they will not vote for it. This is especially true where it comes to personalities. Just because I was able to see past Sarah Palin's social conservatism (and I could see that it did not prevent her from having an attractively libertarian record), doesn't mean there weren't lots of people who got so caught up in matters of taste that they lost sight of all objectivity. Thus, while it mattered very little to me whether she attended religious services where nuts were speaking in tongues (or listening to admitted witch hunters), for a lot of people, that kind of stuff is scary as hell. And it may be the sort of thing that leads to electoral defeat. Similarly, just because I can overlook my disagreements with Rush Limbaugh, and the fact that I don't especially like his personality, that does not mean others can. Especially the young. The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh's name in a survey and found that many Americans just don't like him.If those numbers are accurate, they would confirm the reality that social conservatism is extremely unpopular with young people. If enough of them vote, it may be ballot box poison. Of course, everything is so unsettled right now that it may be a good time to do absolutely nothing. The national polling numbers are almost schizophrenic. From the Real Clear Politics Poll Averages President Obama Job ApprovalDoes this mean the majority of voters believe that it's OK for the country to be on the wrong track? I don't think they'd admit to such a thing. Maybe it's just collective cognitive dissonance, grounded in superficial likes and dislikes, the way people like Obama, and don't like Rush. Or maybe the Obama euphoria hasn't yet worn off, so the nation is still having an Obama Rush. Give them time. I've long believed that traditionally, the Democrats win by promising an endless supply of goodies to everyone, while the Republicans are seen as the party of belt-tightening and restraint. The party of dessert versus the party of "eat this bad tasting food -- it's good for you!" While the Democrats have not been able to fully reverse these traditional roles, to a far greater extent they have been able to portray the Republicans not as belt-tighteners, but as wild profligates, and for the first time the Democrats are now poised to usurp the "eat this bad tasting food -- it's good for you!" role. Except what the Democrats are now saying boils down to "Freedom is not good for you!" If the voters get past their Obama Rush cognitive dissonance, the Republicans might be in a position to offer a more pleasant-tasting dessert. MORE: Now that Obama adminstration scoldings are being likened to "Rosie O'Donnell and Oprah Winfrey lecturing us on how to stay slim," I'm feeling inexplicably reassured. Some desserts are just! posted by Eric on 03.05.09 at 10:22 AM
Comments
Eric, John Lynch · March 5, 2009 11:03 AM Judicial cram-down against the will of the people and their representatives' passed laws Except of course where the judicial cram down favors the conservative position. Like the 2nd Amdmt. Then it is not cram down. It is following the Constitution. Of course to the anti-gun folks it feels like a cram down. As the Jews wrote some 2,000 years ago: it depends on whose ox is gored. M. Simon · March 5, 2009 11:12 AM I suspect that Rush's negatives among the young are because they never listen to him. This is what their professors are telling them to think. I don't normally listen to Rush, but in my recent travels, I am crossing part so Oregon where there is no FM, and only two or three AM stations. If Rush is a social conservative, he hides it very well. Clayton E. Cramer · March 5, 2009 11:23 AM I wouldn't take polling numbers too seriously these days. The other problem is that today's Minitru (The NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc.) are not in the information providing business anymore, they're in the 'creating opinion by slanting, ignoring and/or lying' business. So, while our polls are probably more accurate than in Saddam's Iraq, they're not as accurate as they could or should be. Veeshir · March 5, 2009 11:44 AM Except of course where the judicial cram down favors the conservative position. Like the 2nd Amdmt. Then it is not cram down. It is following the Constitution. Of course to the anti-gun folks it feels like a cram down. Well, as a conservative, I favor the recent opinion that gun rights are, well, rights. But the relatively plain reading says they are, well, rights. So, I'm not sure what you mean by cram down relating to gun rights. We have them. It said so over two hundred years ago, occasionally that view has been encroached by more liberal readings, but has recently been reinforced by judicial reading. The "ox gored" argument applies in moral relativistic argument (mostly inane) not in the plain reading argument. John Lynch · March 5, 2009 02:10 PM I challenge anybody who goes on about Rush's Social Conservatism to tell me what church he belongs to. I've listened to Rush for well over ten years now and to my knowledge he has never mentioned his religious views at all. I think that he is good enough to know that if he brings religion to the radio he will change the program from the issues that he considers important, IE the ongoing move by the left toward a more Socialist state. If the program just talked about abortion all the time. Or intelligent design. Or any number of social conservative issues, Rush's audience would desert him. He knows this and keeps away from those issues and focused on the main goal. He has learned to not sweat the small stuff and get diverted on the way. something all too many libertarians and conservatives seem all to frequently to forget. J Carlton · March 5, 2009 10:39 PM I used to believe 'Rush was a rightwing nutcase out to destroy America', that was prior to 9/11 when I was in NYC provincial idiotville theater. After 9/11/2001 I got into Conservatism through blogging, Dr Sowell my first. I started listening to Rush in 2003 and when I hear him I hear 'respect for life', so what is the problem with that concept. At least Rush, unike Liberaltarians, has the ability to define the word fetus. Liberalitarians are still debating whether 'fetus' is a clump of cells or not; perhaps Liberalitarians should investigate the Scientific definition of fetus. The other message I clearly hear from Rush is: Socialism=Serfdom Capitalism=Liberty I would rather be poor and free that to do what the young people have chosen ie get on their knees and suck the cock of the Slavemaster because he offers the youngsters free health care. The other day I had a pleasant, though startling to me, conversation with a 'young' guy who voted for Obama. The starling part was learning that this young guy had absolutely no idea who either Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod were; the kid never heard of those two. If the young people are any indication of what lies ahead, I do not want any part of that enslavement and will be going John Galt. I am not going to fund the enslaved youth group, they want the misery let them have that cake with icing on top!
syn · March 6, 2009 08:33 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2009
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Self loathing is not limited to humans!
• On matters of taste there can be lots of disagreement • It Gets Progressively Worse • Rush Limbaugh Offers To Debate Obama • Keeping track of the feeding cycle • It Was A Historic Election • A Destructive Agenda • Advertise your innocence! • Are you all aTwitter? • You Were Warned
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You must also accept that the average person considers themselves to be in the less than average position and that taxing the "rich" or the "rich corporations" to pay for
these things will somehow help them.
Getting past how it feels right now seems to be difficult for many.