Cynthia Yockey has some thoughts on why Obama will win the election in 2012.
Last week Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University, renewed his 2010 prediction that Obama will win in 2012. Prof. Lichtman developed a system of 13 keys to winning the presidential election in 1981 that has correctly predicted the winner of the last seven elections. According to Prof. Lichtman, only six keys are needed to win and Obama has nine…
She follows that with the following point.
I think the Left is correct in asserting that the social conservative agenda is identical to a promise to impose theocracy. The inability of the Right to see the totalitarian nature of social conservatism when it is a political agenda to use government force where persuasion has failed mirrors the inability of idealistic Leftists to grasp that you can’t have free markets (aka capitalism) and socialism at the same time because there is no correct way to have a socialist planned economy that isn’t immediately both totalitarian and corrupt.
She got that right.
Go read the whole thing because there is way more of interest.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
22 responses to “The Keys To The Next Election”
IOW, up until c. 1945 the United States of America was a *theocracy*? I call horse apples. Social conservatism is a way to make sure that the most helpless among us (small children, women with small children, infants, the aged, the infirm) are taken care of and *protected*. This is not theocracy, unless you think that anything other than Randian Objectivism is theocracy. Either individuals take care of the weak and helpless, or we leave it to the tender mercies of the government. The same governmen that imposed eugenics and sterilization on several of these United States in the early part of the 20th Century.
I guess that is why the right is so rabid about the Drug War.
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/09/hemp-oil-cures-skin-cancer/
They like to see people dying of cancer. Glad to know that socons are into protecting our citizens from the evils of hemp.
It will not stand. And the fall will take socons with it. Good.
I must agree Simon, the lady is spot on in her assessments on both counts here regarding the Left and the Right.
Lin W –
I can only guess as to the protections you are referring to, but for many voters in the middle and on the Left and some on the Right (aka RINOs), they perceive the social conservative agenda as policies that would require all citizens to live their lives within certain Judeo-Christian norms. But unfortunately for you, these norms have been rejected and are being rejected, in one form or another, by more and more poeple these past several decades. Trying to use the political process to bring back these norms and make them enforced by law is, by definition, coercion.
IOW, many people see the socon agenda as “live like a Christian or else”. That’s certainly what I see, with regards to the socon support for the WOD along with its aversion to granting homosexuals full privileges as citizens of this country.
And the socon agenda certainly hasn’t done anything to enhance the perception of Christianity these past 35 years as its agenda seems to contradict the Golden Rule of love thy neighbor as thyself and do unto others as you would have done unto you. Doesn’t it?
It’s social conservatives who don’t want unconscious people to be killed — liberals have no problem with this (Terri Schaivo, anyone?). It’s social conservatives who don’t want children, once they’ve been born, to be allowed to die for lack of medical care (our current president argued for just that when he was in the state senate in Illinois). This is “forcing people to live as Christians or else?” I would have thought it was “protect the weak, feed the hungry, bind up the wounds of the injured” — but I’m sure all you know so much more about such things than I. Tell me, though — where were you all when the State was practicing forced sterility? Letting babies die? Marching to do … what?
Lin W,
Judging by the incidence of PTSD (1/2 of those susceptible get it) there is a terrible level of child abuse in this country (the main cause of PTSD which is often self medicated with illegal drugs).
Heroin
So where are the social conservatives on this? MIA.
And when I bring this up with social conservatives? Silence. And even if in the odd case I get agreement nothing is getting done.
This liberal (libertarian actually) has done more on the issue than all the social conservatives I’m aware of combined. Social conservatives are a disgrace when it comes to the already born.
This will come out as the Drug War is put down. And socons will get another deserved dose of disgrace.
So where is the protection for the abused? I ain’t seeing it.
So socons are against illegal drug use. Fine. Where are they when it comes to root causes? Unavailable.
Lin W –
Nice dodge! Bravo!
Forgive me for not addressing the issues you brought up in your SECOND post. I didn’t address anything you brought up in my first post because your first post didn’t address any specific issues. Sheesh!
Now would you care to address the two issues I brought into the discussion FIRST? Or can I assume by your failure to to even attempt to address those two issues that socons are for homosexual rights and are against the WOD?
You have the floor.
oops, goofed on my html tags… lol
I prefer the Fair Model, which seems more accurate than Lichtmans.
“The economy is thus crucial according to the vote equation. A strong rebound results in a fairly solid Obama victory; a moderate to slightly below moderate economy results in a close election with an edge for the Republicans; and a double dip recession with, say, negative growth in 2012, results in a fairly solid Republican victory.” – Vote Share Equations, Roy Fair, PhD, Economics, MIT
First post of mine: “Social conservatism is a way to make sure that the most helpless among us (small children, women with small children, infants, the aged, the infirm) are taken care of and *protected*. This is not theocracy, unless you think that anything other than Randian Objectivism is theocracy. Either individuals take care of the weak and helpless, or we leave it to the tender mercies of the government. The same governmen that imposed eugenics and sterilization on several of these United States in the early part of the 20th Century.”
Second post of mine: “It’s social conservatives who don’t want unconscious people to be killed — liberals have no problem with this (Terri Schaivo, anyone?). It’s social conservatives who don’t want children, once they’ve been born, to be allowed to die for lack of medical care (our current president argued for just that when he was in the state senate in Illinois). This is “forcing people to live as Christians or else?” I would have thought it was “protect the weak, feed the hungry, bind up the wounds of the injured” ”
Nobody addressed this, when I posted the same thoughts in different wording, twice, and yet I am the one “dodging”?
BTW, the biggest predictor of child abuse (sexual, beating, you name it) is the child’s mother living with a “partner” that is not the child’s father. Drugs are related, but only as referenced to poor choices on the part of the mother. Not *causative*, in other words.
And, for what it’s worth, I testified in state hearings in Minnesota to de-criminalize drugs mostly likely before you were born (or at least reliably house trained). Drugs are one of those boogey men y’all think you can hold up and shake and have social conservatives go all fetal and whimper. Think again.
I don’t know what fantasy idea of “social conservative” you have in your head that is pushing *theocracy* — to remind you, the actual subject of the original articel — but it *is* a fantasy.
Mingle in the real world. You may be amazed. If you’re brave enough to actually look, and not go running back behind those straw men you’ve been so busily constructing.
Terri Schaivo made conservatives a laughing stock. Seriously. There was a dispute over her aliveness. Was she a husk or was she conscious? It was decided in a court of law. Right decision? Wrong decision? I don’t know. But it was decided in this imperfect world. Finis. The Congress of the US needed to get involved? It could have saved more lives by ending Drug Prohibition.
Would the money used to keep her alive have been better spent saving more lives elsewhere? Maybe. But those are the kinds of trade offs social conservatives never consider. In many ways they have the same attitudes I see on the left. Just about different things.
And abortion? It is mostly Democrats killing future Democrats. Are you at war with them or not? If you are at war why not let them kill off their future troops? Saves you from having to do it 20 years later.
And then you have to look at the Catholic position on abortion which I think is totally moral. If you make women who don’t want to carry to term do so you must provide for them. So what is it for you? Welfare and no abortion or abortion and no welfare?
And BTW how do you feel about women having to raise children they don’t want? Is that really a good idea?
And finally what about the sexually abused women using heroin? When will you stand for them?
===
Personal note – the mate and I have raised four children. One artist, one U Chicago graduate (with honors) in Russian language studies, one almost finished with his EE studies, and our girl who is getting “A”s in chemical engineering at a top school.
It is hard enough paying for my own kids. I’ll be damned if I want the government forcing me to pay for someone else’s.
I once did a back of the envelope study and figured out that if those concerned could raise $500 bn a year no woman would “need” to have an abortion (the cost to raise a child through college X the number of abortions per year). But then you get into moral hazard territory similar to welfare. Some women will pop out children for the money.
As imperfect as things are socons are really not good at anticipating unintended consequences. Billy Sunday (“hell will be forever for rent”) and Alcohol Prohibition ring a bell?
In other words you are as utopian as the lefties. Just about different things.
I don’t know what fantasy idea of “social conservative” you have in your head that is pushing *theocracy* — to remind you, the actual subject of the original articel — but it *is* a fantasy.
It is a popular perception. One I too hold based on experience. And so far you have done ∅ to counter it.
In fact your diatribe has done a LOT to reinforce that idea.
“O, w’ad the power some giftie g’e us, to see oursel’s as others see us.”
I know how you see me. Some amoral idiot who has no respect for God’s laws.
But do you know how I see you? Just another progressive with social conservative values. You might want to look into how strongly social conservatives supported the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century.
The movement is now bifurcated. The left is Progressive on economic issues and the right is Progressive on social issues. A division of labor. But Progressive none the less.
Ah. Well. As they say about some military situations – “It is too bad they both can’t lose.”
If you are an anti-prohibitionist you are unusual for the social conservative milieu. In my experience.
BTW were you doing your testifying before Oct 1944? If so you deserve my highest praise.
I didn’t get involved in the issue until about 1975 or so. And my research didn’t really begin swinging until 1998 when I started getting published.
::sigh::
There are worlds of difference between social conservatism and advocating a theocracy.
I’m not getting into the nitty gritty of Terri Schaivo, because *all* the information is out there. It gets down to whether an ex-husband has the right to pull the plug on his former wife if wants. The courts ruled he did. Over the objections of her parents and her caregivers. So, yay rah for the government — anticipating “measured medical treatment” years before Obamacare.
Claiming that some group wants to turn the US into a theocracy is what I was objecting to. You see anybody being made to adhere to laws that are peculiar to one religion? Women wearking burkas? All work stopping five times a day so people can point the rear-ends West?
There are people who care for the unfortunates in society. There are people who pass laws making that care harder and harder, so that government can become a nanny state and decide who gets help.
Throwing around loaded words like “theocracy” is *exactly* how you get the progressives — who want to turn everything over to the government — elected.
Personally, I’m a social conservative who wants government out of the nanny state business; who wants government out of where, when and how my husband and I choose to donate our money and time. Right now the government is encroaching more and more, and social ills are becoming worse and worse.
But, hey, we have to let the nanny state make the decisions, otherwise we’ll have a ::gasp!:: *theocracy*! Piffle.
It’s a false dichotomy.
People can be social conservatives and not want to use the government to enforce their position. Why is this so hard for y’all to understand?
Lin W –
Well good on you that you support decrim on drug possession. You would surely admit that on the Right, generally speaking it’s the socons that are most resistant to ending the WOD?
You brought up Teri Schaivo in your second post as someone that socons went to bat for, defending the weak as you put it in your first post. You do realize that Schaivo-type life or death decisions are made everyday in hospitals and nursing homes all over the country, right? Some people have the capacity to give instructions on what measures they want taken as they reach the end of their time, sadly others don’t. When that happens, usually the law allows for the nearest relative to make those hard decisions, that’s what happened here. Her parents however, went to court and the publicity that ensued made that inter-family legal battle a political cause.
Hypothetically, what if there had been a signed, notarized document from Ms. Schaivo that instructed caregivers to allow her to die should she ever end up in a vegetative state , would that have satisfied the social conservatives? Or should her express wishes be ignored had that been the case? Are people who sign DNR’s at the hospital acting immorally in doing so? What about those who go into hospice, are they acting immorally? Advances in medicine and treatments, etc. have allowed for longer and longer life spans, but we all still die and heart-wrenching decisions are made hundreds of times over everyday. Do you have the perfect knowledge of every conceivable situation to draw up the perfect laws to govern all of these situations?
As for the Obama statements you refer to, one doesn’t have to be a socon to find his take problematic.
And as for the forced sterilization issue, I highly doubt the term “social conservative” even existed at that point in time.
Getting back to the crux of what Simon posted from Ms. Yockey: The inability of the Right to see the totalitarian nature of social conservatism when it is a political agenda to use government force where persuasion has failed…
While the social conservative agenda covers a lot of issues (i.e., ending/curtailing abortion rights, limiting/curtailing homosexual rights, continuing the WOD, prohibiting porn, etc.), and while it marshals social science here and there to advance that agenda, by and large it’s all in the service of re-instituting into law various Judeo-Christian norms. The social science data employed by social conservatives provides cover for the socons against charges that they have a religious agenda. But because most socons can’t talk about any of their issues without invoking Bible verses and teachings, people put two and two together and see the social conservative agenda for the religious agenda that it is. I understand that you and your ilk see your agenda as the “right thing to do”. But most Americans see religion as a personal issue and resent the social conservatives efforts to make their religious norms a political issue and therefore law.
Just like Christians are adamant about not wanting Sharia law to govern them, more and more people are adamant about not wanting to live under laws that require them to live like Christians and be constrained by the fears, superstitions, dogmas and ignorance of human beings from 2000 plus years ago. The reasons for this are many, but mostly it’s due to the ever expanding knowledge we have about the material world around us and from our vantage point in time to be able to look back in time with this knowledge. This knowledge obliterates the Biblical explanations for cause and effect time and time again. This in turn undermines the religious claim that it is authoritative on all moral matters.
The Pandora’s Box of modernity has undermined religious authority and hegemony. The efforts of social conservatives to regain that hegemony are seen by those who like the new order as trying to take away their freedoms. How else are they supposed to view your efforts? You can hem and haw all you like, that’s the situation the socons find themselves in.
And it’s a loser politically. Independents, moderates and libertarians that vote R now and then don’t do so because of the socon agenda, but in spite of it.
Oh, very nice insults by the way. Socons always take the high road and I appreciate that.
I insulted someone?
Here’s my stand: I can be a social conservative and not force anybody else to be. I can want “recreational” drugs decriminalized but not want to make it mandatory that people take them.
This whole “theocracy” argument is a lot like the people who shout about “poverty in America” — they have no *idea* what real theocracy, nor real poverty, look like.
Go ahead, wave your little boogeyman around and scare away anybody who might have wanted to vote down the ever-more-powerful progressive statists.
I’d rather live under the laws of the Founders than under the laws of Lenin and Stalin, to name two of the *biggest* opponents of any religion whatsoever in government.
Right now, we’re losing the government outlined in the Constitution (written by people you would call “socons” — and, btw, what difference does it make if a word wasn’t invented? Things fell down long before anybody named “gravity” as a concept). We’re moving closer and closer to the government of Lenin and Stalin, where an oligarchy can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, hiding under a thin veneer of “democracy.”
Theocracy! I repeat: horse apples
Lin W –
People can be social conservatives and not want to use the government to enforce their position. Why is this so hard for y’all to understand?
That’s not hard to understand, and sure I sppose they can be what you describe, and I take you at your word that you are that type of socon. But your self-perception as a social conservative bears no resemblance, none, nada, to the social conservative political movement and its stated policy goals.
I mean…come on…
I guess it’s just been my imagination and for the last 30+ years socons haven’t advocated for:
(1) restrictions/rollbacks on abortion rights
(2) restrictions/rollbacks of gay rights
(3) continuing the WOD
(4) banning porn
Do you really think social conservatives really and truly aren’t interested in changing the laws pertaining to the four issues above? Do you really think that the whole social conservative movement has been an exercise in moral persuasion and not an effort to change these laws?
Really? Really?
I’m gobsmacked!
If the social conservative movement wasn’t political with specific political goals, this thread wouldn’t even exist.
You have the last word if you want it.
Cheers!
There are idiots attracted to any group or movement who use that group or movement for their own (usually power grab or money grubbing) ends.
Just as we see happened with the NAACP, the Unions, and a lot of other movements that started with good intentions.
I am not going to make excuses for the idiots who are lumped up under the heading “socon”. As a matter of fact, many of us have told them they are idiots to their faces.
If people think that’s all there is to social conservatives, I feel sad. Not surprised, because I know that once the news media hits a room, they look for the loudest, most uncouth, spittle-mouthed person they can find, and then use that as a “representative” of the group. Saw it happen many, many times. And usually everybody else in the group is going, “Why are they talking to *him*? He’s the least like any of us!”
Again. The word I’ve been arguing against is “Theocracy”. You keep turning it into your own idea of “socon”. They are not the same. They have almost zero overlap (save for the above mentioned loons).
Go ahead, say that “socons” frighten you. Say that people who a personal set of values (hey, isn’t this Classical Values?) that they try to follow frighten the living crud out of you. But don’t call it “theocracy”. It’s not.
Marcus Aurelius wrote a great little book on mores — would you say he was pushing for a theocracy?
Yelling “theocracy” is no different than shouting “racism!” any time anyone disagrees with the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s not helping, and will only earn you a derisive *snort* from the very people you might want to actually talk to.
If you want to score points inside your little group, in some sort of internet-counting-coup game, then, by all means, use “theocracy” as another word for “letting people get elected that we don’t like.”
So, it’s actually your choice. Keep bandying a word around, using it as a club where it’s not at all pertinent — or actually find out what’s really going on.
I ususally only have this discussion once. Because if someone can’t see that they’re misusing a word, and by doing so are exacerbating a divide that could be closed using less strident language, I really don’t see any reason to hang around an be snidely insulted so the other person can preen in front of whatever friends he or she is posturing for.
Your choice. Strut and preen, or cut back on the stridency and be part of cure.
Lin W –
Personally, I’m a social conservative who wants government out of the nanny state business; who wants government out of where, when and how my husband and I choose to donate our money and time. Right now the government is encroaching more and more, and social ills are becoming worse and worse.
You seem like a very nice person. I’m glad there are still people around like you. I can’t disagree with what you say here. In fact, I have found that on a one to one basis most social conservatives are far more open minded than the organizations that usually speak for them. It is unfortunate that people like you can’t be the decision makers in those groups.
But like M.Simon and others, I have a real problem with legislating morality. If we have a common ground, it should be in getting government out of our lives as much as possible, both economically and socially. And I think liberals are in many ways worse than social conservatives even in the social area. The key is removing government from dictating the personal choices of individuals, period. Can’t we agree on that?
Changed my mind on that last word thingy because of this:
Go ahead, say that “socons” frighten you. Say that people who a personal set of values (hey, isn’t this Classical Values?) that they try to follow frighten the living crud out of you.
Go ahead, set up your straw men and knock them down. I never said your values frighten me.
All I’ve ever objected to is the socon political agenda that just about everyone everywhere agrees exists and that it has specific political goals except, seemingly, you.
I’ve used socons, short for social conservatives, because, well, it’s shorter. I can’t help it if that bothers you.
I would agree that theocracy and socons have zero overlap if the socon agenda is as you say it is. However, if the socon agenda is what I and others have thought to be these many years, the enactment of that agenda into law would be the equivalent of a theocracy, IMO.
Color me skeptical, but if socons are really libertarian, politically speaking, on the four issues I’ve listed previously, one would think that after 30+ years that would be obvious by now.
If, generally speaking, socons truly don’t have/haven’t had the political agenda that I and millions of others perceive, then you and your kind need to choose another moniker because that brand is damaged beyond repair in libertarian quarters. Deal with it.
I have to ask, why do you describe yourself as a social conservative when you claim your brand has nothing to do with the politcal brand that is perceived by me, Simon, and countless others?
And FWIW, at one time some years back I considered myself a social conservative because I wanted to stand up for God and morality. And it was explicit that the way you did that was by advocating for laws that banned certain immoral (by Christian standards) acts, like the four issues I’ve posted upthread. During those four or five years I never heard one thing from any socon pol, pundit, or religious leader that claimed that the movement wasn’t about changing/enacting laws. In fact it was just the opposite.
While you may be a socon that deviates from the perceived socon politcal agenda, it seems likely that your kind of socon is a distinct minority. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Cheers.
Lin,
If social conservatives are libertarian in outlook and not progressive/socialist I think I would have noticed. And yes there are others like you (in my experience) but you are a minority.
I would think that social conservatives could at least oppose the WODs on two grounds.
1. It is not working (say 76% of Americans at last count)
2. And from #1 it follows that it is a huge waste of money.
Studies show that drug rehab returns 7X the results per dollar spent (and I must tell you that those results are pitiful – which just goes to show you how bad the WODs is).
I recall that just recently a big time TV minister came out very mildly with an isn’t working statement. His congregation (TV audience) revolted. So his next statement was a backtrack. I don’t recall his name off hand although I blogged it.
Here ya go:
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2010/12/pat-robertson-voice-of-sanity-in-the-drug-war/
Followed by:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/dec/23/pat_robertson_clarifies_position
But no matter. Even if you are correct, as Randy points out, you have a HUGE branding problem. And if you are not correct the problem is bigger still.
Me? I’m hoping Sarah “we have better things to do” Palin can get in and show socons a better way. My fingers are crossed. Because I’m all in for Palin.
I agree about the words “social conservative” or “socon”. I usually don’t use them about myself. If anything, I’m a rebel — just like George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Henry Knox, and all those others. The status quo is, to my way of thinking, bad and getting worse.
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a minarchist.
But because I have certain core beliefs that work for *me* — and because of my lifestyle (married only once, for the last 24 years [and counting] to one man, we all are Christians, go to church, pray before meals, volunteer and give generously to various charities) I get labeled a socon.
When I was a Libertarian (yes, that’s capped) I didn’t fit in because of my lifestyle (“You have got to be the squarest Libertarian I ever met,” was something I heard a lot).
I find that the Republican party is a good fit for me, now, because conservatives don’t shout people down and ring cowbells when they hear someting they don’t want to think about. Conservatives actually let the other side speak and then attempt to have discussions.
I’ve often thought of making myself a sweatshirt with a plaid flannel applique of a sheep: “Plaid Sheep! Nobody knows what to do with me!” 🙂
I stay away from groups that want to impose their idea of religious worship on others: this goes not just for Christianity, but also for the Congregation of Anthropogenic Global Warming (oh, my yes, talk about fanatics wanting to force others to worship Gaia their way!) and for the Cathedral of LGBT Genitalia Genuflection to the Holy Orgasm.
God is what people put first in their lives, after all 🙂 And those groups I mentioned *are* out to impose a theocracy of *their* gods on all of us.
So, yeah, I’ll give you that I’m not one to fit in a cubby hole. Chances are I’d drill my way out into the surrounding cubbies and start a revolution 🙂
[…] 9/16/11, Fri.: My thanks to M. Simon, who blogs at Power and Control and Classical Values, for writing about this post and linking it. I particularly appreciate that the text chosen chosen […]