After his return from the Restoration Weekend, during which “the leading conservative analysts and many political leaders present their views of what led to the disastrous defeat of Mitt Romney,” Ron Radosh opined, “We need a truce on divisive social issues.”
Let us take opposition to gay marriage as the major example. Last week, gay marriage initiatives were passed in states in which they were defeated in previous years. The voters, not the courts, made their judgement known. While we must protect the rights of those who are fiercely opposed to it on religious or other grounds, and respect and seek to understand their opposition to the measure, we must accept the fact that to young people today, including young Republicans, the measure is seen as a civil rights issue whose time has come.
How do we answer the young Republican woman who, in the Wall Street Journal a week ago, wrote that most of her friends view the Republicans as “social bigots” and complained that “the right has done nothing to welcome young people.” Sarah Westwood argues that “Republicans don’t have a future unless they break up with the religious right and the gay-bashing, Bible-thumping fringe that gives the party such a bad rap with every young voter.” She may be too harsh, and does not appreciate the need to build coalitions of people with different views on the issues she raises. But at the very least, I think, Mitch Daniels is correct that we need a “truce” on emphasizing the social issues.
I agree, and I have been making pretty much the same arguments in this blog for a decade.
Absolutely, a truce is needed.
But does that mean a truce will be forthcoming? Or will a consensus emerge among Republicans that winning elections is less important than stringent adherence to opinions (called “principles”) that are increasingly unpopular with a majority of voters?
Comments
17 responses to “Truce or consequences?”
I confidently predict that there will be no truce from the base. The Party leaders may endorse one but they will not prevail. Death is the only cure.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck
[…] I Got Your Principle Right Here Posted on November 23, 2012 1:30 pm by Bill Quick Classical Values » Truce or consequences? […]
In the late election I voted for marijuana legalization and against gay marriage.
Mostly for two reasons, 1) I’m effing sick and tired of hearing about it. When and how did gay marriage become such a hot button issue??? Gays are maybe 3% of the population to start with, and I doubt more than a few percent of that 3% are actually serious about getting married. Why does this matter???
And 2) I can’t think of a single credible argument for gay marriage that isn’t also an argument for polygamy.
(it’s a lifestyle choice, right? What are you, some sort of bigot?)Polygamy is one of the worst features of muslim cultures. It’s a terrible idea, and no rational person should want it here. Muslim polygamy leads to huge cohorts of young men with no chance of ever getting married. Which is directly correlated with violence and extremism.
Meanwhile, many Republicans still think the universe was zapped into existence by an old man with a beard who lives in the sky 6,000 years ago. Ughhh. A pox on both their houses.
M3 has his own world . . . and he is welcome to it.
Truce?
There are economic issues, and social issues . . . and war.
The rest of it all is pure crap invented by the pols and their lobbyists . . .
War? It’s a wonderful thing, ain’t it?
Trouble is, it’s a mug’s game. The liberals will ALWAYS be able to come up with some new “right” which the mean old conservatives are trampling on. Consider gay marriage. As an issue it didn’t exist more than about five years ago. Obama was against it in 2008. If there was an issue at all, it was over domestic partnership agreements, and that one was a minor issue that most social conservatives were willing to compromise over.
So the libs moved the goalpost. It wasn’t the legal issue of domestic partnership anymore, it was GAY MARRIAGE! And fuck the millions of Christians to whom marriage has a specific, sacred meaning!
If the Republicans fold on this, the liberals will just come up with something else. Polygamy. You think that’s absurd? WHY DO YOU HATE MUSLIMS? DON’T JUDGE US, YOU HATER!
Child marriage? WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN? DON’T JUDGE US, YOU HATER! Faggots walking around San Francisco naked but for cock rings? WHY DO YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE? DON’T JUDGE US, YOU HATER! Mandatory euthanasia for old people who cost too much for Obamacare? WHY DO YOU HATE YOUNG PEOPLE? DON’T IMPOSE YOUR CHRISTIAN MORALITY ON US, YOU HATER! Mandatory euthanasia for people who don’t agree with the dear leader? WHY DO YOU HATE THE PRESIDENT?
It’s not about liberty and tolerance; it never has been. It’s about destroying all institutions that aren’t part of the Party and the State. Smash the churches, because churches are full of hater-Christians. Smash the family. Smash the Boy Scouts. Smash everything that isn’t a branch of the Party, and fool useful idiots into thinking it’s making them more free.
Eventually we’ll be completely dependent on the State and the Party, but as long as we can have consequence-free sex and government-subsidized weed, you’ll think you’re a free man.
Are principles only opinions?
Maybe you should go back and read Kiplings “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”
feh
Ok maybe that sounded cranky and I apologize.
But the so-called Young People demographic that we are supposed to coddle, never mind they are reacting to a Left-media caricature that is pounded into them 24/7, wants to make me scream.
“Yes dear, running out in traffic is perfectly fine and ok because I guess all the other parents are letting their kids do it too. And yes, I won’t mind either Big Nanny State Gov taking my money to pay for your boo boos when reality has you smacking the pavement.”
Darleen, that was quite a rant. But you can get off the high horse of pushing moral degradation solely onto the shoulders of gays, or faggots as you call us.
Did you know that during the high point of the free love 70’s, before AIDS, the Sutro Baths in San Francisco had an heterosexual clientele? And that the Watergarden Baths in San Jose was frequented by straights like Steve Jobs? Do you ever look at pictures of MardiGras in New Orleans or Rio? Do you purposely ignore the statistics of child molesters and the overwhelming majority that are hetero?
Your slippery slope argument against gay “marriage” has been debunked so many times I won’t repeat it here. Where I will agree with you is in the use of the term “marriage” to define civil unions. The state should not be in the business of performing secular “marriages” period. But since they have institutionalized non-church ceremonies, and at the same time legalized civil partnerships for same sex unions, it is discrimination to exclude gays from civil unions. They are the same thing. Get over it.
Gays are not out to destroy the institution of marriage. Straights have been doing that very well all on their own.
Darleen Click, I must apologize. I read Trimegistus screed above your name, and was answering that. Please forgive the error.
Hi Frank,
Tell me what you think about this:
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=4bd9a8e1-d2e3-4e27-8ff9-13225099eea5&url=why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage
Because that is exactly where I’m coming from. I have absolutely no problem with same-sex couples under domestic partnerships/civil unions. But unless you think the sexes are fungible, then a same-sex couple is as different from a opposite-sex couple as a man is from a woman.
France has just banned the use of the words “mother” and “father” in all government documents. Is that where you want to see us go?
Darleen, no, that is not where I want to see us go.
Many of the points Dennis Prager makes are valid. I agree with you that the sexes are not interchangeable. I’m definitely not in favor of using same sex unions as a stepping stone for polygamy or worse. The state should not be interfering in private organizations like the Boy Scouts, or mandating the policies of religious groups like Catholic charities. As to liberal infiltration in public schools, it goes well beyond pushing a gay agenda. If I had children they would either be home-schooled or placed in a private school.
Darleen, I have problems with government involvement in marriage and I have long had reservations about gay marriage, as it invites the state where it does not belong. But that is my opinion, just as it is my opinion that abortion (which I consider wrong) should not be a crime.
I did not say that principles are only opinions; I am complaining about people who consider only those who share their opinions to have principles.
“Truce. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
When dealing with Leftists / anti-theists the term you want is “hudna”.
Truce. Let me see.
— Are you planning to pass an Amendment to the Constitution removing “freedom of association” from the Constitution? or do you just plan to keep suing wedding photographers for “civil rights violations”?
— Will Catholic Services be allowed to perform adoptions even if they downcheck same-sex couples because of religious beliefs? How about the Nation of Islam?
— How about refusing to perform same-sex marriages (see “freedom of association” above and add “freedom of religion”)?
— Will it be considered “bullying” if my child expresses his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin? or “hate speech” if I do?
I’ve noticed that so-called “libertarians” have much less of a problem with state control when it’s being applied to icky Xtianists.
I guess it depends on whether “truce” is a synonym for “surrender”.
SDN…
Interesting point.
“I guess it depends on whether “truce” is a synonym for “surrender”.”
You know, that applies to both sides. You want us to simply accept your beliefs, while you have EVERY right to insult ours.
You DO have every right to insult my beliefs. I have the SAME right to insult yours. If you can live with that, we can live together. If not, well, look to those who want to rule the world. Tyrants, we used to call them. Seems some want to call them saviors, nowadays. (I’d reserve that ‘saviors
for, well…saviors , myself, but many disagree.)
SDN,
I remember back in the 50s when Christian beliefs got pressed on me in public schools even though I wasn’t interested.
You set the precedent. And now you feel uncomfortable with the roles reversed. You should have been thinking of me back then and you could have avoided the current situation.
Le payback est la bitch.
You have every right to insult my beliefs. What you DON’T have the right to do is use state power to put me in jail or out of business when I don’t endorse yours.
But I want to thank both of you for confirming that it isn’t about principles but payback.
The only people I have heard talking about jailing people for having christian beliefs so far is christians.
I seriously hope that this isn’t a bad case of projection, as I am not an active christian and would not be happy with christians pushing for me to be jailed for not sharing their beliefs.