So I'm having the usual discussion with a Socon and he accuses me of not liking Jesus.
M. Simon, your post attacking me makes you sound like a “Christophobe.” Your logic shows your contempt for Christianity and distrust of us Christians.
You got me. It was caused by me being FORCED in public school to attend Christian assemblies. In public schools that were at least half Jewish. We never had a Jewish assembly.
So Christian outreach reached me. The results could have been predicted although they may not have been desired.
I no longer dislike Christians as a group. Just those trying to ram their faith down my throat. I have my own faith. Thank you very much.
====
The cycle goes like this: The Ds get in and wreck the country. The electorate gives the Rs a shot. At first they attend to fixing most of the problems that the Ds caused. When they have that in hand they decide that what the country really needs is God. Their version of God. And the electorate rejects the Rs and we are back in a different kind of misery.
Moral socialism begets economic socialism.
And the Rs are too stupid to see this. Mostly.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Reagan
===
Here is what you are up against if Republicans make faith central to the coming election campaign:
“Social Conservative (which includes fiscal conservatism for the clueless)”
Absurd. Social conservatism doesn’t subsume fiscal conservatism. The two concepts are totally unrelated. Recognition of this obvious fact has been the most important development in American politics of the past half-decade.
There are two groups trying to push the fantasy that the two philosophies are intrinsically related (in a more fundamental way than a partial similarity of names). First, social conservatives themselves, presumably because they don’t want to be left behind by the surging popularity of fiscal conservatism. And second, our Leftoids, who hope to confuse the electorate into thinking that fiscal conservatives suffer from the same glaring faults as do the social conservatives. But it’s a load of rubbish. August 10, 2011 - 5:18 pm
From the comments at Vodka Pundit who had this to say. "Well said, Mr. Swift."
Let me add that there are a fair number of social conservatives who are on the left. Blacks and Hispanics mostly. And a fair number of social conservatives (Billy Sunday ring a bell?) joined with Progressives to give us Alcohol Prohibition, thus helping to make Progressivism the deleterious force it is today. It would be nice if I could be assured that social conservatives wouldn't again fall for that stuff. But they still support Drug Prohibition which looks suspiciously like a smaller form of Alcohol Prohibition. Not in the nature of the problem but the numbers of people involved. And still the social conservatives (that bastion of historical rememberance - according to them) don't seem to be able to learn from the history of Alcohol Prohibition. Pity.
Anyway - given the numbers of social conservatives on the left and given that a fair number are black - why am I not seeing calls from that group for fiscal conservatism? It is a wonder. Or it may be that social conservative does not equal fiscal conservative.
So what group is consistent on the fiscal question? I'd have to say libertarians. Except that there are a fairly large number of left libertarians. That leaves the Tea Party. So far. Except a fair number of them were pushing their social agenda items up until a few months ago. Which may merely mean they have gone into stealth mode.
So it is really not just the Left that I'm fighting. It is the statists of the Right and the Left. The folks who want to wield the fasces. And you know what we called those people in the 20th Century.
I see a lot of this phrase (or similar) "only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives" in comments on various posts around the 'net. Cynthia Yockey has an answer to that:
When I view the conservative movement I see it as being comprised of four ideological groups gathered in a tent so large that two of the groups have mutually exclusive goals:
1. Fiscal conservative, social liberal
2. Fiscal conservative, social conservative (when OUT of power, fiscal promises dominate; when IN power, social vendettas dominate and the majority of fiscal promises are scheduled for the indefinite future, aka, in your dreams)
3. Libertarians
4. Social conservative, fiscal liberal — for some reason, this group is usually shy about announcing its full identity and prefers to style itself as “compassionate” rather than liberal.
I have a sneaking suspicion it is the dominance of groups 2 and 4 in the conservative movement that is responsible for government growing even when conservatives are in power.
I think that #1 and #3 are identical philosophically.
And of course libertarians and Libertarians are staunch fiscal conservatives. Not real conservatives so I'm told. Which makes my point.
I'd also like to know what is fiscally conservative about supporting the Drug War which makes it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer and costs (Federally) $25 billion a year. Wouldn't it be wise to save the $25 billion a year ($70 billion Federal, State, and local) AND make those drugs as hard to get as a beer? We can do that with a legalization regime modeled after beer distribution.
The kind of victory that brings defeat is a Pyrrhic Victory. I'm going to discuss a few things before I show you why that idea is important to the general flow of American politics. This thought train was inspired by a discussion at What If They Gave A Revolution And You Didn't Show Up?
A classic military principle is to go after the weakest member of a coalition. The reason for this is that relative military strength is a non-linear function. Doubling the size of your army more than doubles your relative power. However, if you can isolate and defeat a segment of an enemy's support you subtract considerably from their total power. We see this in politics all the time. It doesn't matter if your guy got a million votes if the other guy wound up with a million and one. It might as well have been a million and one to zero. Quite a reduction in power from just one vote. In close situations you don't have to peel off much support to cause a change in outcomes.
So how are things divided up (more or less) in the American political space? Generally accepted values for the current major political divisions are 20% liberals and 40% conservatives. With the remaining 40% split among several other idea constellations including a significant libertarian contingent. In my anything but humble opinion (every day I get told how arrogant I am - thanks for the compliments) the 20% tend for the most part to be Economic Socialists and the 40% tend towards Moral Socialism. Nanny staters all. Don't believe me? It is discussed in detail in the comments at Why Did Social Conservatives Ally With Progressives? You can also check out a similar exposition at On Marijuana, Social Conservatives Trend Statist with a commenter suggesting this book:
Since the end of Alcohol Prohibition the two groups have divided their functions in seeming opposition to each other. The liberal/Progressive side handles the Economic Socialism and the Social Conservatives handle the Moral Socialism. Very convenient.
What does the Conservative Coalition look like? It consists of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. If the fiscal conservatives win the day (that looks very likely) and the Democrats go (are forced) in that direction then the only thing left to fight over will be the nanny state addictions of the Right. Consider: When the Progressives get defeated they are going to be pissed. Economics and size of government are now off the table (when it comes to increases). So what will be on the table? The social improvement projects of the right. And the defeated will go after them with a vengeance and they can get the fiscal conservatives (smaller government) types on their side without too much effort - no Drug War means smaller government after all.
Once you destroy the economic underpinning of the nanny state the moral underpinnings will not hold up well at all. Moral improvement (the support of black markets, gangs, and criminals) is not cheap. Once economic socialism is gone the people will turn on the nanny staters of the right. The death of Economic Socialism will lead to the death of Moral Socialism. I don't think the reverse order would work. For sure not as well.
The new rule should be: No victim no crime. Ah what about society as a victim? Did you say society? Isn't concern for the welfare of society (rather than the liberty of individuals) socialism? Interesting thought that. See how long you can hold it.
And while you are holding that thought think of this: the defeat of the Economic Socialists will then lead to the defeat of the Moral Socialists with libertarians being the ultimate victors. In other words a victory over the Economic Socialists will be a Pyrrhic Victory for the Moral Socialists. Which I suppose why the Moral Socialists don't trust me. They know that ultimately I am no friend despite our current alliance. Ultimately I'm a friend of Liberty. The more the better. Within the limits of the other guy's nose of course.
My motto: First Hitler then Stalin. And to get Hitler I will ally with Stalin. How much more Machiavellian can you get?
Balance of power politics played for the long game. I'm all in.
Punishing sinners. A thankless pass time. A LOT of money in it though.
According to Judeo/Christian philosophy punishing sinners is reserved for the Maker. Punishing disturbers of the peace is allowed.
Where our "religious" friends go off the rails is in conflating the two. Vice may be unseemly. It is not crime. Vice is to be regulated. Crime punished.
You can't stop people from doing damage to their immortal souls - called in some cases "a learning experience". You can create quite a bit of crime by trying to suppress vice though.
Who are the disturbers of the peace?
Well fashions in vice abatement change over time. For a long time in America alcohol was the favored target. Now we have new ones. And even those are on the verge of passing in the next 10 to 20 years. I wonder what/who we will be hating in 2030? Since every society needs something/someone to hate I propose the Andromeda Galaxy. It is sufficiently far away so that it is probably safe for a while.
Of course part of the problem here is the fragmented nature of the hate market. Some hate bankers, some politicians, Jew hatred is coming back to more normal levels, and some people are even so picky as to hate only Democrats or on the other side only Republicans. Such a very interesting dichotomy in America. The Democrats want to force you to do one thing. The Republicans another. They are united in their belief in force. Which is rather far from a belief in the Maker.
Me? Like any human I have my petty hatreds. I refuse to elevate them to the level of principle.
If you want government to leave you alone you must leave others alone.
It is a hard lesson to learn. And painful. Because there is so much evil in the world. And having government guns at your side to confront it is so comforting. Until the government turns its guns on you.
Our socialist friends on the left were going to fix the economic evils of the world. And our socialist friends on the right were going to fix the cultural evils of the world. So how did it turn out? They wound up empowering each other. And so neither side is happy. So to all my socialist friends may I suggest a way out of the impasse? Give it up. Socialism that is.
No. Not that kind. (Although if I got an invitation from some nice people I might consider it pending the first mate's approval. But you already know how that ends.) What I am is your quintessential libertarian swing voter. A proud member of the Leave Us Alone Party.
So I'm having discussions at Power and Control and Classical Values about this and that. Mostly abortion. And I must say that the social conservatives have done a right nice job of coming my way on 75% of the issues important to me. And of course we are totally down on the money issue. Mostly.
But the abortion issue seems to be a deal killer. Not for now. The financial bleeding must stop. But there is a future. If my conservative friends think there are government cures for our most contentious social issues I think they are mistaken. And I will fight as hard as I can to see that those collective solutions are never implemented. Sorry about that. My mind is made up.
In politics it is the tail that wags the dog. So unfair. Yes it is. But there you have it. Balance of power politics. So where am I for now? Economics in '10. Social Issues in '12.
It is my intention to wipe the floor with statists of every stripe. If you worship the fasces I intend to wipe the floor with you. To the best of my ability. God willing.
In the war between social and fiscal conservatives the question on everyone's mind is: who (or what) comes first? Lawrence Reed may have an answer.
“If you politically win on all the economic issues, you could lose on all the social ones and still have an avenue as a social conservative to advance what’s important to you,” Reed said. “When there’s a smaller government, families, individuals, private, voluntary organizations and churches have a bigger role. It’s on the strength of those institutions, not mandates from the government, that allow for a healthy culture to blossom."
Ah. But the social conservatives have an issue with that.
Social conservative Bob Patterson of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society thinks Americans must focus on social issues first, and that’s the main difference between social and fiscal conservatives. He said economic conservatives have traditionally been a lot better than social conservatives at furthering their interests, though.
I think Mr. Patterson has given us a clue. Unwittingly. Fiscal conservatism without the social conservative trappings is the bigger tent. i.e. more likely to win elections.
But I'm willing to run the experiment again. Let the social conservatives start passing laws or continuing government caused disasters (putting the distribution of some drugs solely in the hands of criminals) and we shall see if they can keep winning elections.
I mean what the heck? Two, or four, or six, or eight years of communists in power would be worth it to find the outcome of the experiment. How bad could it hurt?
We did run the experiment in Illinois a while back. The year was 2004. Given the choice between a flaming socon who disowned his lesbian daughter and a communist in 2004 I voted for the communist.
And the name of the communist? You might have heard of him.
The Euro is going down. Not with a whimper but with a bang. A trillion dollar bang.
Mrs Merkel is right: "The euro is in danger… if the euro fails, then Europe fails." What she has not yet admitted publicly is that the main cause of the single currency's peril appears beyond her control and therefore her impetuous response to its crisis of confidence is doomed to fail.
The euro has many flaws, but its weakest link is Greece, whose fundamental problem is that for years it spent too much, earned too little and plugged the gap by borrowing in order to enjoy a rich man's lifestyle. It flouted EU rules on the limits to budget deficits; its national accounts were a moussaka of minced statistics, topped with a cheesy sauce of jiggery-pokery.
By any legitimate measure, Greece was unworthy of eurozone membership. That it achieved card-carrying status was down to the sleight-of-hand skills of its Brussels fixers and the acquiescence of central bank bean-counters. Now we know the truth, jet-hosing it with yet more debt makes no sense. Another dose of funny money will delay but not extinguish the need for austerity.
This is why the euro, in its current form, is finished. The game is up for a monetary union that was meant to bolt together work-and-save citizens in northern Europe with the party animals of Club Med. No amount of pit props from Berlin can save the euro Mk I from collapsing under the weight of its structural dysfunctionality. You cannot run indefinitely a single currency with one interest rate for 16 economies, when there are such huge fiscal disparities.
What was once deemed unthinkable is now, I believe, inevitable: withdrawal from the eurozone of one or more of its member countries.
The welfare state as we know it is unsustainable. I suppose I'm going to need some back up for such a broad statement. I have it.
Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.
Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.
Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. “The Europe that protects” is a slogan of the European Union.
But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead.
With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.
“We’re now in rescue mode,” said Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister. “But we need to transition to the reform mode very soon. The ‘reform deficit’ is the real problem,” he said, pointing to the need for structural change.
The reaction so far to government efforts to cut spending has been pessimism and anger, with an understanding that the current system is unsustainable.
And yet under our Glorious Leader, in this crisis our government has moved in the direction that sunk Europe. One way or another it will not last.
Riehl World View is discussing why the GOP online efforts will fail. One commenter is looking for:
a leader that embraces conservatism instead of power.
That will never happen until the majority of the "conservative" base gives up on social engineering. i.e. really embraces small government instead of paying it lip service.In the meantime we will see the pendulum swing back and forth between the social engineers of the right and those of the left.
In my opinion the absolute BIGGEST MISTAKE RR made was getting involved in the Culture War. i.e. amping up the Drug War.
Culture is the responsibility of the people NOT the government.
It would be nice if we had two parties competing on the basis of more Liberty rather than more Control. What are the odds? It goes against nature for one thing. Some people crave power and control. Heck. I'm one of them (don't elect me - ever), but I channel that desire into something useful. Electrical power systems. Electrons go where they are told - mostly.
"the Right is looking for converts and the Left is looking for heretics."
I always thought the left was looking for lunatics.
Preferably well educated lunatics:
George Orwell: "Some things are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them"
Looking for converts implies that Republicanism is faith based. There is in fact a big belief problem in the US. So is belief in a Supreme Being the problem? No. How about hatred of abortion and gay marriage? Nope. It ain't even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Nope. It is the belief that Cultural Conservatives are reliably in favor of limiting government spending and thus favor smaller government. Cultural Conservatives make Cultural Issues the litmus test of Conservatism (if you are OK on abortion your spending record doesn't matter). And thus we get politicians like Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is proof positive that blind support for cultural conservatives is no panacea. In fact it is probably counterproductive.
And yet in comments around the 'net the idea that only cultural conservatives are reliable fiscal conservatives (you can find an example at the Classical Values link above) is widespread. Nice idea. If only it was true then all Republicans would need is a Jesus Test. Or a "Sincerely Held Religious Belief Test" if you prefer.
The Republicans have two problems in this area. Too many Cultural Socialists in the Party and too many Economic Socialists. My (often repeated) stance on this issue is simple (Clever for a Simon. No?) - Just Say No to Socialism. Government is no more capable of creating a moral people than it is of creating a wealthy people.
I’m still waiting to see a Conservative stance on the drug war:
“We should do the conservative thing and go back to the way things were before Progressives screwed it up with their ideas of prohibiting plants and plant extracts in order to gain moral uplift.”
Conservatism these days is not a thought out ideology. It is just a series of conditioned reflexes.
The idea that government can provide moral uplift either directly or by contracting out the job is non-sense on stilts. The incentives are wrong. Of course the other conceit is that by either macro or micro policies including a series of punishments and rewards the government can produce a producing economy.
But real economies are different. The real economy is really a series of blind amoebas searching out higher concentrations of useful nutrients. i.e. What job needs to be done. Can I do it at a profit? Are there higher profit opportunities available? Are the rewards commensurate with the risks? What is the opportunity cost? What to do about low profit potential but vital support functions?
You know. The kinds of things government doesn't like to think about.
Any way, with government there is no incentive to solve a problem. The incentive is to get more money to solve a problem. Every year. As it is with economics. So it is with morality and culture.
Now compare what he says near the end of this two minute video to what is said 36 minutes in to the video that can be found here.
And also carefully note that he doesn't hold the Legislature of California totally to blame. He says the voters are driving the problem.
Also note that Bill Lockyer, who is a Democrat, obliquely takes a shot at the Republicans for focusing on the Culture War instead of bread and butter issues like controlling State spending.
There are rather few conservatives who are consistent about their policy choices. They think that putting government guns to people's heads can fix a lot of things. Maybe not economics, but certainly culture. And then you have their counterparts who think putting government guns to people's heads can fix economics certainly, but not culture. The folks favoring government guns to solve problems are called in polite company statists. Worshipers of force. As the Romans used to say: fasces. Or as Il Duce preferred: fascism.
Me? I'm against socialism in economics and culture. It may or may not be wise policy. It is consistent.
Government fiat can no more create moral health than it can create economic health.
Smaller more restricted government is the only way forward.
We should look to the "success" of the California Republican Party and work to solve moral issues in the same place that economic issues need to be solved. The private sector.
Mr. Obama's big problems so far have been his relations with corrupt politicians. I think it will be a continuing problem with his new administration. However, his biggest problem is that the Democrat Party is prone to strangling the economy.
A case in point his his nominee for energy czar, Carol Browner. She is also referred to as the climate czar. And what is with is with this czar business? A drug czar, a car czar, and now a climate/energy czar. I suppose the purpose of the czar if to oversee the 10,000 Federal efforts in a given area and make them all pull in the same direction. Of course a czar is a petty dictator. And you know where that leads. Such a policy has been tried before only it was called by another name Fuehrerprinzip. You know it doesn't sound nearly as appealing in the original German.
So where were we? Oh yeah the new climate fuhrer has an interesting past. However, she was no National Socialist. She was an international socialist (bigger ambitions?). A member of the Socialist International which was founded in 1951. And what is their fundamental policy on energy/climate and other ecological matters?
The best and cheapest solutions to the crisis are those that change the basic framework of production and consumption so that environmental damage does not occur in the first place.
Let me repeat the critical part change the basic framework of production and consumption. What would that mean in practice? Appointing really smart fuhrers who would tell us what to do. No more of that try things out and see who profits capitalist crap. Nope. This will all be very scientific. The smartest people (with the right political connections) will be giving orders. Friedrich Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom explained why that is impossible. No one person actually knows enough to give the right orders for millions of people. No one can know the correct trade offs in all cases. There is a Hayek I might be willing to take orders from. But it would have to be up close and personal. And even then it would probably lead to Mi Vida Loca as it does in economics.
According to its own principles, Socialist International favors the nationalization of industry, is skeptical of the benefits of economic growth and wants to establish a more “equitable international economic order.” In true Marxist form, it asserts that, “The concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled -- as citizen, consumer or wage-earner -- to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life.”
Of course to carry out that sort of economics you can't just have people going off on their own deciding what is just. You need a dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words the fuhrer decides what is good for you and what you will get. And you will be getting it good and hard.
So how does she intend to reduce carbon emissions? She has a plan. It is called decoupling. Profits will be decoupled from production.
In late-December, Carbon Control News reported that Browner was a “strong backer” of utility “decoupling,” which had emerged as a “key climate policy priority for Obama.”
What is utility decoupling? The profits of electric utility companies have traditionally depended on the amount of electricity sold; basically, the more power that is sold, the more profit that is earned. The productivity-profitability link is a logical and standard business principle that is easy to understand, easy to implement and that has worked for, well, millennia in myriad business ventures -- but no more for electric utilities, if Browner has her way.
Browner wants to sever, or decouple, a utility’s profits from the amount of electricity it sells. More electricity means more coal and natural gas burning, which, according to green dogma, means more greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. So Browner believes that less electricity production is, at least, a partial answer to climate change. But less electricity would mean less profitability for electric utilities, a powerful Washington lobby that Browner can ill afford to antagonize.
To date, the electric utility industry has aided and abetted the climate alarmist cause, if not by actually lobbying for global warming regulation, then at least by its willingness to entertain such regulation as public policy worthy of serious consideration. But since endangering utility profits would likely galvanize the industry once and for all against emissions regulation, the green dilemma boils down to figuring out a way to reduce electricity sales while guaranteeing utility profits. Enter decoupling.
How would decoupling actually function in practice? There are several different schemes for decoupling, but their tedious complexity precludes elaboration here. But the schemes all essentially amount to the same thing -- sticking it to ratepayers and taxpayers. This should come as no surprise, when you stop to think about it.
Decoupling involves government guaranteeing electric utilities steady or steadily increasing profits for selling less electricity. That means implementing one of three basic scenarios: (1) consumers paying more for less electricity; (2) electricity prices remaining steady and taxpayers being called upon to subsidize the difference between the profits from actual electricity sales and the profits guaranteed by government; or (3) some combination of the two. There are no other possibilities.
Obama did promise in his election campaign to bankrupt the coal industry and it looks like he has found just the woman to do it. The British are well into such a scheme and it looks like they are losing their power. Their electrical power.
It was in July of this year that the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee - prop. Tim Yeo - told the government that it must set a deadline for coal-fired power stations to install technology massively to cut their emissions, or they must be shut down.
In so doing, the committee sought to add to the burden on an industry which is already, for diverse reasons, failing to get to grips with the looming electricity shortage – offering a strategy which would make it near certain that the lights went out in 2012 or sooner.
Now, from the same House of Commons which brought you this lunacy, we have the Business and Enterprise Committee, headed by another Conservative MP – this time Peter Luff. His committee is warning that Britain is threatened by an "energy crunch" with disastrous social and economic consequences.
Ah yes the social in socialism brings disastrous consequences. When was it ever otherwise? The electric utilities will make out and the consumer will do without electricity. Corporate socialism at its finest. For the people. With political connections.
So is the Obama team proud of Ms. Browner's socialist connections? I don't think so.
Then there’s Carol Browner, Obama’s pick as energy czar and Clinton’s Environmental Protection Agency director. She’s a member of Socialist International, the world’s leading home for socialism and SI’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address man-caused climate change.
What’s wrong with socialism?
Not much, too many Democrats say. But someone on Obama’s team was a bit concerned, though, because by Thursday, Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page.
It is almost as if they had something to hide.
And there is another reason why socialist Browner is kind of a funny choice for Obama. When she headed the EPA it was a hotbed of racism.
According to a February 2001 report in TIME magazine, the EPA was plagued with “festering racial problems” during Browner’s time in charge. One African-American EPA employee, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, told TIME that she’d been passed over for promotions for being “too uppity,” adding, "We [African-American employees] were treated like Negroes, to use a polite term. We were put in our place.”
Coleman-Adebayo was later awarded $600,000 in damages in a settlement that found the EPA guilty of “discrimination and retaliation against whistle blowers.” Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the “No Fear” government whistle blower protection act in response to the Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner decision.
Dr. Coleman-Adebayo lamented in a recent interview, "The very woman I prevailed against in court is being elevated to a White House decision-level position."
At least 150 EPA employees filed similar lawsuits during Browner’s time there. In one particularly bizarre incident, blogger Shawn Mallow notes, “Anita Nickens, an EPA specialist, and the only black present during a visit of Mrs. Browner, was told to clean the toilet prior to her arrival. Afterward, the rest of her white co-workers bragged about it.”
It's a good thing Browner's appointment to the newly invented post of "Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change" isn't subject to Senate approval.
There are a lot of good things about the Obama administration. Understanding the scientific arguments about global warming isn't one of them. Fortunately, although the scientific arguments about global warming aren't settled the politics is. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Socialism all the way. Because they believe, despite over a hundred years of recent evidence, that government can run your life better than you can.
Our only hope is that Mr. Obama is kept busy with corruption scandals and foreign wars so that he does not have much time or political capital to do serious damage here at home.
It looks like social conservatism as a political force is shrinking in America.
Superficially, 2008 seems like a similar success for social conservatives. Following the passage of marriage amendments in Arizona and Florida, as well as California, Maggie Gallagher wrote at National Review Online, “when it comes to marriage, there is no such thing as a blue state or a red state. Americans support marriage as the union of husband and wife.” But a closer look at the election results and the legal developments in the past year suggests that 2008 is in fact the year the marriage debate tipped in favor of same-sex marriage.
Only Arizona passed its traditional marriage initiative by 2004-like margins. While only 38 percent voted against the Florida initiative, the measure passed the required 60-percent threshold by just 2 points. In California, Proposition 8 passed by a bare 52 percent of the vote, and exit polls seem to attribute its success to an abnormally high turnout of socially conservative black voters. In Connecticut, voters had the chance to resist their state’s pro-gay-marriage Supreme Court decision, Kerrigan v. Public Health, by voting for a constitutional convention. That initiative failed by 20 points.
It looks like America is trending towards being a socially liberal nation. A look at the demographics will make that clearer.
Exit polls reveal that without the overwhelming support of voters over 65, neither the Florida nor California marriage initiatives would have passed. Younger voters turned out overwhelmingly against them. Absent an incredible shift in attitudes, same-sex marriage will soon command majority support. Shrinking majorities voting in favor of traditional marriage will encourage similar rulings to the Connecticut court’s.
I think this points to something that is inevitable. Social conservatism as a political force is a spent force. It is dying out.
The minor victories for marriage traditionalists this year point to defeats in the near future. Unless social conservatives find a way to appeal to voters under 40, Newsom’s prediction, “It’s inevitable,” is unassailable.
It is true that social conservatives own the Republican Party. What they don't seem to own is the voters. And it is not just gay marriage that is faltering. Voters don't seem to be too happy with the marijuana laws in the nation. Massachusetts voted to decriminalize marijuana possession for personal use by a whopping 65 to 35 margin. OK Massachusetts is a pretty liberal state. How about Michigan where a medical marijuana initiative was on the ballot? It won 63% to 37%. Which is pretty whopping. If only Republicans could win with those kinds of numbers. (pun intended)
All right. How about another cause celebe of the social conservatives. Abortion. How did that fare in the recent election? In South Dakota a ballot initiative to ban abortion failed 45% to 55%. Now South Dakota is supposed to be one of the rock ribbed conservative states. Failure. Colorado wanted to define life as beginning at conception. Down in flames. And not just down. Spin, crash, and burn down. It lost by a 73% to 27% margin. In a state that used to be counted Republican. And how about the parental notification law in California? Another loss at 48% to 52%.
It seems rather obvious that America is turning socially liberal. In other words the people are saying "Leave Us Alone" and let us make our own choices on social issues. A rather libertarian attitude towards social issues.
So where does that leave the Republican party? Although the social conservatives control the party it looks like the voters are leaning towards the libertarian wing on questions dear to the hearts of our beloved social conservatives. I think it is past time the party returned to its small government roots. On all issues. And it would help if the Republican Congress Critters actually acted responsibly on fiscal issues.
Now am I suggesting that Republicans jettison social conservatives? Not in any way shape or form. What I'm suggesting is that social conservatives adopt the small government position in all matters, not just economic ones. Just say no to Cultural Socialism. Just say no to Economic Socialism. If the party adopted such a stance it just might be a winner.
You can find out more on how various ballot questions fared at Boston.com
Every attempt to legislate vice into oblivion has led to vice + crime.
And yet socons keep falling for that trick. If you have studied the matter you know that Economic Socialism is at best a brake on the economy and at worst causes retrograde motion.
Cultural Socialism (using government power to end sin) always leads to an increase in crime. But socons - being the simple folks that they are - keep falling for the empty promises of Cultural Socialism.
So we have two parties whose main features are: Democrats - they know Cultural Socialism doesn't work. Republicans - they know Economic Socialism doesn't work.
I'm looking for a viable party that knows Socialism doesn't work. Period.
According to FTC regulations I am required to disclose any material benefit I receive from any blog post.
OK.
I get paid from Amazon if you order from any of the links provided. I will give you an honest opinion of any products I have ordered if I blog about them.
If you don't trust me read the Amazon reviews. If there is no review you are on your own.
If you pay me enough and promise to cover my lawyers fees I may say something nice about you. Or I may not. Enough is generally more than you can afford. Unless you have a a really really big bank account or more that a few large gold bars under the mattress.
If you do pay I expect to be transported to a country with no extradition treaty with the US.
If I review a book it may be because the author or publisher sent me a review copy. Other wise I will quote a review of some one else. If I say a product looks interesting it is because it interests me. Sometimes I will link to books so you can educate yourself on a subject and so I can make some off the sale.
If some one employs me I will probably say good things about them as long as the money keeps coming. Or I may say nothing. To keep out of trouble with their lawyers.
That covers most of what I can think of. I'm getting old and sometimes I don't think of everything.
And if you have read this far please Buy Something From Amazon. I can use the money - well actually I will use the proceeds to buy something from Amazon. I get a better deal that way.
can you get?
explained why that is impossible. No one person actually knows enough to give the right orders for millions of people. No one can know the correct trade offs in all cases. There is a 
Posts
