Bill INDC examines inherent areas of conflict between social conservatives and Bush foreign policy-supporting centrists and libertarians who have joined, for the time being, in a tenuous voting alliance. Bill’s concern is that social conservatives are interpreting recent Republican electoral successes as a mandate to push their social agenda (which, of course, is natural)—but that in so doing, these social cons are, often quite arrogantly, dismissing and alienating an important portion of the electoral alliance that has brought conservatives /Republicans to power in the first place (which is a mistake).
For my part, my “conservatism,” such as it is, is decided upon on an issue by issue basis, and I tend to self-identify as a classical liberal rather than either a conservative or a libertarian (the former, because it tends to evoke a religiosity-based legislative impulse that I don’t share; the latter because it tends to embrace the wrong slippery slope hypotheticals over the right temporary pragmatic necessities).
I do worry, however, that the impulse on the part of social cons to legislate “morality” (and yes, I realize that all legislation represents a manifestation of someone’s morality—this is what postmodernism has taught us—but the morality of which I speak is more dogmatic and proscriptive) rubs against the idea of smaller government that is supposedly the joint provence of conservatism and libertarianism.
Case in point (from Reuters): “Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.”
“Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area,” the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. “I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air” broadcasters.
“There has to be some standard of decency,” he said. But he also cautioned that “No one wants censorship.”
Of course, what Stevens really means when he says “no one wants censorship” is “no one wants to be accused of advocating for censorship, so instead, let’s see if we can’t make ‘decency’ our operable Orwellian code word for justifying why the government should be allowed to hitch a ride on the signals you’re paying for in order to enter your house and snip the naughty bits out of your favorite HBO series.”
I teased social cons about their outrage over the possibility that Kid Rock, an ardent supporter of U.S troops and of the spread of democracy around the globe, might be invited to perform at what they saw as “their” inauguration party; but when Senators begin pushing for “decency” standards based on a purely subjective standards, my classical liberal’s antenna goes up and my skin begins feeling a little clammy.
Because these types of infringements upon personal freedom and choice are the very thing that drove me away from modern day “liberals” in the first place; for instance, to me, the idea that free speech on a university campus can only take place in pre-defined “free speech zones” (while the rest of the campus is a “tolerance” zone, or—more aptly—the land of bland, inoffensive generalities mouthed by frightened, confused adepts to a fundamentally un-American PC/Diversity culture) is a clear indication that “liberalism” had lost its moorings, and that modern “liberalism” or “progressivism” is simply a soft totalitarianism proscribed by self-appointed cultural elites.
In my estimation, conservatives, for the most part, have become the new champions of free speech and freedom of expression against a left that is growing increasingly doctrinaire. Which is one of the reasons I find myself voting Republican these days.
And social conservatives simply need to recognize that, should they begin trying to impose their subjective ideas of what is and is not “appropriate” or “decent” speech on those of us who were running from that to begin with, they risk alienating what is certainly an important portion of their current plurality.
As Ace puts it, “The minute you try taking away my access to the Spice Channel is the minute I start toying with the idea of comparing you to Hitler my own damn self.”
And believe me. He’s only half joking, whether he realizes it or not…
****
update: more thoughts here. And here.
update 2 See also: Lileks.
Thanks Jeff.. That was excellent.. Oh, by the way, I’ll be plagiarizing this piece mercilessly.. Just so ya know.. Once again you’ve stated my thoughts far better than I ever could have.
A Classic Liberal.. that’s how I’d self identify as well if the word ‘Liberal’ as used these days didnt leave such a bad taste in my mouth.. I like the term ‘South Park Republican’ better.. or ‘Old School Democrat’ from the ‘..bear any burden’ generation.. But I wont accept any label that seems to lump me together with Mike Moore and the current crop of Culture Nazis.
-BPM
Turing Word: working
yes I should be… back to doing so now…
Ted Stevens is a gnome. If there were any decency, he would have been set adrift on an ice floe years ago.
And I say that as a conservative generally more comfortable with the cultural agenda than almost anybody here.
I don’t think it’s fair (or accurate) to use my post about Chris Rock’s trash mouth to lump me in with people trying to censor programs and take away their Spice Channel, whatever that is. But to use such language on prime time TV is, in my humble opinion, inappropriate. For channels designated for such things, knock yourselves out.
Chris Rock is not above criticism, and the same way you’re criticizing my views on this issue, I can criticize Rock’s antics. This is a free country, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. If people want smut, let them have smut. But you better believe I’m going to run my mouth about it.
…FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS.
McG, clarify, please. You’re more comfortable with the “conservative” view of culture/morality, or the other way around?
LaShawn —
You’re linked under subjective ideas in the sentence, “And social conservatives simply need to recognize that, should they begin trying to impose their subjective ideas of what is and is not ‘appropriate’ or ‘decent’ speech on those of us who were running from that to begin with, they risk alienating what is certainly an important portion of their current plurality.”
No where do I suggest you agree with Stevens. And you are certainly entitled to your opinions of what is or isn’t “vulgar.” My point is simply that should social cons begin pontificating publically about what or what is not “vulgar” (as is their right), they could find that they are alienating part of the voting coalition that they rely upon for power.
It’s a tricky tightrope to walk. As a mom of 3 boys (and 2 girls) … what am I to do about that comic book store around the corner that sells HARD core porn (and comic book porn?) If I took a picket sign and marched back in forth, would that make me one of the Dr. Dobson uptight freaks – or does it make me a mom that isn’t happy that porn is being sold next to comic books (as well as the traffic of often degenerate-looking men going in and out.)
I’m all for free speech, but not for hard-core porn accessible to my kids.
Are your kids allowed in the store…? If so, are they allowed near the porn?
Yes, it is a used bookstore/comic bookstore -with a rickety curtain over a portion that contains the “adult” material. In line, before I realized they sold this stuff before – right ahead of me was a man buying a stack of porn- which I could easily see in his hands. Luckily, my kids weren’t with me, or they would have seen it too.
I’m generally sympathetic with this worldview, which is one of over a dozen reasons why I insist on calling my worldview liberal–classical liberal of course, but also just plain a real liberal.
Although I’ll tell you something: the more time goes on the more I think, I just don’t care of the social conservatives want to use the FCC to regulate the hell out of the public airwaves. I just don’t. My last objection to that ended when satellite radio became available everywhere in the US. At this point there’s no one left who can’t get either satellite or cable TV or internet access. If the social cons will pledge to leave the private networks alone and solely restrict themselves to limiting what’s on the broadcast radio and broadcast telvision spectrums, well, I just no longer care. Let ‘em have it. If it becomes nothing but The Price Is Right and The Brady Bunch 24/7, to be honest I probably wouldn’t notice anyway.
That said: it’s wise, I think, to rattle the social conservatives’ cages every now and then. But on the other hand, Jeff, let’s give them this: without the social conservatives, we’d be stuck with the likes of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi setting the agenda. So they may want to rattle our cages back, and that’s okay too.
Democracy is always made up of uneasy coalitions….
And, I will add – that the store is next DOOR to an ice cream place (same owner, matter of fact.) Outside are huge “comic” book painting, which are sure to attract the attention of every boy around (and he sells soda in the store for 50 cents, a fact he advertises on the door.) It beacons boys in. How many of you with kids (or imagine you had kids) would be happy about such a store around the corner from you?
Good post. We need to hold this coalition together, and I think your analysis sums up the way many of us feel. I’m already frustrated by the “I will stay at home and not vote on principle” type social cons when the idea of a more moderate Republican candidate in 08 comes up (of course its a little early for that but its something we will face).
Carin: I dunno, it sounds like the porn is put off in a separate section kids aren’t allowed into. If that’s really the case, I honestly wouldn’t care anymore than I care about the mom & pop video store near here which rents regular videos but also has a special little closet where they put porn videos.
Carin,
If the porn is so bothersome, you buy your children’s comics or go find another store. Archie and Spiderman may sell a lot of comics, but not always enough to pay the rent. That’s why comic book stores (and independent bookstores in general, plus independent video stores, and all sorts of other kinds of stores) welcome the revenue that plastic-wrapped adult materials bring in.
It’s not a tricky tightrope, it’s parenting. Sorry to go all Dr. Laura on you, but you get to tell your children “no” when you want to. And you get to deal with their complaints, too. I have a daugher and three sons, and it gets tiresome to deal with whining. But principles are principles, so use ‘em or lose ‘em.
I also thought you were suggesting it. That bit about social conservatives trying to “impose their subjective values” replete with links led me to go and re-read LaShawn’s and Powerline’s posts to see if that’s what they were up to. They weren’t.
As for too-vocal opinions about vulgarity threatening the right-wing coalition: true enough, but of course that works both ways. Something for the Kid Rock fans to think about.
I liked Ridenour’s piece, too, for what it’s worth.
Well, how about if a toy store had a little curtain behind which it sold sex toys? Would that be ok too? I know adults read comic too – but comics usually have a pretty big following among kids (boys.) And, this isn’t a special little closet – it takes up about a third of the floor space of the store.
I don’t think I’m being a social conservative nutcase when I say I’m not happy that the neighborhood store is peddling porn next to comic books.
Dean,
Suppose you have a tight budget and have to rely on the poor man’s broadcast media. Do you really want the government to control all of that? Is freedom of speech a pay-cable option, or available with the basic service?
This looming war, between South Park Republicans and the social conservatives, has all the signs of driving the Republican Party as a whole back into the minority. I think that if current trends in the Middle East keep up, we may well be looking at a completely different political landscape in 2008. And as a SP Repub, I don’t think that’s a bad thing, as long as it’s a divided government, not monolithic Dem.
Turing word “south”. Doodoodoodoo.
/Twilight Zone theme
Oh, believe me, they do NOT go into the store. But, it’s the fricken neighborhood bookstore! I parent (thankyouverymuch.) It is just SAD that my nice neighborhood has what I consider BLIGHT to it. Believe me – when my Grandma was raising her kids, she didn’t have to worry about this stuff. Parents are asked to increasingly watch absolutely every fricken move they make. You can’t even trust a PG movie now-a-days. It’s hard not to feel that society is “out to get” your kids. THAT is how I feel. I mean, cripes, you can’t listen to the radio or watch tv without those Erectile disfunction ads everywhere.
This thread deserves a little touch of PJ O’Rourkes timeless essay- How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism ‘R’ Us
That’s the essence of the problem. Pushing our personal moral agendas is one thing, but trying to get the government to do it for one group over another is entirely different- and not only different but inherently dangerous. We are a nation that must agree to disagree, I get scared when one group has too much sway in our country. That’s why we at the very least need a stronger democratic party. Or at least one not infested with moonbats..
As for too-vocal opinions about vulgarity threatening the right-wing coalition: true enough, but of course that works both ways. Something for the Kid Rock fans to think about.
Yeah, except libertarian GOP’ers have been putting up with quite a bit of the social cons “too-vocal opinions” for years now. because we really want to kill terrorists.
In contrast, name for me the strident, dismissive small “l” libertarian-Republican attacks on social cons in the past few years.
Ridenour’s piece was slightly arrogant and presumptuous.
“We all agree on judicial activism.”
“Go ahead and leave, we’ll sacrifice two terms and win the next time around, claiming it as a victory.”
Okay then.
Actually, Allah, my bit was conditionally framed as SHOULD social cons BEGIN TRYING TO IMPOSE their subjective ideas of decency on those of us who conceive of decency differently, they risk alienating us and disrupting the alliance that has put them into power. Which was more of a cautionary pronouncement than a descriptive one.
I simply used too examples of some recent posts by social conservatives that were, in my estimation, attempting to define the limits of “decency”. I am under no illusions that LaShawn Barber can craft and pass legislation. Stevens is a different—and far more extreme example—of the the sensibilities I see in certain conservative critiques of public speech being made manifest.
Carin,
Have you talked with other parents in your community and asked for their opinions on the bookstore?
Excellent post and comments. I suspect most have read Lileks comments on this issue also, but for those who haven’t, I think he is spot on when he writes, “Think of it this way: broadcast TV and radio is the front porch; cable and movies and satellite radio is the living room with the curtains down. We can all censure the man who stands on his own porch and moons the world while employing the full panoply of English cursewords. We have no business parting the curtains to see if he’s in the comfy chair reading Henry Miller.”
Shawn, no. But, really, unless they’ve been inside, they would have no idea – there are comic figures drawn on the outside, and all it says is “comics and used books” – porn is not mentioned – lol.
My point- I got a bit off topic -was : where is the line drawn between one person speaking out against what she considers indecency and, as Jeff wrote-a social conservatives trying to impose their subjective ideas of what is and is not “appropriate†or “decent.” I wonder if every time a conservative complains about decency, is this charge going to appear?
More importantly, is there NO line of decency?? For those that say pornography will be taken only from their cold dead hand … is there NOTHING to be forbidden?
As Jeff points out, LaShawn Barber can’t draft or enforce legislation. Still, tone matters if you’re talking about a coalition. In her Oscars post, LaShawn wrote:
This struck me as I would imagine it would strike LaShawn if I said “I can’t believe that LaShawn’s into this crazy Jesus stuff. What the fuck is she thinking?”
This, along with the Powerline statement re: never having heard of Chris Rock and then making a thin-skinned snap judgment about him based on one anti-Bush joke made me sit up and say “Huh?” this week.
I defend those who are more overtly religious than I am when someone sneers at them, but smug sneering from any direction is not to my tastes.
If some want to turn into the arbiter of what “real” conservatives or Republicans are, they’ll turn into the mirror image of Oliver Willis and his attendant bizarre attacks on Jarvis.
Carin,
Have you perused popular comic books over the last 10 years? The connotation of “comic” has a different meaning today, then it did when DC and Marvel dominated the markets with the equivalent of the Andy Griffith Show. It’s the difference between the cartoon Super Friends and modern Batman renditions. Now “comics” have more competing publishers and the look of comics is totally different. From a violence and even sex aspect just flip through a copy of “Spawn”, it’s a totally different medium. Comics of the Archie sort are still out there but are overwhelmed by things you’ll likely find inappropriate for your kids. Comic book stores are absolutely an area of supervision for parents just like the Internet. The fact they got a porn section is probably an eye opener but the real shocker is to peruse the stuff that’s not in such a place that you might consider to be harmless.
A porn section in a comic book store is about as reasonable as porn in a 7-11 or an Airport newsstand. I have no problem with it but parents need to be aware. Ask Michelle of A Small Victory blog about comic book content. There’s a lot of sexual and dark stuff in a lot of mainstream and alternative comic book publications. It’s been that way for at least 14 years since I was in college. By the way, at least then a lot of it was quite good just not appropriate for certain ages.
Hmmm.
Frankly I don’t bother with INDCJournal any longer. What I find curious is that most “social conservatives” get some extremely nasty slamming by “libertarians” and “moderates” when they dare express personal misgivings. Or any opinions at all that differ from what the “moderates” are pushing. Evidently calling yourself a “moderate” gives you license to attack anyone for a differing opinion.
Carin, your experience here was duplicated repeatedly on INDC. Which is why I simply don’t bother visiting that site any longer. That this particular issue, and those peculiar viewpoints, have migrated here rather bothers me.
Here’s a clue for you “moderates” and “libertarians”. You might threaten to leave the GOP, but conservatives are really the ones to be worried about. While “libertarians”, as a political entity, are generally hapless, conservatives generally differ from each other only in slight degrees. While I’m a fiscal conservative, I can easily understand the concerns that Carin has about the neighborhood situation. You simply cannot watch kids 24×7 and it’s entirely probable that every boy in the neighborhood has perused every bit of porn in that store.
It’s nice that Bush’s foreign policy has been successful. That’s pretty much why conservatives voted for him. Otherwise he’s been a really suck-ass President for conservatives as he’s completely ignored most all conservative issues and agenda points. IMHO if it weren’t for the GWOT the GOP would have lost the conservative voters in 2004 and they very well may lose them in 2006. They will lose them in 2008 as there will no longer be any reason to show any loyalty to the GOP at that point.
So you guys can threaten all you like, pretty much everyone realises it’s just nonsense. On the other hand the threat of conservatives leaving the GOP is a very real issue and will drastically change the politics of 2006-2008.
Don’t like it?
Don’t care.
I thought everyone here was discussing a legitimate issue like adults, Ed. If it bothers you even to have the issue broached, don’t read it.
And I’m not “threatening” anything. I’m simply observing that this winning electoral coalition between conservatives, libertarians, and liberal foreign policy hawks could break down should one side push too hard in its (quite natural) desire to see its entire agenda enacted into law. For my part, any feint toward limiting my speech makes me uneasy.
Don’t like it?
Don’t care.
Yeah, the GOP needs South Park republicans and Kid Rock Republicans.
They’d better not forget it.
LOL Ed, social conservatives would leave the GOP? And go where? That’s political suicide.
I think cons are more pragmatic (and more sensible) than that.
…where is the line drawn between one person speaking out against what she considers indecency and, as Jeff wrote-a social conservatives trying to impose their subjective ideas of what is and is not “appropriate†or “decent.â€Â
IMO, it’s where those subjective ideas risk becoming law which governs many.
I’ll admit there was an ulterior motive in my asking if you talked about the bookstore with others. I would have no problem if a group of concerned citizens/parents got together and petitioned City Hall or confronted the shop owner. However, I would have a problem if a law was passed banning porn in certain establishments or requiring some distance between those kinds of stores and ice cream parlors.
Spam word: states
Dario – no I have not looked recently, but I figured that comic books ran the gamete from appropriate to inappropriate for kids (and, I hoped that the comic-book guy kept them separate.) But, if it is reasonable to assume there would be a porn section in a comic book store, than I guess I wouldn’t want it near my house at all.
I’m not asking the government step in and forbid it (although it would have been nice if my local government hadn’t approved it for a neighborhood”.) I’m saying -that when one person takes a grass roots approach, is this tantamount to the encroachment of my values on yours? Because, the way I see – the profane is so in my face as it is, I feel a pretty strong urge to push back. When I’m driving down the highway, I don’t appreciate seeing billboards for stripe clubs.
what Ed said is the attitude i’m talking about…it leads to the mindset “If candidate X the republicans run in 08 isnt conservative enough I’m staying home or voting 3rd party” thereby handing the election to the dems and then really seeing your agenda go down the drain, as Kodos or Kang said…it’s a two-party system, go ahead, throw your vote away
but seriously, the moderates and social cons need each other
Thanks, Ed, for demonstrating
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003078.php
The Democrats as a whole are far too interested in power as opposed to actual principles – or rather their only principle is to oppose the Republicans.
But Republican (conservatives) are far too interested in being right – and bitter – and powerless.
Hmmm.
“LOL Ed, social conservatives would leave the GOP? And go where? That’s political suicide.”
Really?
I personally know about twenty conservatives that didn’t vote in the 2004 election because they despised Bush. I barely brought myself to vote for him and the entire rationale was the GWOT. Personally I don’t plan on voting for Republicans in 2006 and probably won’t in 2008. If there isn’t a decent independent or Democrat, then I simply will stay home.
This isn’t a new tactic. Conservatives have refrained from voting in prior elections and there’s no indication that this won’t happen again.
May I point out that the current GOP has been terrible on conservative issues? I’m not a social conservative, but some friends are. The GOP has pretty much killed FMA. Arlen Specter and spineless GOP Senators are going to cave on conservative judges. The tax cuts are a complete joke when compared to the enormous spending increases, a $200+ billion dollar price tag on Iraq and a $1 trillion dollar price tag on new entitlements.
Other than the tax cuts, just what exactly has Bush and the GOP done for conservatives?
Political suicide? No. If the GOP isn’t promoting, at all, conservative issues or viewpoints then there’s no practical difference between voting Republican or not voting at all.
Either way we’re not going to get anything, so it’s not a painful decision.
If the GOP wants my vote, then they can explain exactly why the GOP would be a better home for conservatives rather than a centrist Hillary Clinton. After all Hillary won’t take conservative voters, and money, for granted. She’ll pay through the nose to get elected, while the GOP is rather smugly toying with conservatives.
It’s all a rather amusing situation.
This Stevens thing is such a non-issue it is not even funny. In what world do people honestly think that the U.S. government is going to start enforcing public-airwaves level content regulations on pay tv? Stevens was just posturing.
I also think that moderates have a lot of nerve telling socons that they have to watch what they start pushing regarding domestic legislation. Our two big issues are abortion and gay marriage (three, if you count illegal immigration), which you guys commonly disregard.
We don’t get mad at you for pushing the Republican party towards being more pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but you all get in a huff over us not wanting kids to see boobs on tv. Give me a break.
Hmmm.
Here’s a link where I discuss some of these issues on another blog.
JustOneMinute
What I think is amusing is the viewpoint where moderates threatening to leave over specific issues is a principled stand. While conservatives threatening to leave over specific issues is political suicide and the height of jack-assery.
Well, I’ll check back later on tonight for the replies.
Who are the “you all” you’re referring to, Nathan. I’m not pro-gay marriage (though I am pro-same sex union); and though I’m pro-choice, I see absolutely nothing wrong with placing any number of restrictions on abortion, because I’m NOT pro-abortion.
I’m not getting in a huff about you not wanting your kids to see boobs on TV; I’m getting in a huff about this desire I see on the part of some social cons to brand certain speech vulgar or indecent based not on its aesthetic or even substantive value, but based on the appearance of a few choice naughty signifiers.
LaShawn, for instance, seems upset with the word “ass,” though one wonders if she’s upset when the same signifier is used to suggest something of her neighbor’s she shouldn’t be coveting. Is it the sound that upsets her? Or the referent to the backside?
Carin,
I can understand. I do disagree but I understand your point. I personally have no problem with strip clubs advertising on billboards or in the sports section of the Denver Post as they do. I believe your community has every right to pressue the owner of the store to remove the porn section in his store. It doesn’t mean I agree. I think most parents don’t recognized that the big spider man poster on the front of the store features that same comic with Mary Jane in her new D cup glory, nipple clinging sweater and all. The medium is a lot more grown up than most parents understand. Certainly more so than the toy store analogy you gave earlier.
Who speaks for small “l” libertarian-Republican America, though? If you want to take the pulse of social conservatives, you’ve got Bush, National Review and most of the conservative punditocracy towards the center and Santorum, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, et al., out on the fringe. Who/what do libertarians have by comparison? The Cato Institute? Giuliani? Arguably, his biggest claim to fame before 9/11 was closing down adult theaters in Times Square.
Simply put, there aren’t many high-profile strident, dismissive libertarian attacks on soc-cons because there aren’t that many high-profile libertarians. The fact that our wing of the party is identified not in connection with any political figure or group but with fucking South Park tells us all we need to know about how badly libertarians need to produce some serious, mainstream spokesmen.
Also, let’s not pretend like the social cons always get their way. We’ve had a Republican Congress for ten years now and never, to my knowledge, has there been a serious movement among them to pass an anti-abortion amendment. Nor does the FMA look like it’s headed anywhere; on the contrary, Bush actually declared himself in favor of civil unions shortly before the election last year. If you and I are making policy sacrifices in order to kill terrorists, let’s give the social cons a little credit and acknowledge that they’re making them too.
Incidentally, if we limit ourselves to bloggers, you know who the most vocal libertarian right-winger is? Sullivan. Ever known him to make any strident, dismissive attacks on social conservatives?
Point taken, JG, although if I wrote, “Jeff Goldstein is a hilariously funny guy, but if Jeff should start to become less funny….” and then hyperlinked the words “less funny” to a recent post of yours, you’d interpret it as my saying that that post wasn’t funny, right? The statement as a whole would be cautiously prescriptive but the link-as-examplar part of it would be descriptive. But you’ve clarified the point, so we’re quibbling about nonsense and I’ll shut up now.
Hey, I’m probably as socially conservative as they come–one of those weirdos who actually believes the Bible and stuff–and even I think Stevens is way off base. If it’s private, then it shouldn’t fall under Congress’ purview in the first place. Besides, I’m adult enough to accept that “this sort of thing” goes on; it’s just when what was considered a private vice gets pushed out in the open in an attempt to quit calling it a vice that I get a little cranky.
That said–pipe down, Ed. I will readily grant there’s quite a bit of disdain and arrogance coming down the pike from libertarians towards conservatives, too, that my radar tends to pick up while Bill from INDC’s might not. But since Jeff and Bill are being civil, quit pissin’ on them! Sheesh.
And to make sure I tick everybody off before I go, there is a conceptual problem with saying, “Don’t tell me what to do!”…because then you’re telling people what to do. Bit of a bugger, ain’t it?
Conservative here. What Stevens wants is not conservative. It’s just too far out there. Conservatives, generally, won’t go along. Conservative legislators won’t back him. Next topic please.
Ed —
I called the social con desire to see their agenda enacted “natural”, and I have no problem extending that description to included “principled.” My critique is that it’s not very pragmatic vis a vis holding power when that power is based on an alliance wherein the principles of the various factions clash.
I further suggested that some of those “principled” positions being proferred by social conservatives don’t strike me as particularly conservative, or as particularly friendly to free speech.
You can continue to try twisting my post into some reason for you to affect a self-righteous posture, but, well, my post says what it says, not what you say it says.
Allah —
Point taken, though “less funny” and “subjective ideas” seem a bit different in their degrees of suggestiveness.
Re: libertariancons, we could do worse that “South Park”; and until Reason reaches a circulation of 5 million, the libertarian blogs and some cursing cartoon characters are gonna have to do.
Jeff,
Fair enough, I have just been getting quite frustrated lately with moderates implying that they will leave the party if socons start pushing a conservative agenda. Most importantly, this recent talk about a Republican split is mostly in regard to some pretty darn insignificant issues. I do not get the feeling that moderates are cooperating as much as socons are.
Having said that, I think that this is mainly a reaction to the percieved weakness of the Dems. Without a strong adversary, groups tend to fight amongst themselves.
Reactionary prig (Stevens) is to Conservatism as Wacko Leftist (Kennedy) is to Classical Liberalism.
Ed –
You are remarkably dissonant. I’m not “attacking” anyone, just discussing the splits and discomfort in a rocky relationship, whereas you are projecting imaginary slights to your worldview. And morphing this into a pissing contest over who is more important to a necessary coalition.
And for the record, I agreed with Carin’s point. You are insufferable.
Allah –
Simply put, there aren’t many high-profile strident, dismissive libertarian attacks on soc-cons because there aren’t that many high-profile libertarians. The fact that our wing of the party is identified not in connection with any political figure or group but with fucking South Park tells us all we need to know about how badly libertarians need to produce some serious, mainstream spokesmen.
But you make my point for me. Small “l” libertarians and MODERATE Republicans capable of switching votes don’t really have a voice, so they tend to simply absorb a lot more input from people like Ed.
And when that happens, coalitions fray and votes dissolve over stupid rhetoric from people like KLo in the Corner.
True enough, Nathan.
And honestly, I’ll always vote national security first. Right now, there is no national Democrat likely to receive the party nomination who I’d trust on national security. Evan Bayh blew it on his silly Condi-bashing gambit. He strikes me now as more of an opportunist—and a bad one—than a principled player.
I’d also likely vote for a MORE conservative Republican if I thought s/he’d be willing to address race-based affirmative action and the superficial cult of “diversity.”
I have to throw in my two cents.. or another two cents in this case.. ( I guess that’s four cents now)
Ed.. I dont see anyone ‘slamming’ or personally attacking Carin at all. I do see a number of people having a difference of opinion and a respectful discussion that reflects that difference. You complain that social cons get slammed at INDC.. If disagreement is the slamming you complain of then I imagine you have an unpleasant experience on most blogs.
Has it occurred to you that the reason the social cons seem to be swarmed by social mods is because there are so many more moderates out in the real world? Is it so hard to imagine that most people arent religious social conservatives; dont want to impose their standards on all of society; simply want to live and let live; mind their own business; Have a fiscally responsible government that protects us globally but doesnt overly intrude into our personal lives (The PJ O’Rourke excerpt is right on) and simply vote the Republican Party because the only real alternative, The Dem Party, is a party of nuts, collectivists, entitlement junkies and cultural elitists ?
The war provided some common ground for the cons and the moderates to coexist on. If that common ground doesnt exist in ‘08.. if a split occurs in the Republican party, either real or figurative, then I think a relative minority of thousands and thousands of people on the religious right are going to find themselves out in the cold. I mean, thanks for the help in the ‘04 election.. couldn’t have done it without you all… but dont get over ambitious and start thinking you all represent the mainstream. If a real moderate third party alternative existed between the America hating Left and the Moral Majority, I predict both the Dems and the Reps would lose 75% of their membership.. and perhaps sanity and common sense would again have a place in our political and legal system.
-BPM
PS-on the subject of the porn mags.. As a parent I’m under no illusion that I can stop my children from seeing any number of things that I find offensive.. Hell, the internet brings EVERYTHING right into your home.. you dont have to walk over to the comic/manga/hentai/porn/icecream store. The best I think I can do is to be open with my kids. Do my best to install moral and ethical values, and be there for them to answer the inevitable questions as they come up.. hahaha my 10 year old son ask me the other day what a ‘douche bag’ was.. He heard that on network TV..
Okay..that’s all.. maybe I put in more like ten cents this time.. so sue me…
Don’t like it ?
Feel free to disagree …
-BPM
Spam word: However
How appropriate..
Craig:
You’re more comfortable with the “conservative†view of culture/morality…
That’s the one. Unfortunately for Tiny Ted, I also support the conservative view of fiscal matters—and Ted Stevens makes Sheets Byrd’s pork buffet look like a half-eaten ham sandwich.
This applies to moderates too, of course. Who knows, in 2008 perhaps a hawkish Clinton will better represent my views and I’ll spend all my time doing Santorum photoshops. For most moderates, it’s about getting the better person rather than the person with the right letter after their name. If as a self-labelled conservative you feel that way too, Ed, we’ll both be winners no matter what.
Not really my business, but I can’t believe my ears! That ANY American would or could actually say “I’ll just stay home and not vote” gives me the shivers. Your votes are not only a privilege, but a duty.
Do that, and you’ll end up as Canada’s next province! Trust me – don’t go there!
Bi(polar) man … but but but … they say the Religious Right is in CONTROL of our country …
As for children and porn – I honestly think that porn is dangerous to young children – and that merely warning them is not enough. I made my hubby throw ALL of his away when the kids were young. It’s worse than leaving a loaded pistol for them to find, so I’m not for taking even the smallest risks. Once they reach …a more mature age (not sure when that is – 18? 17?), I don’t think it’s effects are as bad. Pornography is no longer risque pictures of attractive women … as I’m sure many of you know.
Carin,
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Really.
Since I’m almost 40 and I still read comics, I’m pleased that there are stores which offer materials suitable only for adults.
I don’t mind if they’re required to wall the graphic porn off, but I do mind if someone tries to ban the stuff’s sale.
But then, I don’t have the negative reaction to porn that others do. Nor to guns, for that matter. Chances are that when my son is a teenager I’ll buy him a subscription to Playboy. [shrug]
Suppose you have a tight budget and have to rely on the poor man’s broadcast media. Do you really want the government to control all of that?
Meaningless supposition. Cable television is so ubiquitous that even welfare moms usually have it. It’s considered so much of a basic commodity like electricity and gas that bankruptcy courts won’t force you to cancel it as part of your debt restructuring, and state laws regulate its pricing and the terms under which they can disconnect and reconnect you almost as much as they do gas and electric.
You might as well say, “what if you’re so poor you can’t afford to buy a newspaper?” Whatever man.
I have no fear of social conservatives if they want to re-implement the 7 words you can’t say on television and limit nudity and violence on the broadcast spectrum, just so long as there are public hearings on it and the public is allowed to comment.
They just need to leave the internet and cable and satellite TV alone so far as I’m concerned. Although even then, I don’t mind if (ala the v-chip) the government asks providers to provide some way for parents to block off objectionable content, either.
Nothing “social conservative” about any of that that I can see, just common sense.
Carin,
Now see, there’s a great example of what I was saying previously.. We disagree.. We’ll have to agree to disagree because I would much rather that my kids sneak my Men’s Mags out and get a look at some pretty people having sex than have them playing with my loaded SIG 9mm.. I’m kinda weird that way..
But I respect your view and your right to decide what is right and what is wrong; what is moral and what is immoral; what is safe and what is dangerous as regards you and your family.
See? That wasnt slamming.. that was a difference of opinion.
-BPM
Turing word: justice
perfect…
I’ve heard the ‘just stay home’ attitude expressed several times and I cant believe it either.. not after seeing the Iraqis brave 140 degree heat, AK47 fire, car bombs and general intimidation by the terrorists to stand in block long lines for the privilege of having a voice in their government, to vote, for the first time .. I’m an ex-Special Forces soldier and a stoic.. but I’m not ashamed to say that watching that election brought a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat..
How dare any American just piss on that privilege.. ? If you dont vote then dont bitch about the system.
Thats just my opinion..
-BPM
spam word: alone
I dont think so…
So who gets to be the charging rhinoceros and who gets to be the puddle of warm spit?
I’ll be the contrarian here:
NOT voting is as much a sacred right as voting. I don’t agree that voting is a duty at all. One of your rights of free choice as an American is to not participate in the system. Not voting is a political statement–although what it expresses isn’t clear. It may be disdain for the choice of candidates, it may be that you don’t believe in voting at all (I’ve met a few who think so), it may be that you just don’t care about politics.
Whatever. No one has an obligation to vote so far as I’m concerned. Although I try to vote in every election….
Hell, you could make a strong case that NOT voting is a sign that the country is healthy. When people storm to the polls in anger it’s a sign something’s wrong. When people feel so free and secure that they don’t even feel like they have to bother paying attention to politics, it suggests that, well, they’re free and secure and don’t have to worry about politics.
Just so long as the RIGHT to vote is maintained, I see no problem here.
Jeff,
I’ve read you too long. There’s zero chance that social conservatives could push you into the Dem’s arms.
Dean –
I disagree emphatically. My country has been in dire need of direction, correction and leadership for almost forty years. The corruption is rampant and very ugly.
Our lazy and inattentive population has allowed less that 30% of the voting population to return same ol’, same ol’ big government nanny state bureaucrats again and again.
Just sayin’, don’t ever take it for granted that you’re really getting what you need or want, or whine, when you don’t vote.
… and believe me, we’re neither free nor secure (as recent events attest).
CRTC (your FCC) here limits free speech and the bi-lingual, multi-cultural bent of this Liberal government has proved a disaster.
I thought your point was that soc-cons jeopardize the coalition by popping off about divisive issues while libertarians show heroic restraint by focusing on our common ground (i.e., “because we want to kill terrorists”). My point was simply that it’s less a matter of libertarians/moderates nobly holstering their megaphones than their not having any megaphones to begin with.
Hell, CRTC all but banned both Dr. Laura and Howard Stern.
Well, I feel secure in the notion that as long as protein wisdom is here, there’ll always be a place to go for GAY PORN COCK.
(Wow, that was a sentence I never figured I’d write.)
Hmm, I may be missing something here. I didn’t catch where the Powerline guy or LaShawn stated they wanted to impose their sense of taste on the Oscars. In fact they seemed to do what classical liberals and libertarians are constantly suggesting the offended do: turn the damned thing off!
Unless you were posting a “shot across the bow”, I guess I don’t get it. We should be fighting the FCC and the crap they’re pulling. We’d have never heard great stories about Jeff Gannon’s GAY PORN COCK if the FCC were regulating the Internet like they do the radio and TV.
And the Internet would be a much sadder place without that wonderful COCK of his…
Squatch —
I addressed your concerns here
Does anyone here even remember the Wonder Twins?
Zan and Jayna? The abso-fuckin-lutely stupidest super powers in the galaxy. ACTIVATE: CAPYBARA! ACTIVATE: GAS BUBBLE! I had to watch that crappy cartoon over and over and over when my son was little. I hated Zan and Jayna more than Barney.
In Carin’s situation, perhaps some communication of her concern to the owner of the two stores might be in order? Something as simple as a separate register or requiring adult purchases to be carried to the checkout in the proverbial brown paper bag. Since the adult section is already curtained off, the owner just might be willing to make other allowances to ensure that policy and keep peace in the neighborhood. If the owner is local especially I would try this friendly-but-concerned approach. You might be surprised at the reaction. He doesn’t want complications, he wants to stay in business. Just my 2 cents.
I remember them, gail, and they were the lamest characters in the Justice League. I mean, what freaking good is it to be able to turn into water in most super hero-type situations fer chrissakes? And didn’t they have some kind of stupid monkey, too?
To get back to the spirit of the thread: “Form of: water-based lubricant!”
Really. They made Aquaman look competent.
I find Bill’s comments on this as well as Jeff’s just silly. Not dumb silly, just silly.
These simply are not interesting observations. This is inherent in coalition politics. Everyone in the coalition has different interests. Politics is about giving everyone some of what they want.
*yawn*
Now what is kind of annoying about this is that the social conservative’s really haven’t gotten very much of their agenda during the Bush administration to date. So much of the recoil Bill and Jeff get come from social conservative’s frustration on that point.
“Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) indicated he would be consulting with Stevens on a bill.”
Ya ! They could TURN INTO WATER ! You say that as if it were nothing.. Can YOU turn into water ? Not just wet yourself but really turn into water ? I didnt think so.. Thats like saying Superman can ONLY fly.. And they used it many, MANY times to get under doors and stuff ..(I dont know how they got that damn monkey through though..) I mean picture this.. youre having a pool party in your backyard.. and BBQ and beer and stuff.. and all kinds of hot babes are coming over after they get off work dancing at Rick’s.. but at the last minute you notice that someone (probably skate punks) drained your pool .. So what are you going to do smart cant-turn-into-water guy ? Call the chicks and say Wahh Wahh I’m sorry.. we’ll have to do it some other time.. my pool is empty..? Of course not.. you call the Wonder Twins.. and as quick as you can say “Wonder Twins Activate: Chlorine Treated Pool Water !” .. wham! Instant pool party.. Then of course, once the pool’s full you can invite Aquaman over with some of his mermaid babes and have a REAL party.. Those half fish babes can wiggle like no one’s business.. Or dolphins.. chicks dig dolphins..You can play yourself off as some big PETA Dolphin activist and hook up with a couple of those cute,empty headed, libertine neo-hippy retro chicks and show them what the Summer of Love was REALLY like.. maybe even steal a couple from Ward Churchill’s posse..
Hey, as far as useless Super Heroes goes, what the hell good is Wonder Woman.. I mean in terms of practical skills.. not the ones I’ve fantasized over for years.. what can she do? She can deflect bullets with her bracelets.. that would be useful I guess.. but what else..? she lassos people with her magic rope? So she’s into B&D.. so are a lot of people.. but don’t tell me it’s a Super Skill.. and the invisible plane thing is just plain stupid..
Anyway.. sorry to interrupt.. go on with your conversation .. I’ll try to stay quiet and just sit here and zip it….ziiipppp
-BPM
Spam Word: Cost
If you gotta ask, you cant afford it.
Incidentally, Robin, I found your comment boring and lacking flair.
Hmmmm.
1. Comics: Carin you’re probably not all that into modern comics but you should be aware that there has been a rather drastic transformation in that industry in the past few years. There has been an “invasion”, of sorts, by Japanese comics called “Manga”. Most manga is fairly innocent, but quite a few are a little excessive and many are really beyond what any little kid should be reading. I think the worst one I’ve seen so far had tentacled monsters raping girls. So it’s something you should keep in mind that it may not just be the porn you should be aware of.
Oh and then there’s “hentai” which are pornographic illustrations using cartoon characters. In some cases using familiar cartoon characters such as the Jetsons, Flintstones or the Little Mermaid.
And in case anyone is wondering, I watch anime so it’s rather impossible to not know about these things.
2. Indecency: Frankly most social conservatives, unless we’re all agreeing to the hyphenation so-con, are primary interested in sheltering their kids. Frankly if I want to watch porn, it’s not all that difficult. Seeing risque stuff on primetime TV is a bit much. Is it really an imposition on your viewing habits to restrict the amount of skin and sex during daytime and primetime hours?
Frankly I prefer less skin and sex on TV because it’s used almost entirely as a replacement for story, plot and acting. If I want to watch “Big Bubble Butts go Bouncing IV”, then it’s fairly certain that it’s always available somewhere close by.
3. Libertarian attacks: I haven’t seen any high-profile libertarian attacks on so-cons. Frankly I belonged to the LP party a number of years ago, but the incredible back-and-forth and the infighting became tiresome. Most of these altercations exist on venues like this one, a blog.
Really now. Isn’t there some room for negotiation? After all you’ve got porn on pay TV, porn on video, porn in automobiles, porn on the internet and, coming soon, porn on your cellular phone and PDA.
4. Moderate: A moderate is one by definition of their place in the political spectrum. It has nothing to do with attitudes. It’s entirely possible to have a moderate political position and to act in any way but moderate. *shrug* just thought I’d point that out in case there was any confusion.
5. “But since Jeff and Bill are being civil, quit pissin’ on them!”: Actually I’m not “pissin” on Jeff. Bill I frankly couldn’t care less about. Sorry if my honesty offends, but I’d rather be honest, and hated, rather then dishonest. I participated on Bill’s blog in a similar vein and found it uncomfortable to continue. I don’t mind offending people, quite the contrary as many of my friends will attest. But I’d rather not waste the time I spend on blogs by lying. I’ve come close to death several times in recent years and that has rather changed my outlook on things in quite a few ways.
Jeff made a point that conservatives had to watch out or the moderates and libertarians would leave. I countered that point by opinionating that the reverse was far more likely. And like I wrote, I really don’t care if anyone doesn’t like it. I don’t read blogs for approval by others.
6. “I called the social con desire to see their agenda enacted “natural—: So your entire critique is on the *desire* by so-cons to reform modern media so it involves less vulgarity, sex and skin? So you aren’t objecting to actual restrictions, which largely haven’t been made and likely never will, but instead on the “desire”? There’s a lot of people with desires that might be objectionable to others. That desiring change is immaterial and that only actual implemented change has any relevance?
As for my “twisting”, I did nothing of the sort. You stated your position and I stated mine. Your position is that conservatives are in danger of breaking up the GOP powerbase by infringing on your issues. My position is that there is NO coalition and that this fact is going to become fairly apparent in the next few years. My position is also that moderates and libertarians have been pretty offensive about this issue.
7. “a reaction to the percieved weakness of the Dems”: Actually I disagree. The reasoning is that conservatives have a rather specific set of desires. Other than the success in Iraq and the GWOT, Bush has done noting to promote conservative issues. It’s nice that Iraq is a success, so far. I have high hopes for it and the entire region. The alternative would be far worse. But Presidents often engage in foreign adventures in order to conceal their domestic agenda or weakness, and Bush is no different. It’s possible I missed a positive conservative issue that President Bush has championed, but someone else will have to point it out to me. Right now the only thing I can think of is the tax cut, easily offset by the massive expenditures and entitlements brought about by Bush, and the rather remote possibility of conservative judges being appointed. I’d suggest that if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, he might not have been re-elected at all because he’s been so poor on conservative domestic issues. The simple fact is that Bush is a religious moderate that uses the word “conservative” to hide behind. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s something to consider.
8. “You are remarkably dissonant.”: I have an opinion that you don’t like. *shrug* join the crowd.
9. “just discussing the splits and discomfort in a rocky relationship”: You were discussing why conservatives should watch their mouths or else you moderates and libertarians would leave. That is not “discussing”.
10. “You are insufferable.”: Don’t flatter me.
11. “serious, mainstream spokesmen.”: IMHO this won’t happen until libertarians will start agreeing with each other on divisive issues. Frankly trying to make a coalition out of pronounced individualists must be like herding cats.
12. “address race-based affirmative action and the superficial cult of “diversity.—: Agreed.
13. “I imagine you have an unpleasant experience on most blogs”: Actually I usually have a pleasant experience.
14. “social cons seem to be swarmed by social mods”: I can’t say that I agree with the word “swarming”. I do think that there is more offense than discourse involved, which shows how artificial this coalition really is. And I don’t necessarily agree that there are so many moderates out there. Perhaps there are. But are there so many in the GOP? Or are they in the DNC? That is a fairly relevant question as this discussion largely revolves around the potential shift in power.
15. “religious right are going to find themselves out in the cold”: Wouldn’t be the first time, wouldn’t be the last time. BTW I’m not a religious conservative, I’m a fiscal conservative. *shrug* The entire point of belonging to a political entity is to attain influence. The entire point behind voting is the physical manifestation of that influence. I.e. when you vote you’re trying to direct the nation in the way you desire. If the GOP’s activities don’t reflect the direction desired by conservatives, then what exactly is lost by not voting for Republicans? I could get just as ignored by voting Democrat. It still wouldn’t get the borders closed. It wouldn’t get illegal aliens deported. It wouldn’t reduce gross government expenditures, such as that indoor rainforst in Kansas. If there’s no practical benefit for voting Republican, then why should I vote Republican? It’s a question I posed earlier but nobody has really taken up the gauntlet.
Let’s face certain facts here. When Christmas is universally renamed “Winter Holiday” then so-cons and religious conservatives aren’t winning anything. When you can have a menora and a tribute to Kwanza, but not a nativity scene in a middle school, this is not an oppressive victory.
16. “If a real moderate third party alternative existed”: Hmmm. That’s been repeated so often it’s become a proverb, but is it really true? Are there really enough moderates in both parties that they could claim so much? If someone has actual numbers I’d be interested to see them. But I’d like to point out that the two major driving forces in the 2004 election were liberals and conservatives. Perhaps there are enough moderates out there, but if they can’t be organized into a coherent grouping, then even the proverb is irrelevant.
17. “Who knows, in 2008 perhaps a hawkish Clinton will better represent my views”: *shrug* She might. So far there are precious few conservatives in the upper echelons of the GOP. Most of the possible candidates for 2008 vary from Clinton only by degrees. So if Clinton is a better fit for you, then by all means vote for her.
18. “How dare any American just piss on that privilege.. ? If you dont vote then dont bitch about the system.”: Choosing not to vote isn’t “piss on” anything. Many people choose not to vote. Bush 41 lost his re-election bid because people chose to stay home. As for “bitch” I wasn’t bitching about the system. I’m stating a political position that the GOP currently does not DESERVE my vote and if the Democrats can’t come up with a suitable opponent then there’s nothing to vote on. Unless I do a write-in of “Bill the Cat”.
19. Aquaman: Really useful in an oyster bar but useless anywhere else.
*shrug* we’ll see.
ps: code word is “result”. interesting.
Sigfried beat me to it.
Carin’s store owner is selling what people will buy. He’s got house payments, rent, food for his kids, college tuition, whatever….and he’s earning it one comic book/porn mag at a time. (…and yes, it could be “she”)
The curtain on the porn section shows that the store owner is sensitized to the issue to the point where he has accepted some inconvenience and expended some effort to keep kids out of it. It can be taken as a given that the owner has devoted resources to this effort in proportion to the importance placed on the results in comparison to his total resources. Remember, this store is his way of making a living.
Which leads to two paths—First, increase the importance, by using shame (“This looks bad in the neighborhood”), coercion (“I’m looking for government action”), compassion (“I’m worried about my kid”), economics [boycott] (“If the porn isn’t segregated better, I’ll forbid my kid from patronizing your store”), economics [ROI] (“Your patrons may buy more if the porn were more discreet”), or other means. Second, increase the resources, by volunteering to donate the labor to help install a locked barrier or to contribute to the costs.
Contrary to popular mythology, most businesspeople do not spend their free time conjuring up plots to corrupt society. In fact, there is a technical term for those who forget the rule of “give the people what they want.” They’re called “ex-businesspeople” or “bankrupt”.
Further, giving of yourself to change a position of balance comes across as much more sincere than merely asking more. Even offering to buy a Schlage lock from Home Depot (about $20) can easily inspire someone to spend $250 on materials and $150 on labor to install some walls and a door.
So my advice for the porn and comics would be: first, try to find some common ground on goals; second, both should come up with a few ideas for improvements to the current situation; third, negotiate toward the alternatives you most favor—keeping in mind that what you put on the table is both an increase in total resources and also an indication of your commitment; and fourth, execute on a deal.
This should work if both parties work honestly together, have no axes to grind or grudges to hold, and are not beholden to secret agendas.
I find that libertarians bitch and whine that Bush isn’t libertarian enough and that social conservatives bitch and whine that Bush isn’t socially conservative enough, and that fiscal conservatives bitch and whine that Bush isn’t fiscally conservative enough.
Meanwhile, he’s given all three groups substantial things that they want. Assault weapons ban quietly allowed to die. Conservative judges appointed in large numbers. Opened up funding for faith-based programs. Cutting off funding for abortions overseas. Experimenting with abstinence education programs. Cutting taxes. Reforming tort law. Serious efforts to move Social Security away from a welfare dependency scheme and more toward individually owned accounts. Strong defense, aggressively and unapologetically pro-American foreign policy.
And the libertarians whine that they get nothing, and the fiscal conservatives whine that they get nothing, and the social conservatives whine that they get nothing.
Why? Because, as in all coalition politics, all coalition members include some whiners in their midsts.
Social conservatives who say they’ve gotten nothing from Bush really should stay home. They’re whiny crybaby losers, after all, who have no sense of gratitude or proportion. Ditto the whiny crybaby libertarians who can’t wake the fuck up and look how much they’ve gotten.
Some people will never be satisfied unless they get 100% of everything they want, and right now. This isn’t a trait only shared by the left.
Dean is d’esmayed at all the bitching and whining
…so cut it out, biiiiiyatches.
Ed,
Nice to see you came back just as you promised to follow up on your previous e-mail. That was quite a post. Can’t say I agree with you on everything but your position is well presented.
One particular point I’d like to respond to though.. I just can’t get behind the idea of NOT voting as a means of making a political statement; not voting as a means of participating in the process. In my opinion not voting is simply the adult equivalent of picking up your ball and leaving because the game isnt going how you’d like it to go. In the end voting isnt about getting your ideal candidate elected.. Unless you yourself are the candidate (or youre Halliburton running a Manchurian Candidate) there’s never going to be a candidate that reflects your political stance 100%.. It’s about realizing that one of the final two candidates presented.. one Rep or one Dem are going to hold the reins of power for the next 4 to 8 years, not to mention the ‘football’ with the launch codes.. Its the citizen’s duty to look at both candidates and decide which will be best for the country, or sometimes just to vote to keep the worse of the two out of office . Sometimes the choice is between bad and worse.
One can make the arguement that just about anything COULD have happened IF people werent so apathetic but its pure speculation.. All in all not voting is only that.. non participation.. It’s not a political statement.. at least not the kind I’d be proud to make.
-BPM
Turing word: Cost
I’m a social conservative and I don’t agree with Stevens’ proposal. Not only do I think that we have to be careful about letting government get too much control over any form of communication, I also see such a proposal as a way for lazy or indifferent parents to shift responsibility for yet another aspect of child-rearing to the state.
Dean,
Another good post.. but don’t loose sight of the fact that ‘whining’*** is pretty much the bloggers raison d’etre. Imagine this blog if we all agreed on everything…
Overheard on an internet humor blog in Ramadi;
Blogger #1: Boy, that Bush is a heck of a president isn’t he ?
Blogger #2: Heh, ya.. He sure is.. a heck of a president.. And how bout that War on Terror.. Heck of a war, huh?
Blogger #1: You can say that again.. Heck of a war. And How bout those crazy liberals? hahaha theyre pretty much crazy arent they..?
Blogger #2: Heck ya they are.. Crazy.. Every darn one of them.. Especially that Michael Moore.. He’s sure fat, dontcha think?
Blogger #1: Yep.. He’s totally fat..
Blogger #2: Ya.. Heck’a fat..
Blogger #1:
Blogger #2:
Blogger #1: Okay then.. well, that does it for today.. I guess I’ll watch for your posts tomorrow..
Blogger #2: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Funny stuff, huh? Heck ya it is…
** Whining = Any stated opinion that differs from ones own..
Turing word: east
Gail & Bipolar Man: There you go, being reasonable and all. Cut that out….
Ed —
Thanks for the lengthy reasoned response. You write:
Well, to clarify, I wasn’t necessary suggesting the coalition I now see (and you suggest doesn’t exist) is one that has been consciously-decided upon; I’m just describing the Republican voting block for the last couple of elections. So my invocation of a coalition is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. And secondly, I’m not talking about a broad libertarian agenda that is at odds with a conservative agenda. I spoke only of one thing that I think the social conservatives should—by THEIR OWN lights as conservatives—be careful of: restricting speech. I’m NOT asking conservatives to get in line with a libertarian agenda or risk my bolting; I am not a party person, so I vote for who I think is the best candidate, not because of a letter in front of a name. Instead, I am pointing out that what moved me to the conservative side to begin with was that it had become the home to free speech and diversity of opinion, and that any attempt to clamp down on THOSE THINGS would likely cause me (and others like me) consternation.
These few congressmen from morally strict districts are just pandering to their constituency. I say, let them write the bill and see how far it actually goes. The good thing about this is that the pros and cons of such legislation are going to get discussed. The better thing about it is that peripheral issues—like the laws concerning cable access and being forced to buy channels in packages instead of only paying for channels you WANT—might be brought up again. And even better, it’s undeniable that one significant difference between parties is the concern over public morality. The perception that Crats have an All Porn All The Time attitude costs them far more votes than a few Republican congressmen making noise over decency laws. I don’t think this law has a chance of getting passed, but the debate will once again demonstrate that Republicans care about decency and Democrats don’t.
Of course, the main problem with this bill is that it’s not the federal government’s place to extend into cable decency. This isn’t quite the same as Carin’s problem above, because people do have the right to demand standards of decency for the community they live in. Forget the fact that the store she mentions sells comic books, if she doesn’t want porn being sold down the street she has every right to take steps to get the store to move, without being labeled as a censor or even a prude…and you don’t need government interference to do that. Boycotts DO work, especially if you hit the company that leases the property to the store as well as the store itself. However, you can’t exactly object to the store simply because they offer a variety of products. There may be a slight line between comic books and graphic novels—and that’s line’s getting thinner and thinner—but there’s NO line between graphic novels and porn, so honestly, a store selling both isn’t exactly making much of a stretch anyway.
As for me, I wouldn’t let my children shop there in the first place. Yeah, it may be inconvenient to schlep across town for a more family-oriented atmosphere, but hey, it wouldn’t be a moral stand if it wasn’t a pain in the azz.
Later,
bbeck
bbeck really got to the subtle point I was trying to make – regarding what a few politicians are trying to pass “as law” versus what individuals are fighting per sec as “indecent.” Too often – it seems you complain about something you find offensive, and you get lumped with those that are trying to legislate morality. If I say how pissed I was that my kids saw Janet’s left tit during a half time show, am I suddenly trying to CENSOR speech?
I sadly don’t believe a boycott would work, though. Those that BUY porn, aren’t really going to be upset that it’s sold there, now are they- and will most likely happy walk right by my picket line. One nearby store already tried to get them to conform (it was a big battle) and they didn’t move an inch. Sadly, this is a case where the little guy (me) is STUCK with indecency.
Carin, I feel for you. I don’t know if this porn store is part of a shopping center or a stand-alone, but if the place bugged me I’d start a boycott of the the entire center and I’d let all the stores in the center know as well as the leasing agent. You couldn’t do it yourself, it would have to be a lot of people in the community who would boycott with you, but even the threat of doing so might want to make the leasing agent re-think a lease renewal…and if the other stores in the center felt as if they were losing customers they might join you in the effort. Either way, you’re right, boycotting wouldn’t bother the CUSTOMERS but it’s not quite the customers you’re trying to get rid of. Businessmen usually don’t want to mess with boycotts or deal with the mere suggestion of money loss, so the other stores and the property owners probably wouldn’t blow off the possibility.
On a side note: I do know of a comic book store that was driven out of business because of a graphic novel they had available. A judge closed the store down, and by the time there was a ruling on their case the store had to file bankruptcy. I’m NOT advocating those tactics…but it DID work.
Later,
bbeck
bbeck, I live in one of those older communities -the store isn’t in a strip mall – it’s just one of those little old-city blocks with 4 stores on it. The man owns three of the storefronts (comic/porno store, ice cream shop, and an empty one)… the other two are owned by someone else. And, if you live in Detroit – where the moral decay outweighs the decency, what can you do? It’s well and good for people to live in the burbs to talk about free speech, but when a person actually has to live with some of this crap, it’s a whole ‘nother thing.
Hmmm.
(Sorry about the delay in responding, I’ve been tied up with a project.)
1. Jeff Goldstein: “… I’m NOT asking conservatives to get in line with a libertarian agenda or risk my bolting …”
But that is what you’re saying isn’t it? Your red line is any infraction or restriction on free speech. Many conservatives aren’t necessarily interested in restricting free speech overall, but are interested in controlling violence and sex on major media. I’d suggest that so-cons are probably posturing and looking for negotiation room. But that doesn’t look possible if your position is set in stone. Is it possible to negotiate this issue between so-cons and libertarians or not? If it’s not, then there’s no discussion.
Really when you get down to the grit, the primary issue of libertarians is absolutely no infringement, whatsoever, on any perceived freedoms isn’t it? So when you say:
“I’m NOT asking conservatives to get in line with a libertarian agenda or risk my bolting”
Isn’t that really what you are saying?
2. Coalition:
No I don’t think the current GOP is a formal coalition. If it were, then there would be a formal agreement that would address the mechanisms of power-sharing. Which I think does happen in Parlimentary governments, but not in our Representative Republic.
My point is that the moderates and the libertarians are thinking from the point of view that a coalition exists, of which they are a part, that they can pressure. If a coalition did exist, then yes it would be possible for moderates and libertarians to exert pressure on it. But if there really isn’t a coalition, but rather a conjunction of marginally affiliated groups, then no possible pressure could be exerted because there is nothing to exert pressure on.
I hope I’m being clear and not doing a Rumsfeld style explanation.
3. “the home to free speech and diversity of opinion”: Sure. Like I pointed out before, I’m not a so-con. I’m a fiscal conservative who largely doesn’t have an opinion on social issues. However I have a number of friends who do have opinions on social issues.
If there is a conflict between the libertarian’s desire for status-quo and the co-con’s desire for a negotiated settlement. Then someone has got to give or unhappiness ensues. IMHO I think the so-cons WON’T get what they want and so that’ll be another nail in the GOP/conservative coffin.
4. “These few congressmen from morally strict districts are just pandering to their constituency. I say, let them write the bill and see how far it actually goes. “:
Actually these things have been written as bills time and time again for decades. They never get out of committee. So the politician can speak to his voters and talk up his attempts at reforming the “den of depravity” that is Washington while everyone else pretty much ignores him.
*shrug* something for everyone evidently as this most definitely not new. The new wrinkle in this ongoing drama is the perceived power that conservatives finally have.
In previous times conservatives would voice an opinion, but get largely ignored. And yes this does canker the soul. But now the situation is vastly different. Conservatives are rising in power, and voting as a bloc. Conservative issues are the ones that seem to be driving Washington. I’m frankly not certain that the standard brush-off, letting things die in committee, is going to continue to be acceptable.
Hmmm. The best analogy I can make is one where a child tries to pick an apple from a tree, but it’s just out of reach. As the child grows, so does the tree. Everytime the growing child tries to pick an apple, it’s always out of reach. At some point the kid is going to get an axe and chop the tree down.
*shrug* you can’t deny desire forever without some consequence. If that desire is social reforms, then either it happens or it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences either way.
5. “I just can’t get behind the idea of NOT voting as a means of making a political statement”:
Well it’s not a political statement really. It’s a simple cost/benefit analysis that’s no different from buying a beer at a bar. If the GOP isn’t advocating any of my primary domestic issues, then why should I vote for a GOP candidate? If the DNC isn’t going to offer a better, or even a rational/coherent candidate, then why should I vote for the DNC candidate?
If neither party offers me a viable alternative, then where should I cast my vote? Random chance? Either way I’ll still be denied what I want. Either way I’ll still be pretty much ignored.
*shrug*. I’m a pretty simple person. I program computers, which is complicated enough especially with the nonsense I’ve been recently doing, so I keep my life simple. I pay most of my bills on an annual basis. I view politics in the same general way. If there’s no benefit, then there’s no reason to participate.
If I can’t judge the value of a candidate, or a party, based on it’s performance in a specific set of issues, then on what basis should I judge them?
6. “… bitch and whine …”: heh.
6.a. “Assault weapons ban quietly allowed to die”: This isn’t going into the GOP win column because the DNC has realised that gun control is a poisonous issue for them too. The real victor is the NRA, not the GOP. While some Democrats talked up the ban, they didn’t go full-court press on it because it is such a losing battle.
6.b. “Conservative judges appointed in large numbers”: You must have a list, and not just assuming, so please list the conservative judges. Because I was under the impression that the conservative judicial appointments were being currently fillibustered.
6.c. “Opened up funding for faith-based programs”: As far as I know, keeping in mind that I’m not a religious conservative and I don’t really follow this stuff, what this primarily does is allow faith-based, or affiliated with religious groups, the opportunity to bid for government contracts. Previously religious groups couldn’t bid on those contracts because of the supposed separation between church and state. With this initiative religious groups can try and bid on contracts.
The problem with this is that bidding on government contracts is really cut-throat. This is why there are set-asides for women, selected minorities and disabled veterans. Otherwise those groups would have little chance of actually winning any bids. In reality there are very large firms that are based entirely around winning these contracts and then farming out the work to varying levels of sub-contracters. So these religious groups, without much prior experience in bidding on these contracts, are now going up against the varsity team of government contracting.
Frankly I haven’t heard of many success stories myself. If you really want to count this in the win column I’d suggest you need to offer some success stories.
Of course this might make a religious conservative happy, but it doesn’t do anything for me. *shrug*.
6.d. “Cutting off funding for abortions overseas”: Hmmm. I hadn’t heard that UNICEF had lost all funding. And yes, UNICEF is now in the business of “promoting women’s health issues” i.e. abortion.
6.e. “Experimenting with abstinence education programs”: Actually this should be included in 6.c. as those are, to my knowledge, the only groups pushing this.
6.f. “Cutting taxes”: Except that Bush is now talking about “tax reform”, which generally means tax increases, and raising the SS taxes, to pay for his “reform”. Then there’s the issue of the enormous costs in Iraq, $200+ billion, and of course the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, a $1 trillion dollar entitlement.
I think that there are 40 million elderly current receiving SS and are eligible for Medicare. With the baby boomers retiring soon, that means this number will skyrocket to around 80+ million. So in just a decade the cost of this new entitlement will probably at least double. So it’ll be $2 trillion over ten years.
Or about $400 billion dollars a year.
Sorry if the recent tax cut doesn’t excite me all that much.
6.g. “Reforming tort law”: So generalized class action lawsuits have been changed. I have no doubts that there are plenty of loopholes that will be begging for exploitation. I’d suggest waiting on this issue for about 3-4 years to see what the real effect is. This reform does prevent multi-state class action lawsuits from jurisdiction shopping, which will annoy some generous counties, but it doesn’t touch intra-state class action lawsuits.
6.h. “Serious efforts to move Social Security away from a welfare dependency scheme and more toward individually owned accounts.”: Which doesn’t really seem to mean anything. What is being offered is regular SS coupled with an IRA. So I get to invest a small portion of my SS tax into an IRA. That’s nice. But to pay for this they’ll increase my SS tax. That’s ridiculous.
I’m frankly unconvinced that this is a net gain and not just a shuffle.
6.i. “Strong defense, aggressively and unapologetically pro-American foreign policy”: Which is why I voted for him the last time. But that doesn’t buy the GOP anything in 2006 or in 2008. The war in Iraq is going to be winding down in 2006 and possibly over by 2008. The Iraqi forces are finally taking control and are asserting themselves. You could make the argument that this is a positive step. I could respond that it should’ve happened last year and even then this success belongs to Bush, not necessarily to the GOP as a whole.
*shrug* 2006 and 2008 are going to be concentrating on domestic issues, bar some spectacular terrorist attack or Iran using a nuke on Israel. Or more likely, Iran using a nuke on Baghdad.
And on the domestic issues, the GOP doesn’t hold up very well IMHO.
7. “Some people will never be satisfied unless they get 100% of everything they want, and right now. This isn’t a trait only shared by the left.”
I for one would be happy with just one thing. The federal government exerting proper control over the borders and vigorously deporting illegal aliens. But I’m not getting that, nor anything else, so I don’t see the point of continuing the charade.
code word: two. heh. interesting as I tend to use numerical bullet points.
Ed —
Tired of this topic, and I appreciate all the thought you’ve put into your responses. But the answer to your responses to me is no.
Again. I’m NOT asking conservatives to get in line with a libertarian agenda or risk my bolting. I am asking conservatives to get in line with a conservative agenda that promotes individual rights and freedoms, and remains committed to keeping government out of the private sphere.
I’m not going to make lists for you; you’ve either been paying attention or you haven’t. I find much of what you’re dismissing to be just more of the kind of whiny crybaby attitude I complain about from certain conservatives. I also find it rather amusing that someone claiming to be a social conservative would now be dismissing all the social conservative items I listed as not relevant because they’re religious. %-)
But it’s an old trick: say, “what have you done for me lately?” and then when someone makes a list say, “well none of that counts.” Yeah whatever.
America’s two major parties ARE coalition parties, have always been coalition parties, will always be coalition parties. From their very foundings as parties. They don’t need “formal” coalitions because there’s no need for that; the very structure makes coalitions mandatory. If you don’t form coalitions, you lose elections–period, end of story. It’s the way the system has always worked and, barring seriously Constitutional reform, it’s how it will always work.
In politics you get some of what you want and you never get all of what you want. Bush has given serious things to various elements within his coalition as well as to people across the aisle, he’s disappointed everyone on one thing or another. Find me any President in all of history of whom that was not true.
Politics is the art of the possible. It took me a long time to realize that this was an immutable law of human nature–but it is.
Hey, Dean, I have it on good authority that you are being boring and lack flair.
Hmmm.
1. “Tired of this topic, and I appreciate all the thought you’ve put into your responses. But the answer to your responses to me is no.”
*shrug* Ok. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it works out.
2. “I also find it rather amusing that someone claiming to be a social conservative would now be dismissing all the social conservative items I listed as not relevant because they’re religious.”
If you read *anything* I actually wrote, you’d know that I’m not a *social* conservative. I’m a *fiscal* conservative. Which has been included in pretty much every single posting in this thread.
The reason why I believe there isn’t an actual coalition in effect is because, in order for an actual coalition to exist, there has to be a unifying theme. The previous unifying theme was the GWOT and Iraq. The GWOT is starting to fade and Iraq won’t be much of an issue in 2006-2008. At that point the unifying theme largely disappears.
So far I’ve put up with fairly idiotic stuff so I’ll conclude my message with a personal one:
Go fuck yourself Dean.
Play nice.
Robin: Quite likely true.
Ed: Ah, excuse me for confusing you with the social conservatives who were earlier claiming they’d been given nothing.
As a fiscal conservative, you’ve been given a President who has so far cut taxes, who has claimed he has run up the deficit as a matter of national crisis but who has pledged domestic spending cuts in his second terms, which has been borne out by the actual budget proposals he’s given.
There is of course a coalition in effect whether you wish to agree to it or not. Your recognizing it doesn’t make it go away.
As for my fucking myself: only if you’ll suck my dick first.
Oh, er, that should have been “whether you want to recognize it or not.”