Leaving It To Obama
Commenter Fritz in a reply to a comment by Edgar at Older Protestant White Guys had this to say about the "leave us alone" crowd in the last election.
Edgar, you state that the "leave us alone" crowd are at fault for Obama's victory. OK. I'm one of the "leave us alone" crowd and, while I did not vote for Obama, I certainly was not going to vote for McCain. As far as I could see, he was much less in favor of leaving me alone than Obama.While I did vote for McCain I can definitely understand the sentiment. In fact if National Defense had not been my prime issue I might have done exactly the same thing. The smugness of social conservatives is a huge turn off for me. As a member of the "leave us alone" crowd I'm tired of it. I'm tired of "we know what is right" as an answer to every challenge of their policies instead of reasoned discussion. And God forbid you hit one of their hot buttons like the Drug War or abortion. They go stark raving loony.
Social conservatives have to come up with compelling reasons for those of us who are not social conservatives to, well, put up with them anymore. And it will have to be a damn good reason because I for one am tired of them. I want a small and limited government. Social conservatives want a large and annoying one. And as long as that is true, we had might as well have socialists in charge because, for the most part (i.e. except for gun control), they are less obnoxious.
Of course the crowd coming in is no better when it comes to their hot issues and I'm tired of them already. As a commenter pointed out in another post - the only people who generally want to get into government are people who want to do something. In fact they want to do a lot of somethings. All very expensive and producing results the opposite of those claimed. That fits in very well with the first rule of politics. Get elected and once elected betray those who elected you.
You know maybe there is some truth to the old wisdom about the general crookedness of politicians and the low morals of actors. The nice thing about actors though is that you don't have to buy a ticket to the show. With politicians there is no way to opt out. They have a captive audience so to speak.
I have a few words for their kind:
Cross Posted at Classical Values
Posts
25 comments:
I have got to ask you what that guy means by this sentence.
"Social conservatives want a large and annoying one." (government)
huh?
David
simon,
If you're still of the mind that social conservatives are the ones responsible for fostering a culture war, I suggest you read this article, http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/nov/11/how-to-tell-the-culture-wars-are-not-over/
Tom,
As I recall it was the socons who brought "The Moral Majority" to the Republican Party.
Like it or not - for now - the Republicans own the Culture Warriors brand,
From Tom's link:
The point is this: we have political conflict over social and cultural issues because we have two sides that disagree on a broad range of issues, and neither is willing to change its position.
All I'm saying is that we as Republicans need to take the Culture War" out of the political realm.
Why? Because we believe in limited government.
RavingDave,
Social conservatives want much more government intrusion in my life than I am comfortable with (and I suppose I can make a list again). But also they are willing to vote for big-government types like McCain, if McCain is willing to dance to their tune on culture-war issues. And then social conservatives wonder why, like this election, small-government supporters don't stand with them.
Other than the Drug war, (which if I recall was started under the Liberal Democrat Franklin Roosevelt) what kind of intrusion into your life do you think social conservatives are attempting ?
As far as McCain being a big government type, do you mean compared to Obama ? Or compared to Ron Paul ?
My recollection is that McCain has ALWAYS been a fiscal conservative and has ALWAYS been against Earmarks (i.e. Pork barrel spending.)
I can't even see how we're discussing the same people or even the same issues.
David
I have no issues with the "Moral Majority". What exactly did they promote that you didn't like ?
In any case, this fratricidal squabling is common after a defeat but never address the real cause.
Social Conservatives didn't lose this other than the fact that the media has been beating on them since the 1970s. They are the new Jews, and I won't be suprised to see a new Kristalnacht in the next 4 years.
David
What did the Moral Majority promote that I didn't like?
The general smug tone. And their alliance with Republicans.
In secular America it is a vote loser currently.
I think the Palin way of Governance is better. Until she got the VP nod no one in Alaska had any idea about her religious background. Not one word about abortion.
BTW I hang out at a lot of PUMA sites. Palin's leading by example has affected those obvious secularists positively. Much more than the "Moral Majority" which many admitted was a negative in their view.
Dave,
The Drug War was started in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics act.
Progressives and Social Conservatives united to make it happen. The same coalition followed a few years later with alcohol prohibition.
In 1937 with alcohol prohibition over a lot of Treasury agents needed something to do. It was the height of the depression and it was decided to go after Mexican labor. So marijuana prohibition was passed as a covert way to go after Mexicans.
You can read the history here:
Drug War History
I highly recommend it.
It was Nixon who amped up the Drug War to go after his political opponents on the left. See a pattern?
==
McCain is not very respectful of the Constitution. McCain Feingold ring a bell?
==
An no - McCain is not a big spender. But he got tarred with the Republican brand. And Republicans now have that reputation. Sadly.
So the socially liberal had choices: a big spending party with a reputation for social intrusiveness or a big spending party with a reputation for social liberalism.
Now all this may be unfair. It is what it is. What is needed is a rebranding. And that means changing at least one social policy and advertising it.
I agree that now (or very soon) is a good time to go after drug prohibition given that it is turning Mexico into a narco state and is also one of the reasons Afghanistan is seeing a resurgence of the Taliban.
However, Republicans need to take the lead before Democrats own the issue.
We could start with deFederalizing pot prohibition. A position that is rather popular wit the electorate garnering 60% to 80% support depending on how the issue is framed. Medical marijuana is especially popular with the electorate.
Mass. just passed decrim with support higher than Obama got and Michigan is the the 13th state to pass a medical cannabis law.
Oh, you didn't like them because they were smug.
I can understand why a well informed and intelligent voter would prefer a humble poison over a smug antidote.
David
The drug issue is not one of my issues, so I don't have a ready memory on it. I have read much of what you have written and many of the links you have posted and I have found it interesting, but I feel other issues are far more important to the nation.
I am reminded of one of my black friends in high school. All he ever wanted to talk about was race relations and racism, and I pointed out that if the Russians launch missles we will all be the same color of ash, and I was always bewildered why he was so focused on his issue.
I chose to avoid the subject most of the time.
David
Dave,
First off nice comment at Talk Polywell.
==
Second: we spend $50 bn a year in America on the drug war. The war on opium is financing the Taliban. The drug war is turning Mexico into a narco state. We will be at war with Mexico in as little as 5 years if something is not done (skirmishes already happening). You will be interested in the topics soon enough.
Look up: "From Drug War To Real War" on my sidebar (November 2008) for details.
Not to mention financing a vast array of criminals inside America.
It will become one of your issues before you know it.
BTW I have been warning that Mexico would become a narco state for 20 years. When I first stated people said I was insane. Now? Not so much.
dave,
I voted straight Republican. Don't blame me.
But you know bad marketing can screw a deal as much as a bad product. And sometimes good marketing can overcome a defective product.
BTW I love Palin - no smug there.
Let me add that these days the Republicans are dumber than rocks when it comes to politics. The party core knows they are right on everything and because they are right there is no need to expand the coalition. Dumber than rocks.
Let me give it to you straight: a coalition is ruled by its weakest members. Sorry. Facts of political life.
What I see from a lot of Republicans is "we don't need your kind". Well in this past election you didn't get them.
I don't have any answers on the Drug war. It seems a lose/lose no matter which way it goes. I regard the drug problem as a symptom of societal decline and not a cause.
On the marketing thing... our marketing might have been bad, or our product might have issues with some, but the deficencies in our product were not the prime cause of loss of sales, it's the fact that the broadcasters constantly malign our brand, focusing on all of it's failings that are real, and maligning characteristics of it that aren't even real.
They refuse to apply the same standard of hatefullness to the oposition and go out of their way to cover up real faults with the oposing brand.
These effects are not too serious to the informed, but as you mentioned, election are won by the small margin in the middle who are uninformed and fickle. In my opinion the squishy middle wouldn't care about these issues if the Media didn't constantly harp and stir the pot over them.
David
Dave,
Before 1914 opiates were over the counter since before the founding of the Republic. As was marijuana until 1937.
Addiction is a deficiency disease just as diabetes is.
There is no problem. If you don't have the deficiency opiates will not interest you. The first 10 people the inventors tried heroin on didn't get addicted so it was assumed based on the drugs cause addiction model that it was non-addictive. Of course we now know that model is wrong.
If you don't have relatively mild PTSD smoking pot regularly will not interest you. Unless you believe government propaganda. Actual government science says that no more than 20% is genetically susceptible and of those only half will have enough trauma to trigger addiction. And addicts do not just use one drug. They are usually polydrug users. Alcohol, tobacco, pot, etc.
Here are some short pieces to educate you:
Class War
Treatment vs Recreation
Round Pegs In Round Holes
In any case assume your take is correct. We can have a drug problem or we can have a drug + criminal/terrorist problem.
Thirteen states have now decrimed pot (for users). Are those states falling apart?
I'd rather have a bunch of pot smokers lazing in front of the TV than a bunch of criminals/terrorists on the loose. YMMV.
And you know why you don't know what to do? The government keeps you in ignorance so it can maintain its drug war budgets.
Worse. The information is out there and you prefer to maintain your ignorance.
5 to 1 says you won't even check out the urls and the links provided in them. Your mind is made up an you prefer to remain unconfused by facts.
Tell me. Have you read even one of the urls I have provided in previous comments?
Well no matter. Losing Afghanistan is a small price to pay. And hey? A war with Mexico is no biggie. And financing criminals? A small price to pay to keep no one from drugs if they want them.
There is no law against stupidity. And if it winds up killing the Republic? Worth it. Them druggies is evil. Especially once the drug demon get a hold of them.
Here are some more:
Heroin
PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
Addiction Is A Genetic Disease
Read all the links I have provided (esp the history link) and then get back to me. Without education you are wasting my time and I am wasting yours.
One final note: alcohol prohibition caused massive corruption of government.
What makes you think drug prohibition is any different? Because it is better hidden?
If you want broadcaster to stop maligning the brand better to avoid giving them an opening.
That is why I like Palin. Despite deeply held convictions she made no effort to even preach let alone enforce her views when she was just an unknown Governor of Alaska. We should all, as Republicans, behave like that. It would reduce resistance over time.
If the gospel is so good you don't need government guns behind it. If it is no good government guns won't help.
I believe Drugs are causing a lot of corruption in other governments, and causing some corruption in our Governments, but probably not to the extent that it occured under prohibition. I suspect that many during prohibition considered it to be their patriotic duty to promote the alcohol trafficing. Many cultures had lived with alcohol consupmtion for so long it was considered normal and proper, and the loss of it was considered an infringement.
People don't feel the same way about other drugs probably because of all the demonization of them over the last century or so. That, and people regard the effects of the abuse of them to be far more serious.
David
Why can't the broadcaster simply do the right thing and treat both sides fairly ? Why is the onus on us to have to be so careful while the other side gets a walk ?
Apart from that, Who's preaching? I mean among elected politicians. I hear preaching in speeches, but not in legislation. At least none I can think of at the moment.
I actually liked Reagan's Preachy speeches. He was absolutely right.
David
Dave,
The generation brought up on Reefer Madness is dying out.
Of the younger generation probably 50% to 70% have tried pot. Sara Palin ring a bell?
==
As to unfair treatment - it is what it is. We can complain or change our approach to get around it. Palin shows the way. No one in Alaska had any idea about her personal views on abortion before she got the VP nod. It may suck from your point of view but it is one of the keys to her 80% approval rating.
Oh I see... because the Media will beat us up if we say things they don't like, and because the Media has so much influence on squishy voters, we should be careful not to expouse anything which will make the media hurt us in elections.
Well, that's one approach. I prefer to take away the stick the media is beating us with.
I vehemenently object to the idea that these self appointed arbiters of the "Proper" attitude of the country have so much power (out of all proportion to their value to the nation) that they can decide that Evil rulers are preferable to "preachy" rulers.
You appear to see Fiscal Conservatism and Cultural Conservatism as two indepenant things. I see them as mutually dependent. They are the two legs on which any society stands. A society will not long survive without them both.
David
OK. Getting beat in elections by a Marxist is a good thing so you can preach to the choir.
Let me know how it worked out for you in four years.
Me? I think the purpose of a political party is to win elections and then govern responsibly. Rather quaint notions I gather.
I ♥ Sarah'cudda
BTW Sarah doesn't even preach in speeches.
It is a marketing thing.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. How are the national Republicans doing?
I don't yield the point that the Republicans are preachy. I know the media says they are, and constantly repeats every example they can find of this, but my point is that even if they were, what's the big deal ?
I guess it is more bothersome to some than it is to others. I find it irritating, but I mostly ignore it.
David
Post a Comment