Prevention Methods

So I'm having an ongoing discussion with a guy and he has me pegged.

MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses.

What is your plan to prevent that? Because that is exactly the nature of current reality. The legality or otherwise makes no difference except for determining the distribution channels. For a lot of people "distributed by criminals" seems to be a very solid preference. I don't know why but there you have it. And quite a few of those claim to be conservative. But since when did conservatives support criminals? It is a paradox. Unless you understand Baptist/bootlegger coalitions. Prevalent everywhere but especially virulent in America. We LOVE our moral panics in the Good 'Ole USA.

I know. Facing reality puts me way out on a limb. It has been a life long curse. I rather enjoy it.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Christophobia

So I'm having the usual discussion with a Socon and he accuses me of not liking Jesus.

M. Simon, your post attacking me makes you sound like a “Christophobe.” Your logic shows your contempt for Christianity and distrust of us Christians.

You got me. It was caused by me being FORCED in public school to attend Christian assemblies. In public schools that were at least half Jewish. We never had a Jewish assembly.

So Christian outreach reached me. The results could have been predicted although they may not have been desired.

I no longer dislike Christians as a group. Just those trying to ram their faith down my throat. I have my own faith. Thank you very much.

====

The cycle goes like this: The Ds get in and wreck the country. The electorate gives the Rs a shot. At first they attend to fixing most of the problems that the Ds caused. When they have that in hand they decide that what the country really needs is God. Their version of God. And the electorate rejects the Rs and we are back in a different kind of misery.

Moral socialism begets economic socialism.

And the Rs are too stupid to see this. Mostly.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Reagan

===

Here is what you are up against if Republicans make faith central to the coming election campaign:

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush

Keyes lost about 60% of the votes of HIS OWN PARTY. Not an election winning strategy.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Pushing The Fantasy

tom swift

“Social Conservative (which includes fiscal conservatism for the clueless)”

Absurd. Social conservatism doesn’t subsume fiscal conservatism. The two concepts are totally unrelated. Recognition of this obvious fact has been the most important development in American politics of the past half-decade.

There are two groups trying to push the fantasy that the two philosophies are intrinsically related (in a more fundamental way than a partial similarity of names). First, social conservatives themselves, presumably because they don’t want to be left behind by the surging popularity of fiscal conservatism. And second, our Leftoids, who hope to confuse the electorate into thinking that fiscal conservatives suffer from the same glaring faults as do the social conservatives. But it’s a load of rubbish.
August 10, 2011 - 5:18 pm

From the comments at Vodka Pundit who had this to say. "Well said, Mr. Swift."

Let me add that there are a fair number of social conservatives who are on the left. Blacks and Hispanics mostly. And a fair number of social conservatives (Billy Sunday ring a bell?) joined with Progressives to give us Alcohol Prohibition, thus helping to make Progressivism the deleterious force it is today. It would be nice if I could be assured that social conservatives wouldn't again fall for that stuff. But they still support Drug Prohibition which looks suspiciously like a smaller form of Alcohol Prohibition. Not in the nature of the problem but the numbers of people involved. And still the social conservatives (that bastion of historical rememberance - according to them) don't seem to be able to learn from the history of Alcohol Prohibition. Pity.

Anyway - given the numbers of social conservatives on the left and given that a fair number are black - why am I not seeing calls from that group for fiscal conservatism? It is a wonder. Or it may be that social conservative does not equal fiscal conservative.

So what group is consistent on the fiscal question? I'd have to say libertarians. Except that there are a fairly large number of left libertarians. That leaves the Tea Party. So far. Except a fair number of them were pushing their social agenda items up until a few months ago. Which may merely mean they have gone into stealth mode.

So it is really not just the Left that I'm fighting. It is the statists of the Right and the Left. The folks who want to wield the fasces. And you know what we called those people in the 20th Century.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Only Social Conservatives

I see a lot of this phrase (or similar) "only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives" in comments on various posts around the 'net. Cynthia Yockey has an answer to that:

When I view the conservative movement I see it as being comprised of four ideological groups gathered in a tent so large that two of the groups have mutually exclusive goals:

1. Fiscal conservative, social liberal
2. Fiscal conservative, social conservative (when OUT of power, fiscal promises dominate; when IN power, social vendettas dominate and the majority of fiscal promises are scheduled for the indefinite future, aka, in your dreams)
3. Libertarians
4. Social conservative, fiscal liberal — for some reason, this group is usually shy about announcing its full identity and prefers to style itself as “compassionate” rather than liberal.

I have a sneaking suspicion it is the dominance of groups 2 and 4 in the conservative movement that is responsible for government growing even when conservatives are in power.

I think that #1 and #3 are identical philosophically.

And of course libertarians and Libertarians are staunch fiscal conservatives. Not real conservatives so I'm told. Which makes my point.

I'd also like to know what is fiscally conservative about supporting the Drug War which makes it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer and costs (Federally) $25 billion a year. Wouldn't it be wise to save the $25 billion a year ($70 billion Federal, State, and local) AND make those drugs as hard to get as a beer? We can do that with a legalization regime modeled after beer distribution.

Update: 12 Feb 2011 2348z

Charles Blow of the New York times (yeah, I know) catalogs recent legislative events supporting Cynthia's point #2.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Victory Will Bring Defeat

The kind of victory that brings defeat is a Pyrrhic Victory. I'm going to discuss a few things before I show you why that idea is important to the general flow of American politics. This thought train was inspired by a discussion at What If They Gave A Revolution And You Didn't Show Up?

A classic military principle is to go after the weakest member of a coalition. The reason for this is that relative military strength is a non-linear function. Doubling the size of your army more than doubles your relative power. However, if you can isolate and defeat a segment of an enemy's support you subtract considerably from their total power. We see this in politics all the time. It doesn't matter if your guy got a million votes if the other guy wound up with a million and one. It might as well have been a million and one to zero. Quite a reduction in power from just one vote. In close situations you don't have to peel off much support to cause a change in outcomes.

So how are things divided up (more or less) in the American political space? Generally accepted values for the current major political divisions are 20% liberals and 40% conservatives. With the remaining 40% split among several other idea constellations including a significant libertarian contingent. In my anything but humble opinion (every day I get told how arrogant I am - thanks for the compliments) the 20% tend for the most part to be Economic Socialists and the 40% tend towards Moral Socialism. Nanny staters all. Don't believe me? It is discussed in detail in the comments at Why Did Social Conservatives Ally With Progressives? You can also check out a similar exposition at On Marijuana, Social Conservatives Trend Statist with a commenter suggesting this book:

Starving the Monkeys: Fight Back Smarter

Since the end of Alcohol Prohibition the two groups have divided their functions in seeming opposition to each other. The liberal/Progressive side handles the Economic Socialism and the Social Conservatives handle the Moral Socialism. Very convenient.

What does the Conservative Coalition look like? It consists of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. If the fiscal conservatives win the day (that looks very likely) and the Democrats go (are forced) in that direction then the only thing left to fight over will be the nanny state addictions of the Right. Consider: When the Progressives get defeated they are going to be pissed. Economics and size of government are now off the table (when it comes to increases). So what will be on the table? The social improvement projects of the right. And the defeated will go after them with a vengeance and they can get the fiscal conservatives (smaller government) types on their side without too much effort - no Drug War means smaller government after all.

Once you destroy the economic underpinning of the nanny state the moral underpinnings will not hold up well at all. Moral improvement (the support of black markets, gangs, and criminals) is not cheap. Once economic socialism is gone the people will turn on the nanny staters of the right. The death of Economic Socialism will lead to the death of Moral Socialism. I don't think the reverse order would work. For sure not as well.

The new rule should be: No victim no crime. Ah what about society as a victim? Did you say society? Isn't concern for the welfare of society (rather than the liberty of individuals) socialism? Interesting thought that. See how long you can hold it.

And while you are holding that thought think of this: the defeat of the Economic Socialists will then lead to the defeat of the Moral Socialists with libertarians being the ultimate victors. In other words a victory over the Economic Socialists will be a Pyrrhic Victory for the Moral Socialists. Which I suppose why the Moral Socialists don't trust me. They know that ultimately I am no friend despite our current alliance. Ultimately I'm a friend of Liberty. The more the better. Within the limits of the other guy's nose of course.

My motto: First Hitler then Stalin. And to get Hitler I will ally with Stalin. How much more Machiavellian can you get?

Balance of power politics played for the long game. I'm all in.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Difference

In a discussion of the GOP Presidential field (with a chart) commenter Ken Mitchell has this to say:

OK, this graph is CLEARLY bogus. Huckabee is a religious populist, and isn’t ANY kind of a conservative. He’s a big spending big government guy, and the only difference between Huckabee and Obama is what they plan to do with the power.

I think that fits a lot of "Conservatives" out there. Their attitude is: "I'm totally for small government except when it conflicts with my pet projects." Any one got a cite for the Drug Prohibition Amendment? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller?

H/T Insapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values