I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. – Barry Goldwater, “Mr. Conservative”
We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that? – Goldwater to Bob Dole, in 1996
In 1964, Barry Goldwater launched the modern conservative movement. It was a revival of the classical liberal tradition; a new proclamation that liberty was the movement’s goal and the defense of individual freedom was an end in itself. There were several pillars of Goldwater’s conservatism, and they can be accurately described as thus: a robust national defense, opposition to creeping socialism, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and individual liberty. He famously declared that he was not going to Washington to fix government entitlement programs, but to end them. He asserted that extremism in the defense of liberty was no vice. Thanks to Goldwater, we were given a generation of leaders who followed in the same vein, including, most famously, Ronald Reagan.
Goldwater also so happened to favor abortion rights, medical marijuana, and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He said that all good Christians should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the behind and that the Religious Right was filled with “a bunch of kooks.”
Today, of course, it is highly unlikely that Goldwater would stand a plausible chance at winning the Republican nomination, let alone have the audacity to think that he should even run. The no-compromise Religious Right’s litmus tests cower Republican politicians into submission: even John McCain, who in 2000 rightly denounced Jerry Falwell as an agent of intolerance, groveled at the man’s feet as he prepared to make a second presidential run — and this was after he blamed abortionists, gays, and “pagans” for 9/11. Later on, out of fear of a backlash from the Religious Right, he chose Sarah Palin instead of Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge as his running mate. Earlier in the cycle, Rudy Giuliani himself accepted the endorsement of Pat Robertson, who concurred with Falwell’s abhorrent statement.
It was never thus. Mainstream conservatism had never been about “writing God’s law into the Constitution,” as Mike Huckabee phrased it, until the 1980′s, when Reagan made a pact with the devil to bring the Religious Right into the party. Although Reagan followed in the Goldwater vein and really didn’t do anything for the Religious Right (he simply didn’t care about their issues), its influence continued to grow, frightening moderates and independents more and more as it forced the party to adapt the hardline on abortion, gay issues, euthanasia, and stem-cell research. The true conservatives in the room — the classical liberals — would say that those issues were state matters and would be done with the matter then and there. Presidential candidates would not be required to take a stand on euthanasia or stem-cell research beyond that, and would certainly not be asked to assert that week-old embryos should have the same legal recognition as a grown man.
Many people who live in urban areas who would otherwise identify as Republicans refuse to because they don’t want to be affiliated with the Religious Right. They hear Mitt Romney say that “freedom requires religion” and Mike Huckabee assert that “God’s Law” as he sees it must be “written into the Constitution.” They hear Sarah Palin denigrate their cities as not being part of the “pro-America part of the country” and denigrate higher education. They see the Religious Right call for federalism when it comes to abortion law and then toss aside federalist principles in the Terri Schiavo case. And then everyone still in the GOP sits around baffled that we’ve gained a reputation as the Stupid Party.
The Religious Right must stop bullying the rest of the party. It must accept compromise, it must accept 80/20 deals, and it must give up losing issues (euthanasia, stem-cell research, and gay marriage). It must stop prioritizing issues that nobody else cares about outside of their niche group. When the priority of the country is the economy, nobody wants to hear you whine about abortion. Moreover, the Constitution must be once again understood by the party as a secular document — so secular, in fact, that it was decried at the time of its inception by religious leaders, thinking it an irreligious document. Not one reference to God or Jesus is in the Constitution. The only time religion is mentioned in the Constitution is to note that the government needs to stay out of it!
So it is time for a Goldwater/Reagan revival. Its prospects are dim — who would lead it? — but it’s what we must do if we are to become the party of the future. We must again stand for individual liberty, federalism, a strong defense, and capitalist values — not a narrow brand of theologically conservative Christianity. The latter is false conservatism and all of its adherents are false conservatives.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
April 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Goldwater voted for the Human Life Amendment in 1980, and didn’t express support for a pro choice position until after he had left office, when he married the president of the AZ chapter of Planned Parenthood.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
What’s your point?
April 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The point is that using even Goldwater, my ideological hero, can be quite tricky because he really breaks labels.
For example… He can’t be labeled as pro-choice or pro life easily. One side will say that he only changed opinions when he was influenced by his new wife (well into his 70′s), while the other side will say he had an epiphany.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
3 – I’m of the first side in that debate.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
to state that:
depends on which Goldwater you’re talking about. The candidate? The retired senator? See how difficult it can be? As a politician, Goldwater was pro life, and definitely Anti Roe v. Wade. As a retired and aged citizen, he was pro-choice.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
3 – One thing is for sure…changing positions on abortion that late in life? The man is not to be trusted.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Well, he was one of the two or three major champions of conservatism in the 1900′s and he certainly seemed to think that it fit into the proper ideological framework he’d built.
I am anti-Roe also. You can be pro-choice and anti-Roe, you know.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Woo for Knepper, woo for Goldwater!
April 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Knepper,
I’m actually supportive of “denigrating cities and higher education” but I agree that doing so is not a wise political strategy. However, I don’t know how “denigrating cities and higher education” is really something that can be attributed to the religious right unless you are asserting that because the person that you alleged to have done that in the 2008 election is a favorite of the religious right, we can infer that “denigrating cities and higher education” is a tactic promoted by the religious right.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I’m actually supportive of “denigrating cities and higher education” but I agree that doing so is not a wise political strategy. However, I don’t know how “denigrating cities and higher education” is really something that can be attributed to the religious right unless you are asserting that because the person that you alleged to have done that in the 2008 election is a favorite of the religious right, we can infer that “denigrating cities and higher education” is a tactic promoted by the religious right.
Who else denigrates higher education and big cities?
Capitalists?
Neoconservatives?
Moderates?
The Religious Right’s base are less-educated whites and rural areas.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I’m anti-Roe, and not in favor of the HLA, although I do consider myself pro life, in state legislation. Which isn’t the point. The point is that the 1964 candidate Goldwater and the Goldwater of the 1990′s held very different positions on a number of matters.
What the point is that yes, the 1964 presidential candidate Goldwater could run for President today, while the Goldwater of the 1990′s could not.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Alex, in response to your closing statement – “So it is time for a Goldwater/Reagan revival. Its prospects are dim — who would lead it? — but it’s what we must do if we are to become the party of the future.” – I have two words: Mark Sanford.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Knepper,
Regardless of the merits of the debate, on what basis are you asserting that gay marriage is a losing issue?
Polls: Majority of Americans oppose gay marriage
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/polls-majority-of-americans-oppose-gay-marriage/
“A majority of Americans don’t think gay marriages should be legal.
Fifty-five percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted in December said that same sex marriages should not be recognized by law as valid. Forty-four percent said gay marriages should be legal.
A Newsweek poll also conducted in December had similar results.”
I don’t see any data that supports the proposition that the issue is a losing one in terms of public perception as to the merits of the debate. However, you also seem to be arguing that gay marriage is a losing issue when it becomes a focus of the party at a time when other issues are dominant in the minds of the majority of the American public. If the preceding sentence is an accurate portrayal of a subset of your ultimate argument, then I would agree.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Alex, in response to your closing statement – “So it is time for a Goldwater/Reagan revival. Its prospects are dim — who would lead it? — but it’s what we must do if we are to become the party of the future.” – I have two words: Mark Sanford.
If only it were so. But unless he emerges as a stronger candidate on defense or picks a strong-on-defense VP, I can’t accept him. He’s outright rejected preemptive war.
However, he stated today on Meet the Press that he’d “defer to his former boss,” Newt Gingrich — a Podhoretz-style defense hawk — who was his fellow guest. So we’ll see.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
13 – It is a losing issue because of the demographics. A very heavy subset of the people who oppose gay marriage are blacks, who oppose gay marriage but don’t really care about the issue much. They’re about as likely to vote for Republicans as I am to vote for a Democrat, despite our differences with our parties on the issue. Same with Hispanics, to a lesser extent.
A majority of whites actually support gay marriage, and the voters we need to win over support it, too. Moreover, young voters overwhelmingly support it — a 2:1 landslide margin — and they’re not going to change their minds, despite what the Religious Right thinks. They’ve grown up knowing about homosexuality and considering it normal, which it is. It’s too late to put anti-gay thoughts in their heads.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Knepper,
Do you have data to support your assertions?
April 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Poll: Americans Divided On Gay Marriage
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_040309.pdf
The poll that I have cited here shows that only 37% of independents support gay marriage. The remaining 63% of independents polled more than likely consists of plenty of white people since most blacks and Hispanics are members of the Democrat party.
I agree that gay marriage is not a winning hand for Republicans to play at a time when other issues are more dominant on the public’s mind. However, I do not see data that establishes to my satisfaction that the issue is a losing one. An issue can be neither a winning one nor a losing one.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
You’re stealing my posts, Alex. I’ve been meaning to do a post on Goldwater Republicanism, and why I prefer that label to libertarian.
I would define Goldwater Republicanism very simply as a belief in freedom and the defense of freedom. Freedom being defined as the right to live our lives and conduct our businesses with minimal interference from the government.
A Goldwater Republican differs from libertarians in believing that freedom is worth defending, and that it requires a strong military and an engaged foreign policy (though I don’t know that a belief in preemptive war is a necessary component).
Sanford is the closest we have, I think, though I’m awaiting further details on his defense/foreign policy views.
I would submit that Romney might be the second closest of the major candidates, though with Romney it’s necessary to separate Massachusetts Mitt of ‘o8 Mitt. Massachusetts Mitt would be okay with most Goldwater Republicans, I think.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
A Gay Marriage Compromise
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_gay_marriage_compromise.html
Perhaps a social conservative with a lot of credibility with the “religious right” should step forward and advance something similar to the compromise crafted between Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn. Doing so would show voters a proactive pragmatic streak on the part of the party towards a very contentious hot-button issue that is not a huge issue in the minds of most Americans at ths time. And if such a compromise were to be rejected, then it would change the paradigm as to which side is closer to the “middle” and willing to compromise.
Offering a compromise may be the best politics for the party at this time.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Knepper,
By the way, when I am talking about “denigrating cities and higher education,” I’m talking about what the dominant culture of cities and higher education, rather than the concept of urban cities and higher education. I am talking about welfare recipients, homeless shelters, distateful art (the same stuff that your boy Rudy slammed when he was NYC mayor), Ward Churchill, Bill Ayers, anti-American rhetoric in college classrooms, etc.
I think that’s what the good governor from Alaska had in mind when she allegedly “denigrated cities and higher education.” If that’s what she had in mind, I am proud to join her in such “denigration of cities and higher education” though I concede it’s not a smart political strategy to actually pursue such a route in such an overt manner.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I think Sanford could be the guy, too. I’m not so concerned about his dovish statements on foreign policy, because any Republican Commander in Chief will do what’s necessary when faced with the facts. But the bigger reason I’m not concerned is that if we don’t save capitalism, there will be no money, or reason, to save America militarily.
This may surprise some of you, but I support the idea of an economic conservative who is completely trusted by the religious right. Why? So social issues can be silenced in 2012, so that we can WIN and save America.
Now, will you SoCons accept that agreement, too, and support a candidate who is completely trusted by the economic right? (That means no Huckabee.)
April 5th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Bottom line, it doesn’t matter that you’re 2/3 of the party and we’re 1/3, because both camps are equally necessary to get to 51% of the vote.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Metro,
Do you have data to support what seems to be your proposition that a third of the party is “socially moderate or liberal” and “economically conservative?”
While approximately a third of the party is not “conservative” according to gallup, I believe you are drawing an unsubstantiated inference that a “moderate” Republican or “liberal” Republican is someone who is “socially moderate or liberal” and “economically conservative.”
For all we know, this third of the party is represented by Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe. If you examine an aggregate of all the polling data, around 25-30% of Republicans approve of Barack Obama’s performance thus far despite what you have claimed to be an assault on capitalism on the part of Barack Obama. Obama’s approval rating among Republicans has stayed constant at around 26% for the better part of a month if you look at Rasmussen’s crosstabs. I think a strong inference can be derived from the polling that Obama’s primary support from Republicans comes from “moderate” and “liberal” Republicans, the third of the party on which I believe you have drawn an unsubstantiated inference regarding their idealogical leanings. The 25-30% of Republicans that approve of Obama’s performance despite SCHIP, the stimulus, his proposed budget, and other actions are likely not “socially moderate” and “economically conservative.”
April 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Tommy, no, I’m speaking in generalities. Economic and social conservatism operate on different axes and different sets of people.
But to save this country, we must convince a portion of the country that isn’t economically conservative, that that is what we need now, much like Reagan did in 1980.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The 25-30% of Republicans that approve of Obama’s performance despite SCHIP, the stimulus, his proposed budget, and other actions are likely not “socially moderate” and “economically conservative.”
That’s normal. Give it a bit. Remember: it’s only been two months! Plus, not everyone’s paying attention right now. I guarantee you that Obama will not get 25% of the Republican vote in 2012.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
It’s a difficult position to keep. I expect you’ll change your opinion on Roe in time.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It’s a difficult position to keep. I expect you’ll change your opinion on Roe in time.
Why is it difficult?
I’m an originalist. Anyone who is intellectually honest and does not view the court as a political branch is.
At the same time, I support abortion rights.
I want the battle to go back to the states, where it belongs. I’ll be fighting for pro-choice laws on a state level if that happens.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
#27
Why does it belong with the states, as opposed to the federal government? An awful lot of pro-lifers want it to go national, and are only willing to settle for treatment as a state issue. Necessary and proper clause, my friend – it’s here to stay, and your ideological opponents, including those in your own party, have no problem using it. You’re apparently in the nit-picking stage of Constitutional scholarship; most people who go through it come out of it at some later point. Contrary to what many people here believe, the Constitution is extraordinarily vague about most things.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
That’s ridiculous Alex. The first sign of not being a conservative, is that you define conservatism, by the views of one man who was a conservative icon at best for a few decades. Consersvatism would involve a little more historical perspective than that.
Also the term conservatism should have relations to things like: caring about certain core values of the past, giving respect to these values because of their being timeworn, and being careful about large changes. Now, of course conservatives will be for change and liberals will be for perserving certain things. But a conservative would have a certain cautiousness about change, that a liberal would not, and will give extra weight to things because they have worked in the past. I think when you support conserving things, its for the reasons liberals do. Its not because you have some respect for the ideas and values of the past, but because its what you have decided by yourself to be the right idea, and it sometimes coincidently matches past values. When you stand to reject all religion which has served as an undergirding of society for years, because you yourself think that’s reasonable; you are not being conservative.
You may have some small claim to call yourself a conservative based on the Reagan/Goldwater movement, but you most certainly are not in a position to say others are not conservative. Traditional conservatives have a much stronger semantical claim to the word than you do, because to call them a conservative you don’t have to make the word mean something totally different for politics than what it does in the rest of life. To be conservative in anything but politics means to be careful, cautious, and preserve things. You cannot claim that a political philosophy which embodies those things is not conservative, but you’re conservative when your political philosophy only matches those things by coincidence. You may be able to point to a recent political movement, but traditional conservatives can point to the word itself.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I know, before hearing your response, that you’re going to appeal to the 10th Amendment. Read the last four words of that one again. Once again: which is it? The States or the people? I’m looking for some justification why your default response is “the States”.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Why does it belong with the states, as opposed to the federal government? An awful lot of pro-lifers want it to go national, and are only willing to settle for treatment as a state issue. Necessary and proper clause, my friend – it’s here to stay, and your ideological opponents, including those in your own party, have no problem using it. You’re apparently in the nit-picking stage of Constitutional scholarship; most people who go through it come out of it at some later point. Contrary to what many people here believe, the Constitution is extraordinarily vague about most things.
Because I’m an originalist. The Constitution wasn’t meant to be difficult to interpret. If you want to know what it means, you read it. If you’re not sure what the intent was, you go to the Federalist Papers and the transcripts of the debates during the Constitutional convention.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
US National Survey Democracy Corps (D) /
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D)
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_demcorps325.php#comments
Warm/Cool Feeling
Gay marriage 29/51
Likely Voters 29/52
April 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I think when you support conserving things, its for the reasons liberals do. Its not because you have some respect for the ideas and values of the past, but because its what you have decided by yourself to be the right idea, and it sometimes coincidently matches past values. When you stand to reject all religion which has served as an undergirding of society for years, because you yourself think that’s reasonable; you are not being conservative.
Why should I have respect for something just because it’s old? Of course I only support it because it’s a good idea.
There was a band of revolutionaries in 1776 that you probably would lump in with me. They had a lot of “theories” and “ideas” that hadn’t been tried out in practice, too.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Meaning that if it’s not the role of the federal government, nor is it banned by the states, it’s cool. But the states can still do what they want on it.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
#33: Classic, Alex.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Alex, You are not like those Founding Fathers.
They served self-lessly. Most of your own posts these days are simply intellectual masterbatory self-congratulations. That doesn’t even approximate the virtue of the Founders.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Also in that poll by Greenberg and Carville, the percentage of likely voters who had a “very cold” feeling towards gay marriage was 47%, just 4% lower than the percentage of likely voters who had a “very cold” feeling towards the state of the American economy.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Tommy Boy, you’ve posted polling on gay marriage about 10 times in the last 2 days. I don’t think you’re getting it.
1. Even if a majority are against gay marriage, they don’t want to hear you campaigning against it. If you do, they think your priorities are totally f’ed up since our econmomy is on the brink of collapse.
2. The momentum for gay marriage is unbelievable. 10 years ago there wasn’t close to a majority for civil unions. Now CU+GM is way over half the electorate. It’s inexorable due to a generational change. Kavon accepts this, talk to him.
3. Many of those opposed to gay marriage vote Democratic, such as blacks and Hispanics. The people you need to reach 51% in a Presidential election includes suburban voters and many of them are in the CU+GM crowd.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
They served self-lessly. Most of your own posts these days are simply intellectual masterbatory self-congratulations. That doesn’t even approximate the virtue of the Founders.
Ugh, no, you’re missing my point.
The point was that he said that I wasn’t a conservative because I didn’t have enough respect for the ideas of the past, and that I only believe what I believe because I think they’re good ideas. Just ideas, nothing more.
Well, the Founders were like that, too. What they believed in was radical and had never been tried out in practice.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Big S,
I haven’t heard a single prominent pro-lifer argue that if Roe’s overturned, there should be a national law banning abortion. Even Scalia has as much as said that he would find such a law unconstitutional. We want a national constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception. That’s a very different concept; amendments are inherently a part of the federalist tradition, given that they involve constitutional conventions or state legislatures. Oh, and bringing the necessary and proper clause into the abortion debate is just laughable. No deceptive, constitution-shredding, pro-choicer worth his salt would somehow use the necessary and proper clause to defend abortion rights. They either locate the right in penumbras, or try to weasel it into the equal protection clause. Get with the program, my friend. If you’re going to defend Roe, you ought to stick with the highly trained lawyers who’ve spent decades learning how to make shit up.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
So Alex, you think that Loving v. Virginia was an error? As was Brown v. Board of Education? Ditto Lawrence v Texas?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
41 – Loving was definitely an error, Lawrence was definitely an error.
Brown’s a bit more of a gray area. I can see arguments both ways. Forced busing was definitely an error.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Metro,
1. What do you think this statement sounds like from post 17? “I agree that gay marriage is not a winning hand for Republicans to play at a time when other issues are more dominant on the public’s mind. However, I do not see data that establishes to my satisfaction that the issue is a losing one. An issue can be neither a winning one nor a losing one.”
2. You are making an assumption that because more and more Americans support civil unions, that the momentum will lead to greater support for gay marriage. Americans may view civil unions as a way to strike a final compromise on a contentious issue. We simply do not know at this time without data. I’m not willing to make such a leap until I see data to provide support for such a proposition.
3. Provide support for your proposition. See Post 17:
“The poll that I have cited here shows that only 37% of independents support gay marriage. The remaining 63% of independents polled more than likely consists of plenty of white people since most blacks and Hispanics are members of the Democrat party.”
April 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
#39
No, I didn’t miss your point. You compared yourself to the Founders in your ‘progressive’ thinking, and I think inappropriately. The Judeochristian tradition has outlasted every government on earth, and the staggering hubris by which you dismiss or discount those principles, which most Americans hold as essential to functioning society (e.g., chastity before marriage, christian or sacrificial service, etc.) is most unwarrented.
You are looking more and more like a reactionary anarchist the more I read your pontificatious writings.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Metro,
I think you know by now that I don’t let people get away with making assertions unless they have data to support such an assertion. I hold Knepper to the same standard even though I like the guy’s writing. I don’t like your writing, so you can surely expect me to question your propositions if you don’t provide authority.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“Why should I have respect for something just because it’s old? Of course I only support it because it’s a good idea.”
That’s not the point. The point is that a conservative does. As I made clear a conservative isn’t going to never believe in change, but traditions do gain more respect than new fangled ideas. You’re free to give any credence to age that you want, just don’t call yourself the real conservative(fact of the matter is I don’t definitely define myself as a Conservative). You’re an example of a term becoming so popular that everybody wants to claim the term for themselves – problem is the word ends up having no meaning.
“There was a band of revolutionaries in 1776 that you probably would lump in with me. They had a lot of “theories” and “ideas” that hadn’t been tried out in practice, too.”
No, that’s not the 18th century revolution I would identify you with. I would identify you with an 18th century revolution, though. As to your point I would not necessarily consider the American revolution conservative. It was more conservative than the French revolution, but I think you’d have to consider the British side to be the most conservative. But I don’t see the word “conservative” as synonym for “good”, so I can be honest about good things not always being the most conservative. The problem is certain people including yourself have become so fond of the word, that you will not allow anything to be called conservative if you do not like it. Unfortunately this is destroying the word from having any meaning, good or bad.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Alex,
You should read Michael McConnell’s originalist defense of Brown. It’s good stuff. The article used to be accessible for free, but now you may need access to the actual academic journal (which you might have, depending on what search things your college provides you with). It was in the Virginia Law Review.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
You should read Michael McConnell’s originalist defense of Brown. It’s good stuff. The article used to be accessible for free, but now you may need access to the actual academic journal (which you might have, depending on what search things your college provides you with). It was in the Virginia Law Review.
I’m sure I have access to it.
I’ve read Bork’s originalist defense of Brown, but it wasn’t wholly convincing. I’ll check out McConell’s.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Like the Bible, those aren’t governing documents. If they had really meant it, don’t you think they’d have written it down? If it was already written down elsewhere, why was a decision made to exclude it from the final draft?
Are you honestly asserting that because the States are mentioned first, they get first crack at rights? I don’t get that from the document, and you’ll have a hard time making a non-arbitrary case supporting that point. You’ll also have a hard time maintaining any pretense of respecting individual rights, since your comment basically states that there are none unless they are approved (or at least not condemned) by the majority.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Can you imagine liberals fighting over who’s the true liberal? Hahaha.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Knepper,
I also question what seems to be grand assumption behind your last couple of posts on this subject: that prominent conservatives are making gay marriage a huge issue at this time. Steve King doesn’t count as a prominent conservative. You pointed to a couple of interviews that Newt Gingrich gave to a less-than prominent blogger.
Was gay marriage the focal point of Fox News Sunday with Newt and Sanford? Did any of the Republican guests on the Sunday shows talk about gay marriage for a lengthy period of time? Check out the following link: Palin and Jindal didn’t even respond officially when asked about the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. The rest only responded when asked by the media for a reaction.
Iowa: ‘The Gay Marriage Mecca’?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7253244&page=1
You are making gay marriage and the Iowa Supreme Court decision out to be a bigger issue than the very people who are likely going to serve as our next standard-bearers.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Like the Bible, those aren’t governing documents. If they had really meant it, don’t you think they’d have written it down?
But unlike the Bible, they actually have relevance to the governing documents.
They did write them down. The Federalist Papers were published to explain what the Constitution meant by the people who wrote it! Not sure how much clearer it gets.
If it was already written down elsewhere, why was a decision made to exclude it from the final draft?
It wasn’t excluded. But a Constitution can’t be hundreds of pages long. It was compacted for simplicity’s sake. It doesn’t mean that the intent of the people who wrote it is meaningless!
April 5th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I am leaning in that direction, lately. But, I’m not a pure socon.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“I would define Goldwater Republicanism very simply as a belief in freedom and the defense of freedom. Freedom being defined as the right to live our lives and conduct our businesses with minimal interference from the government.
A Goldwater Republican differs from libertarians in believing that freedom is worth defending, and that it requires a strong military and an engaged foreign policy (though I don’t know that a belief in preemptive war is a necessary component).
Sanford is the closest we have, I think, though I’m awaiting further details on his defense/foreign policy views.
I would submit that Romney might be the second closest of the major candidates, though with Romney it’s necessary to separate Massachusetts Mitt of ‘o8 Mitt. Massachusetts Mitt would be okay with most Goldwater Republicans, I think.”
Bob pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I very strongly second them.
As to preemptive war, it’s a totally new doctrine to our party and really isn’t sustainable in the long run. I wish we could knock off every idiot in the world that may one day bother us or to expand American interests (just like I wish Social Security and the like were actually sustainable programs), but the reality is we can’t. We can only be prepared enough to do all that is necessary to defend liberty, and trust people and trust our leaders to uphold that value to the fullest.
in 2012 the best man to nominate is a Goldwater Republican, a man grounded in the most solid principles of liberty and who can make a stand on them pertinent to the challenges of the day. Sanford’s quite possibly that man. A Republican known for not liking preemptive war, and not fond of pushing religious agendas while being a staunchly religious man himself, wouldn’t be a bad thing to have with voters that are very tired of both of those positions.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Are you honestly asserting that because the States are mentioned first, they get first crack at rights? I don’t get that from the document, and you’ll have a hard time making a non-arbitrary case supporting that point. You’ll also have a hard time maintaining any pretense of respecting individual rights, since your comment basically states that there are none unless they are approved (or at least not condemned) by the majority.
No no — meaning that if it’s not banned by the states and the Constitution is silent on it, it’s legal. But that doesn’t mean that the states aren’t allowed to act on it.
I do respect individual rights. I don’t think the Constitution goes far enough to protect them. The Constitution doesn’t stand for All That Is Good. It has a meaning, and it is what it is whether or not you agree with it.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
in 2012 the best man to nominate is a Goldwater Republican, a man grounded in the most solid principles of liberty and who can make a stand on them pertinent to the challenges of the day. Sanford’s quite possibly that man. A Republican known for not liking preemptive war, and not fond of pushing religious agendas while being a staunchly religious man himself, wouldn’t be a bad thing to have with voters that are very tired of both of those positions.
He refused to take a stand on the I Believe license plates.
As to preemptive war, it’s a totally new doctrine to our party and really isn’t sustainable in the long run.
Yes it is, if we do it where it counts. Sanford knocked it off categorically.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
These people that think we’re losing because we’re emphasizing social issues must be watching different elections than I am. McCain’s campaign best as I could tell was on Ayers, Wright, Pork, and Bipartisanship. Also Social Conservatives may not accept someone like Rudy who departed from us on the number one issue of the Courts in saying that Roe was okay, but we certainly haven’t recieved everything we wanted. The Senate has always had a sizable group of pro-choice Republicans, along with those who are very half-hearted on the issue. We held power in all houses of Congress with President Bush, and this country didn’t turn into any kind of theocracy.
Its time to face the facts that the reasons were losing is because of our economic message. For one thing Obama pounded it through the American consciousness that his tax policy was better for 95% of Americans. I don’t know if the failure was in McCain not pointing out this was a lie, or in changing his own policy to make it a lie, but whatever the case it wasn’t SoCons fault. Its also not the fault of SoCons that we sound like the solution to any problem all the time is to cut government. We’ve become the stupid party on economics and that’s not the SoCons fault. You can blame SoCons for Palin (though not really, because Palin wasn’t the only SoCon out there), but you can’t blame us for the party not having a sophistocated economic message( well you could and you do, but its not intelectually honest.)
April 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
It most certainly was excluded, probably because a certain amount of flexibility was required for ratification. And there are plenty of constitutions that are much longer than ours. There are some very, very specific things in it and some very vague things which we continue to argue about to this day. There are far more realistic explanations for this than space requirements.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
McCain’s campaign best as I could tell was on Ayers, Wright, Pork, and Bipartisanship.
Wright!?!?!?!??!?!
Wright!?!??!?!?
If you can find me one quote of McCain’s in the fall where he criticizes Obama over Wright, I will resign from Race42012.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Alex,
But Bush did that in Iraq, and look where that got him. The forced expansion of liberty, whether domestically or abroad, simply isn’t workable and when done poorly even counterproductive. It’s something best not touching.
The very definition of preemptive war, furthermore, is to use force against someone who isn’t (for now, at least) threatening you. If he was, it wouldn’t be preemptive war, it would be defensive and rational like most other wars we’ve engaged in.
“He refused to take a stand on the I Believe bumper stickers.”
That’s his genius
Sanford is really quite good at deflecting attempts to inflame the culture wars and galvanize both sides. He values tradition, and thus isn’t going to poke the SoCon’s for doing something of good intent and indirectly assault those values which are good, serving the opposition, but he absolutely refuses to serve a religious agenda in government.
He could have easily jumped on the SoCon side, after all, being Governor of South Carolina.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
By a few of the people who wrote it, anyway. They were involved in an ideological battle at the time, and were explaining their side. They may have won the war (ratification), but they certainly lost some battles along the way, which is why a lot of things advocated by them are not actually enshrined in the Constitution. You seem to be defaulting to the written opinions of one side, which is not surprising for someone who is so ideological. However, you need to recognize that the FPs and the Constitution are not the same thing.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
But Bush did that in Iraq, and look where that got him. The forced expansion of liberty, whether domestically or abroad, simply isn’t workable and when done poorly even counterproductive. It’s something best not touching.
Actually, it’s working out fairly well, as of late…
April 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
The federalist papers are important because they articulated what the people thought they were getting when they signed on to ratification. True originalists don’t go in for the “original intentions” of the framers, but the original meaning, as it was promulgated to the states and the people of the country. Why is that important? Because, the states were signing on to a contract for a binding, perpetual union, and it’s immoral and illegal to change the terms of a perpetual contract.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
billy valentines going to be sooo mad!
April 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
#63
Yes, the Federalist papers are important. But it’s wrongheaded to treat them as if they were the “fine print” on the contract (the Constitution) that explains it all if you just read it. They are not the fine print in the Constitution because they are not, you know, in the Constitution. Nobody ratified the Federalist Papers. Sometimes when things are left vague that’s because they have multiple meanings that need to get sorted out later on. In such a case, it’s impossible to identify what the “original meaning” is.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“Actually, it’s working out fairly well, as of late…”
Thanks to the Iraqis. Liberty can never be forced, only chosen – Petraeus’ genius was in seeing that the US could never make a nation free, contrary to the hopes of Cheney and others within the administration. He could only aid the Iraqis in doing that, and thus always cautions that the fate of things really rests with them, not with the US military.
That the Iraqis have stood up for their country was a chance development – any number of alternatives could have been the result as things teetered on civil war, particularly had a strongman risen to power when the national government was weak. It need not be stressed enough that in Iraq’s outcome we got lucky, and owe everything to those chance circumstances that came together and reversed something that was heading directly south.
The US came not as defenders of liberty, but as conquerors in its name. That’s why Iraq never went smooth for us. It’s pretty obvious, historically, that aggression is an inherently imperialistic motivation. Defense is a classically liberal one. There’s no historical precedent for pure aggression in the name of liberty, and all attempts to make one simply aren’t trusted because it’s not logical. The administration should have known that when it started a war on very shaky and ultimately spurious of grounds of defense. Their motivations were very good but they certainly lacked foresight as to the consequences of their policies.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Oh, and one thing Alex, please do tell how you italicize text, it’s something I’ve been wanting to do
April 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
#67
Look here for a few pointers and then go crazy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_element
April 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
68,
Thanks! I’m used to php boards, which always use the brackets. I tried that once and only got the embarrassing [i] and [/i] around my text…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Barack Obama really does go on a bit
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2009/04/05/barack_obama_really_does_go_on_a_bit
April 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Are we simply willing to ignore Mark Sanford’s record as governor of SC because he talks a big, conservative game? I’m of the opinion that you need to be good at your first job in order to be President. Mark’s tenure as governor doesn’t quite cut it.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“its [the Religious Right] influence continued to grow, frightening moderates and independents more and more as it forced the party to adapt the hardline on abortion, gay issues, euthanasia, and stem-cell research.”
I beg to differ. I don’t think it’s the religious right who’s frightening the moderates and the independents. It’s the left’s portrayal of the religious right that is frightening the moderates and independents.
Plus this whole article seems like a losing strategy for the GOP. I don’t think hyperbolic language like “Reagan made a pact with the devil” and cherry picking quotes like a political attack ad would to make a point is productive or influential.
The religious right has every freedom to be apart of our party and to voice their beliefs as a way to affect and construct society.
As a pro-choice conservative (I’m strongly against partial birth abortion and prefer that an unwanted pregnancy goes the adoption route….like Juno!!), I’ve never felt frightened by pro-lifers.
I can’t even remember the last time I saw a news story about a raving mad unruly religious right crowd picketing an abortion clinic. I don’t think they even picketed after that abortion doctor in Kansas was acquitted recently.
Anyway my point is Alex shouldn’t be listened to in regards to messaging and rebranding the conservative party. It’s negative, it’s too authoritative and it will turn more people off then attract.
Perhaps Alex you should lay off reading David Frum for awhile…..or risk ending up looking like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yd0Krz3q9k
April 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Robbie,
The rule is that the only person who has to turn in a sufficient performance in his or her current job to run for president is Sarah Palin.
Sheryl, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to David Frum’s ideas gaining traction with the party is David Frum himself.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
sheryl,
Perhaps you should first know the background behind Red Eye‘s attack on the Canadian-born and raised Frum.
Invade Canada?
As Canada’s military prepares for year-long hiatus, is this the perfect time for us to attack?
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3830254&referralPlaylistId=b91bfb7497c00540ff84c65f474c804a116d1713&maven_referrer=staf
TV DOESN’T GET DUMBER THAN THIS!
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=7a2ae264-25b5-4c40-8ed6-0c4eb8095da6
Fox host apologizes for mocking of Canadian Forces
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/03/23/redeye-soldiers-mocking.html?ref=rss
April 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
[...] do the Jackelope and Alex Knepper’s mythical abortion-loving conservatives have in common? The mass existence of both is a matter based on pure anecdotal evidence. Writes Alex: Many [...]
April 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“Perhaps you should first know the background behind Red Eye’s attack on the Canadian-born and raised Frum.”
I took the segment for what it was…..a dig at David’s hit piece on Rush in Newsweek and Frum’s Why Rush is Wrong article on the Huffington Post.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Sheryl, you know I’m affiliated with David Frum, right? I’m a contributor to his site…lol.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
[...] proclaims his conservatism, triumphal horns blaring the sweet melody to the men and women, below, who’d [...]
April 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Robbie, as a South Carolinian, since you have a better perspective on Sanford’s record as governor than most of us, can you explain some of the big things Sanford has done to disappoint you? I had a post yesterday that highlighted some of his accomplishments, as told by Sanford’s former deputy chief of staff (obviously a biased source) and current chairman of the S.C. Club for Growth.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
LOL…..I did not, that was a total guess truly.
I’m new to this site and I’m more familiar with David’s work when he was writing over at NRO. I’ve read a couple of his articles post NRO @ the New Majority, etc but wasn’t aware of your connection!
April 5th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Accept compromise? If you think the conservative party needs to compromise even further than it already has, please raise your hands. Still waiting. Anyone?
April 6th, 2009 at 12:58 am
#44, pontificatious is not a word. If you want to insult Alex as someone who uses big words needlessly, at least use a big word that exists…
April 6th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Anthony #79,
Sorry for the delayed response. You probably won’t even read this, but I’ll go ahead and respond anyway.
I posted this on a thread WAY back about two months or so ago, and I think it pretty well sums up how I feel about Mark Sanford:
“It’s kind of a personal thing. Not like an ‘I just don’t like him’ thing, but more of an ‘I don’t think he’s up to the job’ kind of thing.
Look, I like Mark Sanford as a person. I believe him to be mostly honest, which is way more than can be said for most politicians. His ideology is pretty pure, and he’s maintained a serious commitment to his principles. In short, I genuinely respect him.
But I live in South Carolina. I started living here at the end of Jim Hodges’ term as governor. While things weren’t perfect then, they weren’t awful. Now we’re hemorrhaging jobs and we’re still at the bottom of just about every category in terms of economics and state development. The legislature has been hostile to him on some issues, but certainly not hostile to fiscal conservativism. Taxes are low, but business in SC is still bad, poverty is still high, and we have some of the most underfunded schools in the country. Our private schools ain’t so good either. We’re cutting the state budget on a regular basis by hundreds of millions. And there’s little sign of genuine improvement in any front.
I’m not blaming South Carolina’s economic situation on Sanford by any means. There have been tons of extraneous circumstances and other things out of his power. But he just hasn’t exhibited a strong commitment to fixing the problem in his own backyard. Instead, he’s working the Sunday talk circuit and trying to be the main opposition to Barack Obama’s plan. Which, to me, does not exhibit a genuine commitment to real solutions. I just don’t think he’s up to the certainly daunting task of taking the office of the Presidency in 2013.
My opinion’s not set in stone, but I’ve seen what I’ve seen. And I don’t like it.”
April 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Tommy Boy – Since when have Republicans been oppose to shelters for the homeless?
April 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Tommy Boy – Since when have Republicans been opposed to shelters for the homeless?
April 6th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
It’s encouraging you want to number yourself amongst true conservatives, Alex. Your vote is always welcome. I still think the leadership of the party should be narrowed down to the most qualified candidates that actually have successfully employed conservative policies in their personal lives. For obvious reasons. But the rank and file needs all walks, bring your friends too!
April 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.