Posted on 09/12/2003 12:19:04 PM PDT by EllaMinnow
Social conservatism means a serious fidelity to those beliefs and traditions which keep us civilized and decent.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a social conservative, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Social conservatism means a serious fidelity to those beliefs and traditions which keep us civilized and decent without resort to laws, regulations and bureaucrats.
Social conservatism is a respect for tradition and for values which have withstood the test of time. Chinese family members who respect and support one another, even at the cost of personal wishes, are social conservatives whatever their metaphysical beliefs.
This definition of social conservatism as a matter of example rather than profession does not mean we agree on every detail of moral behavior. It means instead that we root ourselves in something permanent, dignified and civic. Even eccentricity can be socially conservative. British and American peoples are famous for producing men who, for want of a better term, are cranks. That is very much a part of the culture of these two nations.
At the heart of social conservatism is fidelity. Often men who are social conservatives are ideologically left of center. Jimmy Carter is a good example. By all appearances, Carter took his marital vows seriously and his religious faith seriously. He stopped serving hard liquor at White House dinners.
That did not prevent Carter from being a petty, spiteful and almost insufferable boor. And it certainly did not prevent Carter from being wrong on almost every issue. But it does mean that Jimmy Carter was a social conservative.
Joe Lieberman is also a social conservative, even if he supports terrible policies. Every indication is that Lieberman is a religiously serious Orthodox Jew. It is impossible to imagine Joe munching a bacon cheeseburger on Kol Nidre. Bill Bradley is another social conservative who loves his wife, gained his wealth and fame through guts and hard work, and sincerely believes in all the bad ideas he proposes.
The beauty of America, of course, is that social conservatism does not require being correct as much as being sincere. It does not require conformity to a particular catechism so much as it means conformity to some catechism. The bewildering variety of religions, sects, and societies in American life is a testament to Americans respecting in social life the same freedom to be wrong that we respect in our economic life. Indeed, social conservatism is another form of market choice which helps, through competition, to elevate cultures and traditions within America.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is made of the "right stuff.” There is no odor of phoniness about him. He loves his wife and family. He worked his way to the top with sweat and diligence. He resembles a number of other social conservative Republicans around President Bush who are not generally recognized as social conservatives.
Who? How about Colin Powell? He turned down the Presidency itself in 1996 out of respect for his wife and family. Does anyone question that what Powell believes, he believes sincerely? How about Tom Ridge, who was too liberal to be the running mate in 2000, but who putters around his home for recreation and grew up in the Marine Corps.
Tony Blair and Rudy Giuliani are social conservatives who we seldom see as social conservatives. Both these heroic figures do what they do publicly and because they believe it is right. Thank goodness both are on our side now--social conservatives dig their heels in very deeply!--but even when Giuliani supports abortion or Powell supports affirmative action, they can do so looking you straight in the eye with a polygraph examiner unable to detect a hint of spin in their answers.
This type of social conservative--guys doing what they think is right because they think it is right--is precisely the sort of man that President Bush has shown incredible skill in using to make America better. Our Texan President, our proudly Cowboy President, does not demand that anyone agree with him on every issue. In fact, such silly boys can be skimmed off the corporate boards of a hundred big companies.
He wants people who are true to themselves. He wants, and we should want, real social conservatives. Rabbis who read Torah as if it were holy writ. Priests who take their vows seriously. Men who honor their parents and are faithful to their wives. Men like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan or John Wayne, who will fight for what they think is right.
When Governor Schwarzenegger takes office, President Bush will find honor more valuable than agreement and grit more important than obedience. It will be a winning team, perhaps a team that can transform America.
Later, as the Republican candidate attempting to unseat Senator Jeff Bingaman, he found Bingaman would not debate him.
Not debating the challenger is what the frontrunner does. The frontrunner will be out campaigning, but will not give the challenger the exposure necessary for victory. It is basic political behavior.
You seem fairly self assured, but I have yet to see anyone who can predict the future accurately. The honest truth is, either you are clairvoyant or you're talking through your hat. Which is it? I notice your state flag is not set either. I'll let you decide if you see that as a question that you ought to answer since you are setting yourself up as so knowledgeable about the future of this state and what's good for it.
I wonder if you were back in the old days and saw David about to fight Goliath. You'd probably tell him not to bother, since you knew Goliath was superior in physical strength and therefore it was impossible for David to beat him.
This race is very dynamic and no one can predict how it is going to end. Experts have been wrong in the past, many times. Events can change the outcome of a race. So I think it is faulty reasoning to be guided exclusively by what others project or pontificate.
I would rather spend more attention and energy determining the best candidate up front than deferring, or guessing, or taking the result of a superficial beauty contest result. A small mistake at this stage could cost us dearly a couple of years down the road. Since some of us actually live here, some of us have more than a theoretical interest in minimizing risk of a given outcome, including especially longer term risk.
LOL ! Great and appropriate pic, thanks ...California GOP Insiders: McClintock Will Drop Out
A vote for ...
... instead of for ...
Will bring you the NEXT Governor of California !! ...
Separated at birth ?? ...
Aw, thank you ! :O)
McClintock is taking money from Bustamante supporters and taking shots at Arnold Schwarzenegger.
McClintock can drop out gracefully or be the spoiler who elects Bustamante.
As for California residency being the requirement for commenting on the recall, that's simply petty.
I made it clear in my post that I worked for our congressman here in New Mexico, both in his congressional races, and his senate race. He's as true a conservative fiscally and socially as you'd ever want to know. Just not electable beyond his critical service as New Mexico's Third District congressman casting four votes for articles of impeachment.
Of course the future hasn't been written. It is being written day by day, and McClintock is serving Bustamante.
New Mexico had a Republican governor for eight years following the Bruce King dynasty. But the string was broken because the Lieutenant Governor Walter Bradley and the Republican candidate John Sanchez failed to reconciliate.
The right thing would have been to unite behind the party's chosen candidate, but personalities prevented that.
My stepson and his family live in Dana Rohrabacher's district, and Rohrabacher whom I respect (as does my former congressman here) endorses Schwarzenegger.
My father, a WWII Navy veteran who had me wash my hands after shaking hands with Indianapolis' Democrat mayor Phil Bayt in 1952, lived in Capistrano Beach, California until June at which time he moved to a veterans' cemetery.
I'm the godson of a congressman and I want Bush to win California and be reelected next year.
The first duty of the politician is to get elected--something I learned going door to door for Barry Goldwater with fellow YAFers in 1964.
Schwarzenegger is vastly preferable to Bustamante who is a hateful racist, a socialist, and as corrupt as Davis.
The positive thing for McClintock to do is have the private conversation with Schwarzenegger to receive a position in the new government in return for withdrawing and endorsing Schwarzenegger.
McClintock instead becomes more defiant, continues to concentrate fire on the leading Republican while sparing Bustamante.
His behavior is perceived by those not blinded by allegiance to him as being self-serving and ultimately serving Bustamante.
Our former Republican governor Gary Johnson was as socially liberal as Schwarzenegger and then some--but he was fiscally conservative and made King's defecit into a comfortable surplus.
Now, due to Republicans' infighting, we have Bill Richardson who is a Communist disguised as a can of Crisco and a key player in the Clinton long-term coup attempt.
There is a greater good in the possible than in the pursuit of the unattainable purist ideal.
If McClintock persists to the bitter end in demanding the entire loaf, California will be fed any crumbs Bustamante deigns to drop.
The guy who wins is the guy that does whatever it takes to get the most votes.
Arnold made a conscious and deliberate decision to duck his responsibility to turn up at the first debate.
He voids the principle of receiving just compensation for merit by doing so, in my judgement.
Arnold made a conscious decision to stiff me. He expects to win my vote, without giving me what I want.
I am in California for the long haul and frankly pretty-boys who wander around stiffing me don't get my support in an election. I'll take my chances and vote my conscience, and if there is a deity somewhere who enforces fairness in this universe, or absolute principle equivalent, then with perserverence, and maybe a little helpful nudge by Hegelian considerations, the forces of light will win. Otherwise we all descend into the darkness sooner or later (and little of permanence is lost, since we are all eventually doomed from the outset).
Please don't beat me up because of my preferences. If you think Arnold deserves my vote, then someone needs to reinforce the message I've already sent to him on this principle. The ball is totally in his court.
My ballot has 135 names on it and unlike you I'm not prescient enough to know in advance what the outcome is conditional on my vote alone. So I muddle through the best I can. If there is any meaning to a vote, I use it in the manner that I think best suits my interests, not the interests of a majority wowed by a pretty face or flashy style.
Arnold is all flash and style and no substance so far. I have yet to see Arnold look and act like the leader of a party instead of a H2 variant of a limousine liberal.
HEY ARNOLD... get yourself back to debating the issues with Tom before Oct. 7 if you want my vote. If you do better than Tom, fine, you have my support, otherwise get behind and use your skills and talents to support the candidate who bested you. But don't slink around and pretend you are some kind of leader that you are not.
Respectfully, -Steveh
Folks, feel free to forward this to Mr. S on my behalf until he's debated Tom on a level playing field. TIA ;-)
In other words, there is no information for me to go on for me to form a judgement on this "issue".
I put "issue" in doublequotes because I do not know if Arnold is just kicking up some dirt here. There are more candidates, and interviewers, sponsoring organizations, and the media involved. I do not know whether it is practical at this point to change the previously established and apparently mutually-agreed-to guidelines.
I am wary that if it is indeed not possible simply for practical reasons to change the guidelines, or if for some other reason it does not make sense to change the guidelines, then there is no reason that I should view a lack of a request from Tom as a reason to hold Tom in less esteem. I have pretty much satisfied myself that Tom is more than capable of handling questions on the fly and so I really doubt that this is a real issue from his perspective one way or another.
Besides, Tom challenged Arnold to a debate at the Saturday get-together in LA. As far as I am aware, this would have been a spontaneous debate without pre-arranged questions. Sorry, that is just my uninformed impression and again I do not know details. But so what. It is relatively clear to me that the limiting factor in the whole debate issue is not Tom but Arnold and his lack of willingness to meet Tom in a timely fashion (minimally, at Walnut Creek last week). When it came to the first test, Arnold already blinked, which puts him several notches behind Tom in my judgement. This is--that was-- not a time for foot dragging.
Tom has appeared on local talk radio many, many times to answer unrehearsed questions from callers. Most knuckledraggers around here and the local talk show hosts, along with me, have no reason to believe Tom has anything in particular to fear from debating Arnold at all given Tom's consistent fearless showing in these program appearances. To all of us that actually tune in to these things from time to time, it's Arnold who needs to prove his mettle.
I've heard Arnold showed up at a Town Hall meeting in San Diego and maybe even a talk show or three recently, so it sounds as if he is slowly coming online, at least with calls from the public. Someone might know more about how, if at all, the San Diego event was handled in terms of screening (or lack of screening) of participants and questions there.
Overall, though, I think Tom has been doing this stuff for years and typically shows little or no hesitancy to debate anyone. To me, that is a sign that he has mastered the subject matter backwards and forwards. That is a valuable asset for a cost-cutting governor, as far as I can see...
But Tom has not done so...
We could make the accusation that it is TOM afraid to go head to head with "scary questions" and has only been blowing hot air pretending to challenge Arnold to a real debate
A psychological mechanism known as projection.
Well, if even Arnold supporters are boxed into a corner conceding this point, then why ever do Arnold supporters advocate putting a POLITICAL ROOKIE into the CHIEF EXECUTIVE POSITION for the FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD?
The premise seems comically out of kilter with rational thought processes to begin with.
I don't know that the motivation is really that political veteran Tom is scared to debate a "political novice". I'll use Ockam's Razor as a reality check instead. You don't seem to know that Tom has not requested that, so you might want to establish that before asking the conditional first.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan would say...
I have faith that things will work out for the best, in general, if we try to do the right thing, minute by minute and day by day.
So that's what I aim to do (*).
Even though I walk in the shadow of the Valley, I have no fear!
BTW did you see the Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) endorsement of Tom?? It's on a different (Christian-oriented) thread...
(*) barring being zotted by the dreaded Viking Kitties, of course ;-)
Arnold for Senate!
GO ARNOLD GO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
