Replies

But several conservatives, young and old, said the greatest division in the movement pitted young traditionalists against their more libertarian peers. David Weigel, 22, the former editor of a conservative magazine at Northwestern University, a contributor to the libertarian magazine Reason and an intern at the editorial page of USA Today, said that last spring his college paper had trouble finding any conservatives on campus who supported amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

He contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others. "I am personally abstinent," he said, "and I plan to stay that way, but I have no problem with international aid programs that use or distribute condoms."

So the latest thing in conservatives is the "personally opposed but" crowd? Maybe today's young people are so indoctrinated in individualism and relativism that they no longer even think about the quality of the larger society in which they will have to raise their children. But maybe this is just wishful thinking on the part of the NYTimes crowd. I certainly hope so.

"Indoctrinated in individualism"?

I hear Limbaugh and Boortz tell us it's the liberals' HATRED of individualism, that's part of the problem, and if Ted Kennedy says individualism is evil, then it must be the opposite, and when the Hildabeast growls out the words "it takes a village", that just further bolsters the idea that the individuality is crucial to our survival.

What's the context of your statement? I'm curious.

So the latest thing in conservatives is the "personally opposed but" crowd? Maybe today's young people are so indoctrinated in individualism and relativism that they no longer even think about the quality of the larger society in which they will have to raise their children. But maybe this is just wishful thinking on the part of the NYTimes crowd. I certainly hope so. 2 posted on 07/17/2004 7:47:54 AM PDT by madprof98

The "libertarian" designation on social issues is utterly meaningless. No one is legally prevented from engaging in the private sexual recreation of their choice in modern America. There were plenty of condoms on display at the 7-11 last time I was there. I have no idea what these punks are thinking or talking about.

That you can't kill a baby remains a part of normal conservative values. Any would-be "conservative" who has a problem with that needs moral therapy. As a general principle, it might be a good idea for zine editors to limit awarding writing jobs to conservatives who have already matured beyond puberty.

Just as a footnote, there is NOTHING "libertarian" about forcing everyone in the country to accept the pro-sodomy ruling of a small clique of acitivst lesbian judges in Massachusetts. If they want "privacy" and freedom in the bedroom, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on sodomy is the better alternative to state-licensed perversion. No homosexual or lesbian is currently prevented from copulating by any "conservative" policy.

So the latest thing in conservatives is the "personally opposed but" crowd? Maybe today's young people are so indoctrinated in individualism and relativism that they no longer even think about the quality of the larger society in which they will have to raise their children. But maybe this is just wishful thinking on the part of the NYTimes crowd. I certainly hope so.

Well, if it's any consolation, I'm 19 and already consider myself a paleoconservative.

Okay, that might not have been any consolation. ;)

Anyway, I am firmly opposed to any type of foreign aid and any state-sponsored deviant sexual behavior.