Posted on 11/23/2004 1:04:10 PM PST by NZerFromHK
"THEY are like mules," a particularly cool bishop remarked the other day of progressives in the Catholic church. "They have no heirs."
Might this also be true of the deconstructionist Left in politics, with its conceivably sui generis progenitors traceable only back to the counter-cultural sixties and seventies? There's an argument to be made.
The re-election of George Bush, an unequivocally combative conservative, and the return of John Howard for a fourth term, suggests climate change in American and Australian politics rather than seasonal variation.
After fighting Bush with dedicated unscrupulousness throughout the presidential campaign, The New York Times tacitly conceded this in a front-page analysis of the election results. The author, Todd Purdom, concluded, "It is impossible to read President Bush's re-election with larger Republican majorities in both houses of Congress as anything other than the clearest confirmation yet that this is a Centre-Right country."
It is significant that the decisive issue in the US presidential election may well have been values. A shell-shocked Left has been trying to cushion the shock by qualifying these as "moral values", in the hope of blaming everything on fundamentalist Christians, whom we all, in the name of political correctness, naturally despise as ignorant, superstitious primitives.
But "values" stands comfortably and forcefully alone in the context of the American elections. It is a word that records a broad, belated popular rejection of the deconstructionist Left's insistent bluff, sustained for the best part of a generation, that only "values neutral" policies are valid.
As in our own election, where the sudden appearance of the Family First party, backed by the Assemblies of God church, startled the deconstructionist Left out of its wits, the religious Right in America did little more than tap the barometer.
In 11 US states where voters had the opportunity to consider constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, they supported it in even greater numbers than they did President Bush, to whom the 11 also gave a majority. Fundamentalist Christians cannot alone muster such numbers. The vote was a clear statement by a majority of all voters that values neutrality does not apply to marriage.
I'm not sure if values neutrality is the parent or progeny of political correctness. But I've noticed few, if any, accusations of homophobia being flung at opponents of gay marriage either in America or here. That's a welcome climate change.
Then there is the wonder that, in both countries, abortion has suddenly – virtually since the two elections – become a matter for public discussion, ending 30 years of oppressive silence.
Since the US Supreme Court brought down its Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the deconstructionist Left has ruled the matter closed. A woman is entitled to control of her own body. That's it.
Since 1973, however, science has deepened its knowledge of fetal life and established fairly closely the point at which uniqueness may be assumed. Debate on abortion in 2004 is undisguisably complex.
I think John Kerry suspected the existence of political climate change and dealt with it by running under an assumed identity. Rejoicing all his political life in being an advanced Boston liberal from the Ted Kennedy (deconstructionist) camp, Kerry fiercely denied accusations – accusations! – that he had been the Senate's most liberal member.
A peacenik since his youthful days as an anti-Vietnam War protester, and off-and-on about Iraq, Kerry strove – imprudently, since he proved incapable of looking or sounding the part – to present himself as a warrior who would prosecute the war in Iraq and the war against terror at least as aggressively as Bush (though, of course, more efficiently).
Complaisant hitherto about abortion and same-sex marriage, Kerry brandished a little uncertainty. Towards the end of his campaign, he gingerly introduced his Catholicism – seldom before displayed outside Boston – as an electoral asset. One Sunday in Florida he went to church three times.
Kerry's Democrats sweated blood and money to persuade young men and women to register to vote, believing the youth vote was overwhelmingly theirs. But on the day, much of the American youth vote found more interesting things to do than vote. (Similarly, Mark Latham tried and failed to score from comparison of his vigorous youth with Howard's doddery decrepitude.)
Kerry won a majority from voters under 29, but there seems to have been unpredicted leakage to Bush.
What the deconstructionist Left really needs to worry about, though, here as in the US, is the vote of today's under-18s – its heirs, if it has any.
Standing on a veranda with a bright six-year-old the other day, watching the rain fall, I was electrified to hear him say, "I'm not a mad greenie or anything but I just love rain."
We live in a benign climate when aesthetics and the senses win a few from ideology.
QED
Same with me. I was actually pro-unlimited social welfare and moderate with regards to some social/moral issues (abortion OK in first 40 days of pregnancy) and sceptical about complete free market in high school years. But I definietly stayed conservative in anti-Communism, support of the United States on big fronts, big on defence, and tough on hard porn and gay marriage.
10 years later I have definitely moved right on free market (made that conversion in univerity undergrad years), social welfare, and all social/moral issues.
If Australians want to own guns, they own guns. It really only seems to be Americans who think this country is gun free.
1. Gun culture, gun clubs, gun ranges, gun hobbies, gun shops, gunsmithing.... just don't exist here in any number; its almost totally a rural hunting thing. Gun magazines are pretty low circulation. Many Aussie urban men have been in the armed services and know how to use rifles and handguns... as do police service and security people... but still, there's no big lobby group, no concealed-carry culture such as is necessary in urban USA.
Yarn alert/vanity: the similarities between the USA and Aust are well known by me as a Rotarian: I have attended Aust-American Friendship Society stuff here etc. One of the proportional societal differences is the USA level of crime.
A few years ago now (late 90s) a visit to a big city in the southern states for a 3 man 20s something team of those Rotary Exchange Study Groups went well in large part. The hosts -right from the airport carpark- displayed handguns stowed away in the SUV, at home under jackets, behind backs, and on ankles (typically)... with complete nonchalance. That was not showing off and just rampant machismo, it was just mentioned in passing.... its no big deal... "You're welcome and you're in safe hands" stuff 's all. The fortnight or so they were there, this city had 9 murders in the 'papers... but it didnt rate a mention from the locals... it was normal background to the city. There was also some racial-prejudice problem from the members too (very unusual in Rotary circles)... and in one oafish instance the Aussie guests spat the dummy and left the function in support of one of their number.
2. The article is very good but, like all the pundits, skips around "the elephant in the middle of the room": the baby boomers demographic are aging: they're now more adult, more experienced (read more immune to spin), and more family-concious-slash-conservative in world-view. Perhaps the only lifelong lefties still around are those indoctrinated/radicalised at the Gramsci-set piece colleges.
In fact the US's overall crime rate has fallen further still from those times, I heard sources the current rate is the lowest in record (that is, since 1970 when systematic records became available). Of course it is still strateographic when compared with East Asia's big cities but it is better than Europe, Canada, and yes, even Australia.
In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that, despite the ban, "the underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all."
Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
Actually MI and OR voted for constitutional amenedments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman while voting for Kerry.
I personally think the author probably meant: voters in these states voted for gay marriage bans, while not a few of those who support the ban also voted for Kerry i.e. you can't say Bush won entirely because of the "upport the gay marriage ban" Christians.
Never mind. The author made a mistake there, but it actually amplified his point rather than subtracted.
...skips around "the elephant in the middle of the room": the baby boomers demographic are aging: they're now more adult, more experienced (read more immune to spin), and more family-concious-slash-conservative in world-view. Perhaps the only lifelong lefties still around are those indoctrinated/radicalised at the Gramsci-set piece colleges.
In fact, much of the aging boomers still retained their leftiness even when they age and have family of their own if they were already left-leaning when young. Just look at all the US blue state families. Those who vote conservative now among the boomer generation were the "silent ones" in the '60s, like Bush, Victor Davis Hanson, etc.
...skips around "the elephant in the middle of the room": the baby boomers demographic are aging: they're now more adult, more experienced (read more immune to spin), and more family-concious-slash-conservative in world-view. Perhaps the only lifelong lefties still around are those indoctrinated/radicalised at the Gramsci-set piece colleges.
In fact, much of the aging boomers still retained their leftiness even when they age and have family of their own if they were already left-leaning when young. Just look at all the US blue state families. Those who vote conservative now among the boomer generation were the "silent ones" in the '60s, like Bush, Victor Davis Hanson, etc.
There would've been a huge outcry if a large number of Aussies owned handguns: ain't so. Always too costly and even urban criminals in large part don't carry handguns: armed bank robbery and bikie gang "macho weapon of choice" is nearly always saw-off shotguns. Recently things have changed a bit with Sydney and Melbourne mid-eastern immigrant crime gangs importing/using illegal handguns and large magazine-fully auto stuff. Our cops only have 9mm glocks to fight back with in the main (except SWAT squadies). In a famous incident of 2002 the middle-eastern ghetto area of SW Sydney, the cop shop received a fully auto machine pistol drive by. The building and computers were shot up but the cops were missed (blind good luck). A special team was formed to go get 'em. They did.
Rifles are very popular by comparison to handguns. Lots of my holidays involved plinking with .22s and fox shooting and speaking now as a 46yo, I'm pretty representative of rifle users. Centrefire semi-autos, rimfire semi-autos, let alone any fully-auto, is now illegal. I think lever-action is okay though... if I was interested enough to be up on the small print I could tell you more. Ask me about Steyr F-88 drills and F89 Light Support Weapon drills though... (I'm an Army Reserve Digger but have never used weapons on the two way range).
BOOKMARK FOR LATER READING.
Well, don't believe what you read in the Wall Street Journal mate.
I'm an Aussie. I live in Melbourne.
I own guns - in my case handguns and some basic rifles.
I have friends who own semi-automatic weapons. I know one person who owns at least fully automatic weapon.
We all do this completely and totally legally on civilian permits obtained under Australian and Victorian law.
The Wall Street Journal is wrong in its claims - very few guns are banned, and it is not a crime to use a gun defensively (though you would have to prove it court that the threat you faced justified the use of deadly force - you'd have to be able to show that you reasonably feared for your safety or that of others).
The 1996 restrictions basically changed things so that you have to have specific permits for specific reasons. If you have a basic permit, you can own basic rifles - if you want to own something else, you need to get the specific permit. They're not expensive - but they do take a bit of work to get through the bureaucracy.
Don't believe everything you read in the papers.
I think the crime figures they are reporting are off as well - but off the top of my head, I can't challenge them. I know the gun laws.
,,, you've gone off on an interesting tangent and I'd have to say I'm running with you. One of the hallmarks of many conservatives, particularly evidenced on this site is the trashing of environmental thought.
Needless to say, the tag "environmentalist" carries with it a tonne of sixties baggage which has left an indelible mark on anyone speaking for the cause who isn't a greenie or leftie.
I've had this discussion with a woman recently who, like me, votes ACT - the furthest to the right you can vote in New Zealand. She's free market, commonsense and holds all the right wing values you see here on this forum, but, like me, she's making the environmental enquiry. We're totally aware of how the green cause is being used to block progress and tame agendas pertaining to economic advancement, just as we're aware that we do have to live in this world. We've both seen a good number of countries... some it's too late for in this regard and we're lucky enough to be living where we are, so we're probably acutely aware of what's at stake.
Enough people here know how I think on a range of issues, but I thought I'd chip in and let you know you're not alone on this one.
We won't be meeting at any green protest marches, I know! :)
Well, if what you say is true, that's the first black eye I've seen for Dr. John Lott, whose standards for scholarship and data have a national reputation here, especially among pro-gun conservatives.
I want to put the conserve back into conservatve.
I assume you're aware of our never ending debate over oil drilling in Alaska. In my case I don't like the idea of drilling in Alaska but don't see that we have much choice. On the other hand I recognize that the oil industry has made great strides in the area of enviromental protection. Pluse theres the fact that enviromental protection has spawned a huge enviromental reclamation industry.
I fully support installing wind farms off Americas coastlines but once again liberals found problems with that clean energy solution. They're worried about migratory birds and who knows what else. Also a lot of wealthy liberals live on our coastlines and don't want windmills where they have to look at them.
Our own liberals have given America a bad name by outright lying and blowing issues out of proportion. When I talk to europeans they have a lot of false preconceptions. They allways assume we're all homophobic and racist. They assume we fall to our knees to praise god at any opportunity. The misconception that bothers me the most is the belief that we've erradicated all traces of wilderness in America. In reality only 2% of our land area is urban.
In any case I keep talking to as many people overseas as possible to promote a worldwide conservative uprising and an attempt to set the record straight.
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/54892/ These are pictures ive taken around home, I send them to people I consider to be friends.
The laws are far from perfect - but they are nowhere near as bad as they seem to get painted in the US.
That's not a surprising assumption, but it's not always a valid one. I've seen articles from him recently where he's said that swords have been banned in my state.
Well, they really haven't been. They are still sold openly in shops, people still have them hanging on their walls, etc.
They have been put onto the 'Prohibited Weapons' list - which I know sounds like a ban. But in practice it really isn't. We're not as legally-literal as the US seems to be. Our laws are written on the assumption that common sense will prevail.
Technically speaking, for example, the pocket knife I carry everywhere (I'm an ex-sailor, I'm used to carrying a knife) is a prohibited weapon. I wear it in a pouch on my belt so anyone who sees me knows exactly what it is. Cops see it all the time - and they don't make an issue of it, because they apply their commonsense to the situation.
The reason the knife is on the prohibited weapons list is so when they find a teenaged kid carrying one who is obviously intending to use it on someone, they have the power to take him into custody.
Swords are on the list because they've been used in some nightclub fights - being on the list means the police can grab someone they see heading into a nightclub with one they have just grabbed from their car.
Powerful laser pointers are on the list. Do you think police grab someone who is carrying a laser pointer on their keyring? No. But they can grab the kid who is standing on a bridge over the freeway shining it in drivers eyes.
Our laws really do assume that commonsense will be applied to their enforcement - and 99.9% of the time it is. This means that sometimes laws on paper can seem far worse than they actually are.
Is it a good way of doing things? Yes, and no - it makes some things easier, but it is open to abuse and that does happen occasionally. But good or bad, it's the way things are done here - and that can make it hard for someone outside our culture to understand how things work.
I mean it's hardly unreasonable for someone to assume that putting a weapon on the prohibited weapons list means it's a prohibited weapon. That makes perfect sense viewed logically. It just happens that it's not particularly true.
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.