Posted on 12/09/2006 4:33:07 PM PST by shrinkermd
This is a fine well thought out article than I have not been able to access so I am discussing and summarizing it here.
Alfred Regnery is the Publisher of the magazine and is the most prominent and influential conservative book publisher. His father, Henry Regnery, was similarly ensconsed and Henry Regnery wrote the introduction for Russell Kirk's classic The Conservative Mind (1986 edition published in 1953). Alfred is promising a book on conservativism and this we will have to see, but if he is as clear and able as this article it should be a best selling article.
The article summarizes by making the following points.
Democrats did not win Republicans lost.
Republican House leadership is gone and that is good.
Many newly elected Democrats ran on middle-of-the-road or even conservative platforms.
Spending by Republicans in last Congress was embarassing and is now unnecessary.
Gridlock in Washington is a good thing.
Little will change.
Democrats will be partially responsible for everything.
Neither Republicans or Democrats ran on any sort of platform
Good time for conservatives to regroup and come up with a coherent plan of action.
In conclusion, Alfred Regnery states, "The Democratic Victory was not a repudiation of conservativism but of those who betrayed conservativism."
I suspect you are completely unaware of the RR efforts to pressure the United States to eliminate condom distribution to 3d World countries? Google is our friend.
And then there's the whole homosexual and AIDS thing. the righteous RR claims that gays are the principal cause of AIDS, and that is true (around 50%). But then see how they handle the obvious answer--monogamous relationships. I needn't tell you their efforts across the country to not only outlaw gay marriage (which I have no problem with), but also any other legal relationship. Or do I also have to provide links to that? And then again, there's the condom distribution to AIDS infested 3d world countries...For the RR, the answer is simple. Just say no!
Wow. An extremist decrying extremism. Cute. But that is one tactic of the RR, and I am used to it. It's hard to find fault with someone defending a position with rocks after all their other ammunition is expended.
Yes, but one thing missing from this list: nearly all of these Democratic conservatives were anti-Iraq war. That was the crucial reason why they won. The logical implication o this (that Rush and others who use this mantra refuse to address) is that the GOP should run a conservative anti-Iraq war candidate in 2008, like Chuck Hagel, if they hope to win.
Yes, it was the single most important issue, yet their conservatism appears, from what many say, to extend to such Republican conservative ideas as tax decreases, smaller government, and a secure Nation.
The logical implication o this (that Rush and others who use this mantra refuse to address) is that the GOP should run a conservative anti-Iraq war candidate in 2008, like Chuck Hagel, if they hope to win.
That would certainly be true if Iraq is still the issue it is today, with little progress.
We agree. I think that they won not only because they were anti-Iraq war but because they outflanked the GOP on it core domestic issues.
Yes, the GOP made many promises on social security, immigration reform, tax reform, energy independence, deficit reduction, smaller government, honesty in government, and delivered on almost none of it. The most important thing accomplished was the 35 or so judicial confirmations including two USSC confirmations, all of which will live long past this pathetic GOP leadership, and all done at the hands of the Gang of 14.
1) I am not a member of the RR. My sympathy for the RR is as essential conservative allies.
2) I am not an "extremist", unless your social circle is Manhattan liberal secularist elitists. My views on these matters are the same as 60-70% of Americans.
Try again ... this time with facts, not rhetoric.
"I suspect you are completely unaware of the RR efforts to pressure the United States to eliminate condom distribution to 3d World countries?"
Any conservative with a brain knows the difference between 'banning' something and withdrawing funding for something.
And discerning political observers also know that it is the NARAL liberals who constantly try to elide the difference between defunding abortion via the UN and other population control programs. In other words, I am sure that pro-life organizations have opposed the UN programs precisely because such programs wrongly use abortion as a form of 'birth control'.
Google is indeed our friend, telling us that conservative opposition to UN "population programs" is about opposing taxpayer-funded abortions, including *forced* abortions, more than anything else:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06011303.html
"The Population Research Institute revealed in 2001 that the UNFPA formally cooperates with the Chinese Communist regime in their depopulation scheme of forced abortion and sterilization. The UNFPA, “under a program begun in 1998, operates family planning programs in 32 counties, or county-level municipalities, throughout China,” PRI president Steve Mosher stated.
The UNFPA claimed their Chinese clinics provided “reproductive health care services” – aka abortion and sterilization – on a purely voluntary basis. Investigations by PRI operatives uncovered evidence that the UNFPA was complicit in enforcing China’s one-child program of coerced abortion and sterilization. "
Since you claim to be a small-Govt conservative, I ask you: DO YOU WANT *YOUR* TAX MONEY FUNDING CHINA'S FORCED ABORTION CLINICS????
And do you think answering 'no' means you oppose all birth control?
If you think opposing these UN programs is about 'banning birth control', you are doubly mis-representing the RR/prolife position.
It is with such silly mis-representations that keep me thinking you are a troll rather than simply an anti-RR conservative ... A real conservative wouldn't fall for such lazy, liberal misprepresentations.
2. Protect and preserve the national sovereignty of the United States of America.
3. Seal the borders of the United States of America.
4. Cut all taxes permanently.
5. Repeal abortion. 6. Stop all forms of judiacial activism.
7. Develop and maintain the worlds best prepared military.
8. Quit the UN and kick them out of America.
9. Defeat worldwide islamofascists and eradicate terrorist nations.
10.Defeat all forms of liberalism.
What do you think Griswold v: Connecticut was all about. There's not a Christian group today that does not continue to decry that decision. As for withdrawing funding, the President's emergency funding for fighting AIDS is packed with regulations pushing abstinence until marriage, rather than funding either protection or research. In fact 1/3 of the total funds are committed to this "moral" issue. And across the country, the CC and other parts of the RR fight sex education programs, pushing only one: abstinence only. Again this is not the health issue, but a refusal to acknowledge that most Americans have sex before marriage, if even they marry. This is purely a moral issue with them.
Google is indeed our friend, telling us that conservative opposition to UN "population programs" is about opposing taxpayer-funded abortions, including *forced* abortions, more than anything else:
Yes, I agree google is our friend, and when I see anything from lifesite news or world nut daily, I always check out other sources, you know just in case I want to see the real story:
It is with such silly mis-representations that keep me thinking you are a troll rather than simply an anti-RR conservative ... A real conservative wouldn't fall for such lazy, liberal misprepresentations.
Ah yes, tho old "troll" charge. That usually comes from you guys just before hitting your panic button to get the poster zotted, supposedly under the RR guise of full support for free speech. BTW, the agenda I have taken issue with is anything but conservative.
The extreme right and extreme left use very similar tactics: Take an issue which most Americans might agree with such as environment, abortion, gay marriage, economic justice, and then set up their agenda with those broad issues as background. They use duplicity to hide their real intentions, are very active, especially behind the scenes at the federal, state, local, and school board levels to push legislation and other actions which are far more insidious and far-reaching than what they publicly profess.
As for 60 -70 percent of Americans, it was not the extremes that were in control of this past election.
"What do you think Griswold v: Connecticut was all about. There's not a Christian group today that does not continue to decry that decision."
Griswold was about the ACLU and liberal groups finding an unenforced law and using it to create a new-fangled oxymoron by liberal judges, called 'substantive due process', that enables them today to engage in mischief by way of rewriting laws and legislaing from the bench. *I* decry that decision. It was bad constitutional law. This is decried because it is bad constitutional law that opened a Pandora's box of judicial imperial rulings, not because anyone cares about Connecticutt laws.
Here you are talking about how the Federal govt needs to get out of state business and you put forward exhibit A of Federal over-reach into a state decision? oh, the irony!
If you favor states rights, you too should find the Griswold ruling troubling.
"As for withdrawing funding, the President's emergency funding for fighting AIDS is packed with regulations pushing abstinence until marriage," ... a policy which has saved lives in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa ...
", rather than funding either protection or research. " ... which is baloney, since the President has funded:
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=51641
$3 billion in AIDS research -- MORE THAN WE SPEND FIGHTING CANCER!
$21 billion in HIV/AIDS funding globally.
"In fact 1/3 of the total funds are committed to this "moral" issue. " -- yeah right... we spend a PITTANCE on it, and you claim it is larger than the $3 billion we spend on AIDS research. Your 'facts' are bogus.
As for your link to a feminist/pro-abortion somehow disproving my point (actually it confirms it in part, wit hthe typically pro-abort language of "wide range of reproductive choices"),
you may want to look at Steven Mosher and his reporting on this specific issues:
http://pop.org/main.cfm?id=126&r1=2.00&r2=1.50&r3=0.07&r4=0&level=3&eid=195
The fact remains that the UNFPA is funding China's population program. The fact also remains that China's '1 child' policy *has* led to abortions that are coerced. This is known for years, well-documented and numerous independent sources can confirm it. Example:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article314003.ece
" Sources in Linyi City and its surrounding counties claimed that up to 120,000 women had been coerced into submitting to the procedures and that some of them were in the ninth month of their pregnancies.
The arrests follow the detention on 6 September of a local activist, Chen Guangcheng. Mr Chen had claimed that women with two children were being forced to undergo sterilisations, while women pregnant with their third child were required to have abortions."
I suggest you open your eyes to sources wider than some pro-abortion website or UN flapdoodle.
And I also suggest you stop treating the religious right like some boogeyman when they are nothing of the kind.
"And across the country, the CC and other parts of the RR fight sex education programs, pushing only one: abstinence only. Again this is not the health issue,"
What is wrong with abstinence only education?
What is wrong with getting condom-use instruction out of schools? that's a travesty and a waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.
Yeah, and it's sure to get cut with more Dems in Congress.
:::sarc tag for those who need it:::
Everyone has the issues that are their hotbutton. For me, these happen to be social issues. For you, they may not be. But social issues are in the political realm. They always have been, and they always will be.
The 'extreme right' must not exist, as mythical a Gryffen, since you declared that the "RR" as you call them believe a bunch of things which on closer inspection are not quite what you want to claim they are ... and are far from extreme. An agenda so well hidden it is never expressed and won't ever happen.
As for tactics, that is indeed the tactic of the left for many decades, and I wish the conservatives were that smart but rarely do I see the 'salami slice' approach. Rather, conservatives simply have a position and that's it.
example: "gay marriage" - most Americans oppose it. So do I.
That's my agenda. Save traditional marriage. No hidden agenda. Not an extremist position.
I do notice that liberals use the term 'extreme right', but conservatives dont use it that much. Being extreme is not a conservative thing. And ... Why would a conservative go out of their way to annoy other conservatives, simply because they dont agree with them on all issue? The real question is on the *real* and *live* controversies, where do you stand and where do *we* as conservatives stand?
Yeah, darn those old rights to privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws, recognized by the 9th and 14th Amendments. They have definitely slowed down the RR onslaught on enforcing a "moral" (as they would define it) republic.
*I* decry that decision. It was bad constitutional law. This is decried because it is bad constitutional law that opened a Pandora's box of judicial imperial rulings, not because anyone cares about Connecticutt laws.
But for that decision, many centers of "Christianity" would have no limit to the laws they would impose on everyone to satisfy their lust for moral control of the Nation.
Here you are talking about how the Federal govt needs to get out of state business and you put forward exhibit A of Federal over-reach into a state decision? oh, the irony! If you favor states rights, you too should find the Griswold ruling troubling.
A: There's no such thing as states' rights. Only people have rights. B: The rights amendments apply to all jurisdictions, not just the federal government. C: The first duty of any government is to protect the rights of its citizens. D: The USSC acted in accordance with the Constitution by finding that a jurisdiction attempted to suppress the rights of its citizens.
As for your link to a feminist/pro-abortion somehow disproving my point
And your link was from a balanced site? I guess you can only get your opinions from the far right. In fact I would like to cancel all UN funding, but that's not going to happen. When funding is authorized, I for one would prefer it go to actual programs that help in the area targeted. It's simply a joke to spend that kind of money on "abstinence" in places like Africa. It's bad enough here using governmental funding.
I suggest you open your eyes to sources wider than some pro-abortion website or UN flapdoodle.
And I suggest you open yours a bit wider than the two RR sites know far more for outright lies and distortions than for any substance.
What is wrong with abstinence only education? What is wrong with getting condom-use instruction out of schools? that's a travesty and a waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.
First, at least now you are beginning to see my earlier point. Second, I want money spent where it can to help reduce the incidences of HIV and other STDs. I don't want to see money spent on moral indoctrination. I leave that to the churches and the families, where such guidance belongs.
Except that there is in fact a hidden agenda. First, it's to ensure that no state regardless of a republican form of government can have a say in its own family law issues. Second, they also want to put an end to any legal relationships outside of heterosexual marriage. Third, they want to ensure that no laws allow gays or lesbians to permit their partners to assist in end of life decisions and other such issues. Forth, they want to ensure that gays and lesbians can be openly discriminated against in the workplace or in any public access arenas. So yes, there are hidden agenda, my friend.
Why would a conservative go out of their way to annoy other conservatives, simply because they dont agree with them on all issue?
You may want to ask yourself that question. I kept it quite professional until you decided to initiate the insults.
The real question is on the *real* and *live* controversies, where do you stand and where do *we* as conservatives stand?
I told you what my real issues were. But bringing about resolution to complex and far reaching issues such as immigration reform, tax reform, social security reform and energy independence will require negotiations and compromise, something our side has so far refused to do.
"Griswold was about the ACLU and liberal groups finding an unenforced law and using it to create a new-fangled oxymoron by liberal judges, called 'substantive due process', that enables them today to engage in mischief by way of rewriting laws and legislaing from the bench."
"Yeah, darn those old rights to privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws, recognized by the 9th and 14th Amendments."
Liberal judicial activists like Justice Brennan said so, but when I read the ruling myself in Con Law class, I immediately saw through the bluff as have many other non-liberal legal scholars. One was Robert Bork (viz. "Tempting of America"):
1. "Right to privacy" is not old. It's a creature of 1960s liberalism, and the terminology was created then. "privacy" is a vague concepts, not grounded in Natural Rights or traditions of law, but suitable mainly as a placeholder for assumed rights. Your 'privacy' involves making child porn, building nuclear weapons in your basement, hiring sweatshop workers on your property? Subject to 'interpretation', which suits judicial activists just fine.
2. Equal protection has nothing to do with the ruling.
3. "Due process" ... was followed when the legislature followed due process in passing the law and respecting the rights of accused as they executed the law. So the oxymoronic "SUBSTANTIVE due process" a legal mis-construction first used in the infamous Lochner v New York was applied in this case. Griswold was not about 'due process', a concept that makes sense, it was about "substantive due process", a concept that stretches the concept inappropriately, solely so judicial activists could apply their benighted elitist view of proper law over the democratic process.
"They have definitely slowed down the RR onslaught on enforcing a "moral" (as they would define it) republic."
The idea that the Supreme Court has delivered America from birth control regulations is absurd. These regulations were removed and defunct long before the USSC ruled. It is further absurd to assert that real constitutional rights are protected via these sorts of rulings. Our real natural and constitutional rights are rights to not get Govt interference as you *do* things or say or think things, such as free speech, right of RKBA for self-defense, right against self-incrimination, etc. Such rights do not need 'penumbras' or vague calls to 'substantive due process', for they are directly in the bill or rights.
Judicial activism has been a threat to our rights on many levels. One threat is the overriding of the right of states and localities to write laws through the democratic process.
"But for that decision, many centers of "Christianity" would have no limit to the laws they would impose on everyone to satisfy their lust for moral control of the Nation."
Your praise is absurd. There was almost zero direct impact of this ruling, whose main consequence was as a setup for the Roe v Wade ruling. It's absurdity is evident in the fact that both birth control and abortion laws were liberalized *before* the Supreme Court made their ruling.
"As for your link to a feminist/pro-abortion somehow disproving my point ... "And your link was from a balanced site? I guess you can only get your opinions from the far right."
Quite the non sequitor, eh - anything that is not feminist is 'far right'?!? LOL. Obviously pro-life groups are most concerned, but I dont see why you call steve Mosher 'far right', a label only liberals use, also ... my link on China's forced abortions was to the Independent, a leftie Brit paper.
"In fact I would like to cancel all UN funding, but that's not going to happen. " -- then you need consider those who raise problems about UN programs as allies, not enemies. They agree with you!
"First, at least now you are beginning to see my earlier point. Second, I want money spent where it can to help reduce the incidences of HIV and other STDs."
Abstinence education can do that, so you should support it.
" I don't want to see money spent on moral indoctrination."
Why not? We have our public schools preach 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and 'do good'? You oppose that secular progressive indoctrination? You oppose 'character education' too?
I guess I feel differently because I *Have* children. I see the nonsense they are subjected to in the culture and I absolutely understand those parents who try to protect their kids from a degraded culture. Just because some kids are not well-raised doesnt mean we should define moral deviancy down to the lowest common denominator... and add insult to injury by making taxpayers pay for it.
Better we spend money on 'moral indoctrination' than 'immorality indoctrination' which is much of what is going on in education.
"Except that there is in fact a hidden agenda. First, it's to ensure that no state regardless of a republican form of government can have a say in its own family law issues. "
That is the liberal position. The gay activists are wanting gay marriage irrespective of what the people want, and have sued in court in particular states where the courts are likely to override the will of the people. So far, they won in 3 states, VT, MA, NJ to get enough traction to force legislative changes from the court bench.
The conservative position is not to overturn law via court activism, but to use the proper legislative process to protect marriage. And so it has been done in many states. Properly and rightfully so. Now, the reason that a Constitutional Amendment at the Federal level may be necessary is that the danger of DOMA getting overturned is a real one, given the mis-rulings of the MA and other courts in disrespecting plain language of the law. There is a distinct and real danger that 'full, faith and credit' plus judicial activism will equal gay marriage in 50 states, despite the clear intent of the people in practically every state to not have gay marriage.
"Second, they also want to put an end to any legal relationships outside of heterosexual marriage."
An absurd non sequitor. Your ability to buy a used car, to have gay sex with an anonymous friend you pick up in a gay bar, set up a household with your sibling, or write a will to give your estate to your pet cats, can continue unimpeded if America continues with traditional marriage.
Further, it is clearly obvious that the gay activists want to change the status quo and traditionalists want to preserve the status quo. There is zero attempt to take away from gay people anything they have today, rather it is opposition to culture/legal changes the gay activists want to make. Any legal relationships that gay s can have today, they can have tomorrow - just not something called 'marriage' with another member of the same sex.
"Third, they want to ensure that no laws allow gays or lesbians to permit their partners to assist in end of life decisions and other such issues."
Again with the boogeyman talk ... why are you repeating the rehtoric of the extremists on the gay agenda side? Same language, same rhetoric, same nonsense. This is not true. A Simple NOLO-style power of attorney solves it and you dont need gay marriage. If some have opposed that, it is not the main current of opposition to gay marriage and not the germane and main issue. It's nothing more than a talking point for the left.
" Forth, they want to ensure that gays and lesbians can be openly discriminated against in the workplace or in any public access arenas."
So say the gay activists, but in fact gays have average incomes above the general populace. Acceptance in the workplace is a non-problem.
Still, this is the one point you make that is valid, in that it may become a live issue as the liberal Democrats add Federal regulations that add gays to the list of 'protected minorities'. Special 'protection' for gays will make a difference if you have it in your heart to 'get' the Boy Scouts of America and to have Govt tread on religious organizations and their moral rules ... but will have little positive effect on gays in the workplace, who already are protected from abuse in other ways.... unless you are a gay lawyer specializing in suing companies over such matters.
There are valid reasons to oppose such regulations while also opposing anti-gay discrimination.
As someone who opposes imposing morality you should of course oppose this imposition of moral standards by Govt.
And any conservative who opposes Federal over-regulation would oppose such special rules that adds to the litigation burden in our economy.
In sum, I think you are 1 for 4 in your anti-RR boogeyman claims, and the last won't be a hidden agenda item for long, since Barney Frank and Co. plan to bring that legislation forward.
This we have to live with and take into account.
Ordinarily, we leave ourselves open by referencing religion or religious views for social issues. This is not necessary and is, in some ways, incomplete.
For example, abortion has always been prohibited in our culture. Indeed, In about 400 b.c. Hippocrates affirmed this for generations of physicians to come by requiring them to take pledge not to either assist or do an abortion. What we are trying to do is to reaffirm the cultural wisdom which recognized that no society could exist if it aborted all children who were either inconvenient or unwanted. The argument should be a secular one. It can be buttressed with the rapid population declines about to take place in Russia, Japan and elsewhere.
At the very least, returning to pre-Roe vs. Wade would permit the States and the people to make their own judgments in this matter.
Ditto for homosexual marriage. The issue is not homosexuals but what constitutes marriage. For thousands of years, including several thousand before Christ marriage was seen as being necessary to preserve both the family and the culture. It was not seen as licensing sex and it is not licensing sex now. The goal of marriage even for those who do not reproduce is procreation not recreation. Again, a secular issue.
I do see us as needing some unity on these issues but we just can't make it "somebodies religion" as much as we might like it. A more utilitarian approach to the social issues may seem tepid and lacking in power but such an approach has the possibility of piling up minor or even routine successes until the goal is reached.
As an afterthought Hippocrates also affirmed in the physician's oath that physicians were not to prepare or assist in the preparation of poisons. Again, thousands of years of cultural heritage have affirmed that physicians were to focus on keeping people alive and not using their special knowledge to kill them. Again, a secular issue.
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.