But you can only change hearts and minds if you advocate for something in the first place. Abandoning the HLA would be an electoral disaster for the Republicans. My hope is that Fred will realize this. I have no problem with someone saying we don’t have the votes right now for the HLA, but that it is our long term goal and we’ll work slowly toward that goal in the meantime. I have a big problem with someone saying we should just forget about ever passing the HLA and should toss it overboard.
If the Supreme Court tomorrow were to mow down the marriage laws of all fifty states and impose a federal same-sex “marriage” decree on us, I’ll bet a third of the Freepers would raise the white flag immediately. “Well, it’s a settled issue now, so let’s put it behind us, move forward and not rile up the pro-homosexual voters”.
This is why we move incrementally leftward every year. I believe it was Russell Kirk who noted that once social liberalism becomes the norm, nothing can ever stop liberalism on all fronts from advancing. From that point on, conservatives simply become passive observers in a society where liberals push further left every year, and conservatives then accept the new position as the status quo they wish to conserve. The next year, the same thing happens, and the next, and the next.
If FR is still around in 2050, we’ll likely be discussing abandoning our opposition to forced abortion and legal infanticide during the first six months after birth. After all, we don’t want to stir up sexually active voters against us, or risk being seen as theocrats.
But you can only change hearts and minds if you advocate for something in the first place.
How about advocating for some private intervention that uses the marketplace -- the incentives -- to achieve desired results (less abortion)?
Abandoning the HLA would be an electoral disaster for the Republicans.
No, pushing for it only begets an equal push back by other people who enjoy using government to enact their advocacy issues. Don't you see the cycle of government intrusion here or are you just blind to it?
If the Supreme Court tomorrow were to mow down the marriage laws of all fifty states and impose a federal same-sex “marriage” decree on us, I’ll bet a third of the Freepers would raise the white flag immediately.
I would hope that everyone here would raise the whit flag. But I would be very quick to point out the inconsistencies of those people who disdain states' rights issues when the laws enacted in some states do not bend their way or when their (the hypocrites) desired goals for legislation is for the legislation to be enacted at the federal level.
If FR is still around in 2050, we’ll likely be discussing abandoning our opposition to forced abortion and legal infanticide during the first six months after birth.
Forced? If this ever came to pass, it would be because the political Right, in their attempts to federalize all their political whims and issues, left the door open for the political Left to do the same. The prevent-defense (goal line stance) to all of this conjecture and speculation is to maximize liberty and denounce government intrusion wherever it is advocated...including when the advocacy is coming from the Right!