Replies

I wonder if you would agree that those in political power can do many things to influence, manipulate, and direct culture, in effect, use government to enforce their desired culture.

To be sure they can and often do at every level of government.

As a social conservative, I see the election of a Rudy Gillan as opening the door for a liberal politician to manipulate the culture, and he proved he was more than willing to do that in New York. That's why I would not vote for him in the primaries and if nominated not in the presidential election.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean leaving Roe to the courts where it belongs, or refusing to support constitutional amendments to "protect" marriage, I would say both of those issues are just the opposite. The area where government crosses over into cultural issues is in the arena of civil rights. School desegregation, the Civil Rights Act, ADA, and 14th Amendment issues have all involved cultural areas of society. Yet, as I said before, government's first duty is to protect the rights of all of its citizens. To be sure, there are a lot of areas government intrudes into the culture, some for the protection of society as a whole (obscenity and pornography), and some simply because it chooses to use its powers.

You can go on for paragraphs of philosophical exegesis, but it remains true that a liberal republican president would have influence to make this society in the liberal image he holds.

The same holds true for a far right president. Anyone in fact can impact society. I will vote for the person who understands the role of government is to stay out of cultural/moral areas, and concentrate on protection of rights, defense of our Country and bring both sides together to solve the major issues of our time including immigration, taxes, deficits, social security, and energy independence. Those are major issues that cannot be solved by individuals, but only by the government as it is currently structured. But I can no more assure Rudy or any of the candidates will not delve into areas better left for society to resolve than you can.

You seem more than ready to read into what I don't address, so don't be surprised when I assert that your perspective is very libertarian, especially when you dodge moral values in relation to choosing a political representative

I don't dodge moral values at all. I expect my candidate to possess an ethical character, but I will not look into his bedroom either. I told you why I was not a Libertarian, but you chose to ignore it. Fine, but I have looked at every major party website, as well as their agendas. I can assure you, I am no Libertarian. I don't know why Libertarians bother you so much though. Are you equally appalled at the secessionists here, the militia groups here, the "only fools pay taxes" crowd here? Are you upset at those who openly espouse a theocracy for this Nation...here? There are lots of folks here, some who offer more than others, but neither conservatives (classic) or Libertarians are your enemy. We should not be treated as such. I respect the values of the RR, but will do everything I can to keep their issues out of the political debate.

I did not in fact reject the characteristics you proposed, I pointed out that you avoided moral values as significant in the expression of conservatism.

I don't mean to suggest they be rejected. No good conservative would permit immorality to rule his life. We would reject an immoral person, but not want someone's view of morality injected into the political debate or process. The "social" conservatives do. For example, a social conservative would enforce all sodomy laws against homosexuals, but not against heterosexuals. Conservatives would not enforce such laws, or if the laws were to be enforced, enforced equally upon all. But no classical conservative would involve himself in something that was a purely social issue.

Sorry for being so long winded. But a lot more of this kind of give and take is needed on this forum, and your arguments are appreciated.