We've got one of these waiting for the likes of you ...
Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
If Libertarians in theory were conservative and they were to throw their vote away on third parties who haven’t a chance in hell of winning an election, then they are indeed helping Democrats by not voting for the Republicans... If they were ever conservative.
If a Democrat thinks a Libertarian is a big liberal, and you vote your third party throw away vote, then from their view you did not vote for them and that benefited Republicans.
IMO Independents are mostly all liberals. They might like to hang out with conservatives and talk tough, but they seem to mostly vote like hippies or welfare recipients.
We've got one of these waiting for the likes of you ...
I meant liberal in the actual menaing of the word liberal which is less restrictive.
Political "liberals" here in the US are anything but liberal.
I could have made myself more clear.
I also agree with your statements in your post.
In political science, historical, and philosophical writing, the accepted term to use when you mean 'liberal' in the old 18th and 19th century sense is classical liberal.
“Libertarianism ain’t what it used to be.”
Libertarian Marxism shows 850,000 web sites in a google search.
Libertarianism has been infiltrated by the left. Some of the “libertarian” sites are hilarious with Marxist propaganda.
Racism can be traced to that branch of the democratic party known as the Dixiecrats. Dems like to believe that it's a southern thing, but the back-handed racism of the northeast liberals just goes to show that it is without a doubt a Democrat disease.
As for sexism, there ARE differences between the sexes and what liberals call sexism is more like common sense. THEY ought to be ashamed of their androgny, GLBT-whatever nonsense and their relentless attacks on faith-centered two-parent(Husband and Wife) families.
As for prudery, Bring It Back! The post-Christian, pornograpy-crazed let's-let-our-prepubescent-daughters-dress-like-prostitutes Amerika has GOT to go.
Neither should have been taxed in the first place.
It is far to sensitive a matter to be handled by the state. It would be far preferable if there were no school taxes whatsoever, and people were responsible for the education of their own children. Failing that, I support vouchers.
I agree with these points. But failing even vouchers, I do not see why the Christian should be less pushy about getting Jesus in the public school as the secularist is about pushing him out. Its a conflict that should not have to take place, but here we are. My point is as soon as there were government schools, the hands-off religion clause of the First Amendment was already completely violated. It is no more violated if the school is overtly Christian then it is as overtly secular.
If and when the Christian right were to succeed in pushing Jesus back into public schools, the big government secular left might finally support smaller government in that respect. But as long as Jesus is banished from any state sponsored activity, expect the secular left to push for more government sponsorship of every aspect of our lives.
I will ask you to trust me - with caution, if you desire, but trust me: when you get married and have children, and (if like me) you own guns, you will see the shadows of drug dealers (as well as terrorists) in the targets you fire at during practice rounds at the range.
My freedom includes the responsibility to protect my children from predators. The mistake our government has made is in federalizing the problem of drug abuse. State and local enforcement should be paramount. As for education, local control is vital. Dismantle the Department of Education and let localities control the process and content of education. That does not mean the content of learning ought to be "value neutral" - morals matter, and content ought to be reviewable by parents, not solely by the government or by teachers' unions.
And just so you know: when you are 50, it is quite likely that you'll look back at what you believed to be the indisputable truth when you were 30.....and smile.
ooo! kinky!
Hate to play Gotcha but -- Conservative Socialism gets 2,180,000 websites in Google search ...
What is it reffering to -- Neo Cons
2,180,00 > 850,000
shh ... they might think we’re gay....
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
________________________________________________________
I think what both of you are reacting against is the idea that there is a principle that can applied to restrict our freedoms. But John Paul makes explicit what is implicit in the very idea of the rule of law; limits to our actions. We do not have the right to do anything which we want, and when we do that is not freedom at all.
We all would agree that we do not have the right to punch a person in the face for no reason. Without limits to our rights we would be able to however. What is the basis of this restriction? For the libertarian and the liberal it is the other persons right to be free, thier right to not be forced. For the Christian it is that and that God has commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so punching a person for no reason is simply wrong and should be against the law.
Implicit in the limitation of rights that any law imposes is that society itself is entitled to judge what is right and wrong. If you do not have an explicit standard for judging right and wrong it is your ruler that makes the judgement (and in a democratic republic the ruler is the elected official constrained by public opinion and public respect for the courts). Your rights are left with little protection if you don’t have an explicit standard of right and wrong to refer to; without that it is the mass that decides, the demos, who can be as dictatorial and arbitrary as any single ruler.
I disagree utterly with your point CatoRenasci, that a dictator would agree with John Paul’s statement. It’s radically protective of rights in the context it is made. It protects the unborn from being murdered. It protects the family, the right to marry, the right to raise your children, to go to Church, to practice your religion, to speak out as your conscience dictates, to fellowship with those you choose to. If you had to name the 10 people most responsible for the fall of the Soviet dictatorship, you could not exclude John Paul II.
It is very useful to make explicit whatever implicit standard you use to limit rights. Without that it is just the demos that decides. The state. And no one here wants to grant the state that power without limit.
It’s natural law, gentlemen. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....”
Gays are people regardless of whether you approve of their behavior.
Their behavior does not automatically deserve our approval, nor do they have any right to demand it. But they are living human beings. Many of them in my experience are very nice and kind human beings. What they are compelled to do with their bodies is certainly not on a par with, say, what Stalin did to his political enemies or what Michael Vick did to dogs. Sorry, but I’m not very good at hatred. As for “religious doctrine”, I remember something about “hating the sin and loving the sinner”. Don’t recall who said that, though. Must have been a hell of a man.
The libertarians also seem to be butting heads with a larger and larger percentage of conservatives.
Some of that seems to be because the libertarians are becoming increasingly liberal on moral issues, but some also seems to be due to a larger percentage of conservatives being more accepting of government interference in people’s lives
___________________________________________
I think it is also that we don’t have a worthwhile politician that we can both agree we like. Bush has fractured the party by making no one happy with him. The Republican Congress fractured the party by making no one happy with them. No unity, because there is no one leading worth following or supporting.
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.