Posted on 04/03/2012 7:28:59 AM PDT by xzins
As the nation faces a crucial election in a little over six months, the Republican Party appears to be caving in on a social issue that many conservatives consider of major import: same-sex marriage. What the GOP felt strongly enough about some 16 years ago to lead the fight for passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many members are beginning to consider an issue open to compromise. Not only do many Republican House and Senate members consider “gay” marriage a “dead issue,” according to Politico.com, but Republican leadership has “evolved” to the point that it has quietly worked “behind the scenes to kill amendments that reaffirm opposition to same-sex unions,” the politics website reported.
The change, of course, has nothing to do with personal convictions, but much to do with political expediency, as party functionaries fine-tune their agenda to attract a demographic that has been conditioned to tolerate — and even embrace — homosexuality as normal. While the GOP certainly cannot match the Democrats in their fawning attitudes toward the “gay” lobby, there has nonetheless “been an evolution in the political approach — and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country,” Politico’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer write. “Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures — including politicians — and it’s likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important — there’s also a libertarian streak of acceptance on people’s sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference.”
All of that adds up to an increasing number of “conservative” politicians jettisoning concern over the nation’s moral slide — of which tolerance for homosexuality is a symptom — in favor of a more pragmatic approach to their political positions. Representative Allen West (R-Fla.) demonstrated this “evolving” GOP mindset when he said, as quoted by Politico: “I personally have deep convictions about my children having a financially stable country that they can live in. I want my daughters to have the opportunities that I had, and that’s what concerns me. That’s what keeps me up awake at night, not worrying about who’s sleeping with who.”
Even lawmakers who are committed to protecting traditional marriage concede that the fight for family values is much more challenging than it used to be. Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who sponsored the Marriage Protection Act of 2011, said that while he thinks defending traditional marriage is tied to the stability of the nation as a whole, the attention of many voters is presently fixated on the economy and getting America moving in a positive direction economically. “I don’t know that people’s opinions have changed that much,” he told Politico, “but what I think has happened is that people realize the dire straits this country has been in and they think we better deal with that before we get back to the social issues.”
Representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) noted that things have changed drastically since 1994, when President Bill Clinton introduced the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise for homosexuals serving in the military. “It’s been realized that back in ’94, you could jump up on the House floor and pound your chest about [gay issues], and secure a good voter intensity, which you can’t do anymore,” Kingston told Politico.
It is clear that GOP strategists are beginning to switch their focus to a younger voter demographic. According to recent polls, 31 percent of self-identified Republicans now say they support same-sex marriage. But among 18-34-year-olds overall, that number jumps to nearly 70 percent.
One candidate who may be the beneficiary of such a sea change is GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney. While happy to capitalize on his moral Mormon roots, in reality the former Massachusetts Governor has always been about compromise, and the issue of homosexuality offers a prime example.
As reported by CNSNews.com, when Romney first ran for political office in 1994, challenging Ted Kennedy for his U.S. Senate seat, he set his sights on one of Kennedy’s most faithful constituencies, Massachusetts’ “gay” community. When a reporter for Boston’s Bay Windows homosexual newspaper asked the Republican candidate why “gays” should support him when Ted had always been a dependable pro-homosexual politician, Romney complimented the Democratic stalwart on that record, but suggested that he would do better, and that homosexuals could use a good lobbyist in the Republican Party.
“There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation,” Romney told the homosexual newspaper. “When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.”
Romney added, “I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.”
Such a voice out of Romney’s “mainstream” past makes him sound like just the man for the Republican Party’s new, updated image. It should also prompt true conservatives to pray fervently against his election in November.
Thank you for writing, Dear Sister in Christ, and while I have been in the past in exactly the same place as you are now, I simply cannot bring myself to do it again.
In my opinion, I would far better use my efforts to work for the creation of a real alternative. That alternative must work to win this contest, no matter how far-fetched that might seem to some, but, more importantly, it must legitimately work for a total conservative alternative for the future.
So, in the future, if I come across in opposition to Romney, it is not directed at you but at what he represents.
Interesting analogy, dear brother in Christ.
Yet note the difference between Mussolini and Stalin. Though both were social Darwinists when it came to their view of man, their ideas about state organization were quite different.
Stalin "nationalized" all private capital in Russia, expropriating all the wealth of the Russian people, and canceling out any possible notion of "private ownership" of anything in Russia. All means of production were conveyed to the Soviet state as direct owner, "on behalf" of the Russian people.
Mussolini, on the other hand, did not outright confiscate private capital. He figured such could be safely left in private hands, because through state regulation, he had all the benefit of effectively running private enterprises without any of the responsibilities attending direct ownership of those entities. You just "regulate them" in a manner that serves "state interests."
BTW, arguably, Bill Clinton employed Mussolini's model to a surprising extent during his presidency. And it seems Obama is following it, too — the regulatory explosion under his presidency is unprecedented. He is effectively "legislating" out of his executive departments: Congress passes a statute, but then typically it leaves the rules of its implementation up to the executive departments. That fact leaves a lot of wiggle room for ideological judgments as to how a law is to be implemented, without consulting Congress.
What is government regulation, other than making independent decision makers comply with state edicts, on the theory that "government always knows what is best?"
Anyhoot, I think your comparison of Romney with Mussolini may not be entirely apt (FWIW). I do not believe that Romney is a racist or social Darwinist; I no not see him promoting Left Progressive ideology. I do not see him as promoting wealth transfers based on class. I believe he champions free enterprise, personal initiative, and personal responsibility, not state capitalism/corporatist state models of economic activity.
As a highly successful businessman and venture capitalist, he is very likely skeptical of "top heavy," "top-down" organizational structures in general, wherein all power and authority flows from the top. The most efficient and productive business firms do not deploy this model.
In short, his executive experience and demonstrated skill as a business analyst suggest to me that Romney might actually prove to be pretty good at "draining the federal swamp" which is bureaucratic Washington — read: pretty good at deregulation.
Whatever the case, if elected, Romney would not be "the King." Unlike Obama (who seemingly is one, in his own mind at least), and I very strongly doubt he would act like one. But even if he did, if we conservatives elect conservatives to take back the Senate, and preserve or even extend the GOP majority in the House, even a "King Romney" would be facing serious political headwinds to Congressional enactment of any type of corporatist-state proposal from the Executive.
From where I sit now, I just don't see that happening.
Dear brother, it seems to me that here you illustrate the principle: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
I do not seek "perfection" of human institutions; I only seek "good" ones. In that regard, I suppose you'd have to call me a political realist.
Dear xzins, I know you do not make ad hominem attacks! But thank you for saying your criticism of Romney is just that, not criticism of me personally.
We may disagree on this point. But I do not think less of you for disagreeing with me. For I know your disagreement is principled. I respect that.
Thank you so much for writing!
Mussolini, as a statist crony corporatist, found his model fit well with Nietche’s ubermensch thoughts and saw himself and a select group of elite (the other corporatists) as those who drove the state. In effect, they were not just businessmen, they were a new aristocracy. In the communist model, they would be dictators doing the dictating to the proletariat.
Fascism’s affinity with communism is seen in the early amity between Hitler and Stalin.
Mussolini wasn’t shy about the Fascist/Corporatist linkage: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
But your observation still begs the question: Why do you believe Romney has an interest in consolidating state and corporate power?
Just because he has taken advantage of provisions in the tax code (whether we like the provisions or not) which are equally available to everyone else under similar circumstances, as defined by the IRS Code?
Romney "follows the law." He — I imagine — has been squeaky-clean "legal" in all his public conduct from Day One.
If we have a problem with the conduct, maybe we should be looking at the offending statute, not Romney's perfectly "legal" resort to it and dependence on it.
Of course, I do discern a difference between what is "legal" and what is "lawful." They are not necessarily the same.
But citizens must rely on what is "legal" for the conduct of their daily affairs.... Otherwise, they will be arrested, irrespective of whether their behavior is "lawful" (i.e., as our Lord defines it) or not.
The linkage, dear sister, is in the ubermensch concept as it applies to the view of the elite toward “others”.
“Others” were expendable. It is not classism; it is eugenicism. It is Sanger ridding the world of undesirables by reducing their fertility. It is Mussolini advocating the Italian Mediterranean and domination of the sub-Sahara because those peoples were not fully human.
It is Romney on abortion, on fraud, on government kickbacks, and on so-called “destructive capitalism”.
The ubermensch don’t bother with the little people.
Tolerance for homosexuals does not equal approval of homosexual marriage. Nor does it equal approval of any other public promotion of the lifestyle. The idea that you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, i.e. promote good economic policy and good social policy at the same time is utterly ludicrous and disingenuous. As the article says, Republicans are caving into accepting and promoting homosexuality either because they themselves or their family/friends are homosexuals or because they think it will get them votes. It’s NOT because they don’t have time or resources to affirm marriage as being an honor and privilege bestowed only upon heterosexual couples.
Most of us don’t want our kids to be taught that it’s an equal and valid choice to be in a homosexual relationship vs. a heterosexual relationship. If you don’t believe both relationships are equally acceptable, then you CANNOT support homosexual marriage. Marriage is an affirmation that one relationship is just as valued by the society as the other. It promotes and encourages both types of relationships equally. Homosexual marriage will absolutely guarantee that indoctrination into the belief that homosexuality is an equally acceptable lifestyle to heterosexuality will begin at the earliest ages and grade levels.
The idea that our country should be one of the only ones in the entire world that I know of ready to accept homosexual marriage is absolutely ridiculous. It represents a shocking degradation of our culture and a precipitous decline in appreciation and understanding of the roots, traditions and basic physical and psychological foundations of a healthy and thriving society. The survival of the civilization depends on absolutely opposing such a fundamental sanctioning of an uncivilized and unhealthy practice.
Make no mistake about it, if the Republicans will change their platform on this, they will change it on abortion, tax policy, entitlements, military policy, and every other issue where they think changing will help get them votes. Of course their strategy only works if they don’t LOSE more votes from the constituencies they already have than they gain from others. That’s why real conservatives must vote against liberal Republican candidates. The party needs to see our protests. If they can keep all their conservative voters while gaining liberal voters, then why in the world wouldn’t they change their platform to a more liberal one? It’s our responsiblity to MAKE the party represent our views.
There is, of course, the broader issue of making the case to the society at large for our viewpoint, which is something that needs to be done by all of us, not just the politicians. This country’s values are going off the cliff in so many ways. Like the Reagan administration said, if a foreign power had done to our education system what we did to it ourselves, it would have been seen as an act of war. Unfortunately we now have a similar poisonous corruption of our nation’s values and culture attacking us on almost too many fronts to keep track of. Most importantly, our economic problems are NOT our fundamental problem, they are merely the SYMPTOMS of our cultural decline.
Conservatives desperately need to get a hold of the reins of power and turn things around or the America we grew up with will become nothing more than a historical footnote, a quixotic, fanciful nation whose ideals were finally deemed too unrealistic to be effective. The culture war is real and every good, decent, patriotic American is losing it badly.
Well, we know that "ubermensch" ideology doesn't "bother with the little people."
But again, what does this have to do with Romney?
Capitalism necessarily involves the principle of "creative destruction." It is part and parcel of what capitalism is, and how it behaves as an economic system.
Capitalism is hands-down the single most successful economic system ever achieved by man, as measured in terms of rising living standards of a society and its general well-being and security over time. It created the American middle class — perhaps the greatest strength of our nation.
Capitalism is eminently creative, driven by new ideas, entrepreneurial attitudes, and — God willing — a State sympathetic to the very idea of capitalism as the engine of economic growth and job creation. In short, as the very foundation of widespread, genuine public well-being.
The downside of capitalism — its "destructive" face — is that firms that fail must be allowed to fail, the better to redeploy existing capital assets to more promising ventures and enterprises, to the greater benefit of consumers and the public at large.
If one tries to eliminate the "creative destruction" inherent in a capitalist system, then one must advocate for some "state" solution to the problem. And no "state solution" has yet been found — though clearly such efforts have been made in the past, involving the deaths of tens of millions of human beings along the way....
Just some additional thoughts, FWTW....
If Republicans are successful at winning elections by changing to a liberal platform, then what's left of the opposition party against Obama and the Democrats? Better that the Republicans fail at this attempt and are taught a lesson, so they can come back next time with a real conservative candidate. Would you rather have 4 years of Obama followed by a real conservative, or a lifetime of 2 parties who agree on sinking our nation into the cesspool of liberalism, maybe one just slightly slower than the other one? If the Republicans win by going left, they will continue doing it. You'll get a vicious cycle of the Democrats going even further left, and the Republicans moving slightly more to the left to try to pick off more of their voters. If they succeed at this strategy it's enormously dangerous to the conservative cause. This is why Newt was such a success in the '90s. He pushed the Democrats to the right the same way the Republicans are being pushed to the left now. We need a candidate who will advance on the enemy and push them back, not one who will keep conceding territory to them and appeasing them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if gay marriage is the defining issue in why Romney is being pushed on us by the elites. Drudge and Coulter are certainly pushing him because they are “in bed” with the gay agenda, figuratively and or literally. Another untold part of the tale might be big money coming in to fund the party from “Log Cabin” types. Romney’s economic record in government is as liberal as it gets for a Republican (tax hikes, welfare expansion, cap-and-trade), so it’s not like they’re pushing a fiscal libertarian on us and just willing to “tolerate” his liberal social views. It’s more like they desperately want to push the gay agenda and are willing to tolerate Romney’s liberal economic record.
I understand your desire to have a list of charges against Romney so that you might better understand those of us who reject him. Additionally, I’ve suggested that his liberalism extends all the way to national socialist tendencies.
First, his support of abortion and of the destruction of the natural family is enough of an indictment without anything additional. I will reject Palin if she runs with a pro-abortionist. I will reject any pro-abortionist.
Is government enabled corporatism socialism? Yes. It is. Is Romney a practitioner? Yes, he has been. The government has both provided him means and underwritten his losses. Has he intentionally relied on that relationship as part of his planning? In my opinion, I think it’s fairly clear.
As you know, my main hope was that we would have a president who would humble himself and lead on his knees before God. Perry had a record of doing just that. He was my guy, but alas, it was not to be.
I've never seen Obama humble himself and pray. And I don't know who Mormons pray "to."
On the other hand, I've never wasted my vote on a third party or simply stayed home because I didn't like the choices. So I'll be praying a lot before casting a vote in the general election this year.
Voting for a 3rd party that truly is working to become a national level conservative party would not be a wasted vote.
As with the building of anything, it starts small and grows large. As with the Kingdom of God. It begins the tiniest of seeds and grows to a plant so large birds find shelter in its branches.
From small beginnings.
As I was thinking about this earlier this morning, it struck me that it doesn't fit Romney. I voted for McCain the last time, and the best that could be said about him was that he was "fair". He wasn't perfect, and he wasn't good.
In the case of Romney, the proper expression would be: "The fair is the enemy of the bad." Willing to vote for someone who is only fair, I have had to reject Romney as being bad. He instituted $50 abortions and gay marriage licenses in Massachusetts. By no means is he good or even fair.
"The fair is the enemy of the bad?" And Romney is the "fair" in this proposition? Who notwithstanding he does not measure up to our requirements and expectations — being only "fair" — would still be the "enemy of the bad?"
I don't know whether I understand your logic here, dear brother in Christ.
But what I am fairly confident about is this: You have drawn a line in the sand. And not only will you not step over it; but you will not allow your opponent to step over it, either. You pledge your life, your fortune, your sacred honor to this end.
You are defending Life and Truth. And will take no prisoners....
You are needful on the American battlefield, as a warrior of God's Truth.
You are a soldier in/for/of Christ. I am so grateful to you, and respect and honor you for your commitment to our Lord.
If we continue to disagree, maybe that has something to do with different points of view and/or, perhaps, different callings.
In any case, thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your testimony, your "voice," and for your inspiring spiritual strength!
Two observations: (1) I really don't see that Republicans in general are "changing to a liberal platform." The Tea Party — a huge part of their historic "natural" base — simply won't allow it. (2) There may be no electoral "next time," in which a "real" [read: somebody's idea of "perfect"] conservative can be elected.
I really do believe that our principal duty as voters is to "put out the fire" in Washington. Otherwise, I truly believe that we can kiss the America we know and love — which has nurtured us as free persons under a rule of law, itself constructed to provide equal justice for all Americans — goodbye.
I want to live, to stand and fight another day to maintain this constitutional system of republican government which, for all its imperfection, has delivered the highest standards of liberty and prosperity as compared to any other system of state organization known to mankind.
And that means: Obama must go. That is, again, "Job One" for me....
You seem to expect that there will be a "next time." Personally I don't think so.
Four more years of Obama, and our country will no longer be recognizable as what she has been for the past 200+ years. We will have a "brave new world" as envisioned by Obama, along the lines if his ideological concept of a thoroughgoingly, globally "depeleted America" as necessary to the emergence of a New World Order — the newly fashioned, entirely man-made utopian "paradise," the journey into which compels free citizens to put slave collars on their own necks, "with their own consent"....
I dunno. I think I'll just go and read the Preamble of the federal Constitution one more time....
Thank you so much for writing, JediJones!
I am sorry to say I do doubt the honesty of many men that are called good at home, that have given themselves up to serve a party. I am no man's man. I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the white house, no matter who he is. And if this petty, un-patriotic scuffling for men, and forgetting principles, goes on, it will be the overthrow of this one happy nation, and the blood and toil of our ancestors will have been expended in vain. An Account of Col. Crockett's Tour to the North and Down East : In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-four (1835), p. 172
McCain was an example of "the fair", Sister. So, in the expression "The perfect is the enemy of the good", the common interpretation of it is that one never finds perfection. I rewrote and toned down the adage to "the fair is the enemy of the bad." In the post, I'd said McCain was merely fair and that Romney is worse than that. Therefore, in my rewritten version, "the fair" is a known quantity rather than an unreachable ideal.
Romney would be "the bad".
So why do you keep on looking for it? You obviously have a standard of "perfection" in mind when you tell me that Romney is not only not "fair," but positively evil (i.e., "bad").
The Preamble of the United States Constitution declares:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."I have no evidence that Romney is opposed to such a principled declaration. But I am very, very sure that Obama is opposed to it.
And so please do forgive me if I believe, on the basis of the evidence I have, that Romney, in an electoral contest against Obama, is the "lesser evil" here.
I am not even speaking in terms of "political party" here. I am speaking in the Name of the same Truth you worship, in defense of which you indicate you would lay down your life....
BTW, I do not believe it is at all possible for human beings to achieve "perfection" in anything, all by themselves. "Perfection" does not happen in Nature; but only in Nature's "Beyond": In God's Truth....
Which is insufficiently well-understood by most mortals....
Thanks so much for writing dear brother in Christ.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Oh, my Sister in Christ, do you not see that Romney is in direct opposition to this preamble?
He is the author of the $50 abortion that does not "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..", but instead murders the posterity so that they never see these blessings.
And at the same time, he was loudly declaring his support of traditional marriage; I believe he even spoke at some kind of pro-traditional marriage rally. When challenged, he argued that his "hands were tied" -- the court had spoken (most of the court had likely been appointed by MA Republicans as the GOP had held the governorship so long; oddly, I seem to recall that the professed Lesbian on the court dissented, on the grounds that the MA constitution left marriage to the legislature and it was properly left to the voters).
As the Indians used to say in 50s Westerns (with much justification), "White man speak with forked tongue!"
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.