The "Big Tent" Concept, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Center
By Flyover Country Posted in The Parties — Comments (268) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Author's note: What follows will probably be viewed rather dimly by many here, but I have confidence that my suggestions for improving American politics will be met not with vitriol or anger, but will be viewed as a sincere attempt to promote honest discussion.
There is a growing trend in the discourse on the Right to disparage the idea of becoming a more inclusive group, more welcoming to loosely-affiliated political factions who tend to view certain primary issues counter to a pure conservative. This rejection of center-right politics is often in favor of a purer, more ordered approach to conservatism. While I'm personally a staunch conservative, I'm also a pragmatic individual.
Barack Obama is on the cusp of the most powerful office in the land; he will be backed by a strengthened Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, with at least two SCOTUS appointees in the next four years and a whole slate of activist judges to boot. His election will almost certainly push American policy and legislation to the Left for the next couple of decades. Conservatism will wander in the wilderness for another generation, seemingly waiting for its Reagan on a white stallion to bail it out again. Can we prevent this? Dare I say...Yes, we can.
Read on...
In Grover Norquist's new book, Leave Us Alone, he advocates rather strongly for developing a new center-right coalition, composed of the various factions who for whatever reason, want the government to just leave them alone. These groups are the "low-taxers", free marketeers, pro-2A advocates, homeschoolers, religious worshippers, etc. They encompass various social strata, economic levels and political philosophies. However, as Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform) shows, they're rapidly becoming single-issue voters tied to one theme: leave their respective issue of choice alone.
For conservatives, who by definition require a smaller government, wide social and political liberties, and free markets, these factions sound like a natural fit into the conservative umbrella. However, what about the socially-liberal pro-choicer who owns a small business, and thus pays an onerous tax burden due to our Byzantine tax structure? What about the pro-2A hunter and outdoorsman who also is an avidly pro-union coal miner? Is there room under the conservative banner for avowedly pro-union and pro-choice voters? Not much.
This is because American politics, especially post-9/11 (but also well before), has degenerated into a wasteland of polarizing ideologies, where each side is running so far to their extremes they find themselves shaking hands on the other side [see Ron Paul's strange "rEVOLution" coalition of leftist conspiracy-mongers and fundamentalist Christian radicals]. The center-right, more representative of classical Liberalism, is the sweet spot in American politics. Why?
America was founded by men who wished for freedom: freedom from heavy tax burdens, freedom from onerous government oversight, freedom to determine their destiny as they saw fit. Republicans and Democrats alike are advocating for various forms of bigger government. The problem is not earmarks, or ethical corruption or lobbyist influence. The problem is that the government, regardless of political leadership, is a juggernaut of soul-crushing regulatory burdens, where all parties feed at the trough in a general sense, at the expense of the American citizen.
The key to winning in November and beyond is simple. Run a platform consisting of the following principle:
Is this policy/proposal/law going to increase and enlarge the size/influence of government in private citizen's lives, or will it reduce their exposure to governmental influence?
You will not win every vote from every group on this platform. You will, however, win most of them. In an age where national elections are increasingly split so thin that a third-party run can swing the election to the other side, most counts. The majority of Americans, I believe, simply want their limited tax dollars to fund a strong military and build nice national monuments and roadways.
Federalism (such a hot topic during Teh Fred's abbreviated presidential bid) is nothing more than the mitigation of government influence in citizen's lives. It is the ONE principle we were founded on, it is why the Bill of Rights was enacted, and it is why neither party can claim a clear majority. They both have their freaking hands in my cookie jar.
Ideals and morality are great, but if you're content to wander in the desolate places while you wait for some ideological purist, then you're as deluded as the avowed Marxists waiting for their socialist Utopia. There is no perfect candidate, nor perfect ideology. Life is about compromising some things to get the bigger things.
Our big tent doesn't need a name. It needs to leave its constituents alone. Period. If a candidate were to run a good campaign on this single idea, he/she would win handily, and provide some long coattails for the lower branches of government. Unfortunately, most politicians are too wedded to handouts and power to do anything but continue the sloppy demise of our political culture.
Nice, I can't add anything more. I just wish more conservatives thought like you.
Highly recommended.
It is true. We discussed this idea in my Political Theory class last semester.
Wonderful.
Tim Schieferecke
Sen. Coburn wrote how he found it ironic that many of his colleagues from the Class of 1994 who were accused of being partisan were far more willing to work with members from the other side of aisle than some career politicians
He write how he believes the first step toward victory in a debate is knowing that it is Ok to lose if you maintain your principles. If you lose, at least 2 positive things happen that make you stronger for the next round of debate.
1. You define the issues on your terms.
2. Standing on principle even while enduring a short-term loss can enhance your credibility and demonstrate your integrity.
Winning by sacrificing principles, on the other hand, shows the public that there is no difference between either party in their pursuit of power.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
...merely an all-or-nothing approach to politics. Integrity and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. While I agree with principled debate, even at the expense of a loss, in most situations, my point is simply that the country has moved too far to the Left for conservatism to triumph in one fell swoop. Politics is cyclical, but the center remains ever where it has been, simply trying to be left alone and go about the business of daily life and being a good citizen. We need to move them to the Right, and consolidate the masses and political class around one idea that everyone can actually agree on.
The center is what binds us all, and they are not some mythical creature to be conquered in the interest of partisan politics. I do not advocate the McCain strategy of bi-partisanship, whereby he simply thumbs his ostensible party in the eye to score points with lefty independents and Democrats.
I'm advocating a more beneficial method of governance, which is what America was founded on - a simple document, bequeathing all the freedoms in the world to its future generations. I also have my own principles, one of which is recognizing that while I may disagree with someone, it is possible to actually work together to find a mutually beneficial arrangement. That is true bi-partisanship, and it is why Americans of every race, culture and creed typically desire to be left alone to live their lives.
Only socialists and cowardly, small-minded people honestly seek to have Big Brother determine their lives. Those are weak, petty, inconsequential people, and they violate the spirit of this country's being.
In 'highway-speak' the center is where the roadkill exists. I prefer people who believe in something and stand on principle be it one I agree with or not. I see sides where there is a winner and a loser, and bi-partisanship looks to me like a way to avoid assigning a victor by leaving the combat zone for now and let future combatants fight it out.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
The more rare you like your steak, the more important it is that it is a good cut of meat.
Huh?
Society is a political construct. It must, by definition, be the result of compromises. If two sides of a position hold to their principles and those principles are exclusive, then there is no chance for compromise. The result is two sides trying to cut off chunks of the center for themselves. Eventually, there is not much center unaccounted for and no common ground to meet on.
My issue with McCain is not that he is unprincipled, just that he starts from the position of compromise, then moves towards the opposing side. I would, most of us would, appreciate if he STARTED at his principles and then worked out come political compromise. The result is more likely to be in the common ground of the center, which for most of us, is ok. We just hate seeing the store given away at the beginning.
I like a nice rare steak, but always order medium rare - good cuts are hard to find and I would rather be content with a good meal, than to be disappointed trying for a great one.
Member, American Conservative Party
I have nothing specifically to add except to note this:
You and I disagree 100% on homosexual marriage, but we agree 100% on both our view of McCain's compromising and good steak.
Even between us there is good common ground!
heh
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
were still allowed in more restaurants. Lately I've had to either choose "medium" or give a kind of oral waiver, and the last time I did that, the dude cooked me something much closer to "rare," which I didn't want at all.
Places I go to can give me medium rare, but I've learned which ones to order medium, so that I GET medium rare.
In Oklahoma City there is a place famous for its steaks, and they are VERY expensive. (So expensive that it makes the steak lost some wonderfulness because you think about the money you're spending.) They, unfortunately for poor fellows like me, have the most excellent steaks that I've not cooked myself.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
do you know if the all-night place in Henryetta is still in business? I was there once in '94.
The center: leave me alone unless I have suffered for more than 5 seconds
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
It was quite a difficult step for me to take when I voted for Bush the second time around; it was a surreal moment in the voting booth having previously joked of him being the antichrist. I was such a sheep following whatever the democrats told me to think, not really understanding any of the issues or that policy maybe should have something to do with where I cast my vote. I actually thought their party was the open-minded accepting one until a series of heated debates with my (now) husband lead me to realize I actually adhered to republican ideals. I really had NO idea about politics and yet I thought I was so savvy! My point in saying all this is finally I have stripped away the heavy wool over my eyes and am actually proud to say I'm a Republican; and the party that I am newly so in love with, the party that actually represents me, is going to the CENTER?!!
"We need to move them to the Right, and consolidate the masses and political class around one idea that everyone can actually agree on. The center is what binds us all, and they are not some mythical creature to be conquered in the interest of partisan politics."
First of all that is a complete contradiction. You can't say you want to move everyone to the Right and then claim that those in the center are not to be conquered for partisan politics. Second, and you must trust me on this one having been there, "the masses and political class" are not going to all gather around one idea and agree. There are some issues that just don't have a center. Like it or not you are either for abortion or against it. There is no "mutually beneficial arrangement" when it comes to unborn children.
I must agree with the post above yours in saying that it is okay to lose if you are maintaining your principles. I know what my issues are and I am not budging so we can win some here and there. I have been most disappointed in Bush's response to illegal immigration for a most important reason that isn't being discussed. He is confusing the public, left and center (and in some cases right) on where our party stands. Then when things take a downturn the public thinks that is what Republicans wanted to do. I'm coming around to the idea that I have to support McCain because he is our official candidate and I do want to stand with my party; but I have to say I am sad because some of his policies will surely cause further confusion about what it is to be a Republican. Some will call me far-Right and that's okay with me because I know where I stand and it sure isn't in the "can't we all just get along" middle.
after tony parker schools lakers
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Tony Parker schools who? I hope Ginobli can score before the third quarter on Thursday....
Yes gentlemen, BR is back, all sporting arguments and other arguments will be met with a swift uppercut and a kick to the face. Pistons-Lakers finals. Batman for VP. That is all, until my diary is finished.
The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.
Charles Barkley is right that the Lakers have put together a lot of young pups to go along with Bryant & Fisher. Mitch Kupchak made some good moves post-Shaq.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"However, as Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform) shows, they're rapidly becoming single-issue voters tied to one theme: leave their respective issue of choice alone."
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
is laid out in Chapter Two: "The Leave Us Alone Coalition". He utilizes anecdotal evidence, observations of political and social culture and simple common sense to make the point. The rest of the book also supports and elevates the point, but it is not a political theory paper with a million citations. The best I can say is to find the book, and explore it with an open mind. It jibes with my pre-existent thinking, but I'm always willing to listen to other viewpoints with an open mind. I simply measure it against my own values, and I encourage you to do the same.
For example, he uses a simple Venn diagram showing the overlapping interests of the guns, taxes and homeschooling contingents. While the area covering all three base issues is quite small, and the area adjoining two bases slightly larger, one can see that the common theme of leaving each base to its own devices politically covers the whole area.
One of the best strategies to illuminate my point is that employed by the Russians in various wars. Historians often point to the "scorched earth" stratagem as a last-ditch effort to save their forces, dent the enemy spoils and launch a desperate counter-offensive. I see it as a brilliant understanding of Russian resources, strengths and knowledge of the enemy's weaknesses. They simply drew the enemy in, bit by bit, giving a little here and there, and they ultimately won their wars.
Am I advocating a total revocation of all conservative principles? Absolutely not. Conservative principles are proper, just and reflect the world as it is, and as it should be. However, I am advocating seeing the forest for the trees. That is to say, I'm willing to make room at the table for someone who disagrees with me on certain issues, provided it serves to further my view of the national well-being. That is the beauty of federalism - if the people in some states choose to be pro-choice (for example), I will refuse to support that state government with my patronage and taxes. But, I will not exclude them from the pool of potential allies, if they can also see the larger picture.
democrats:
old folks scared that repubs will take their checks
and
the pro-abortion lobby
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Pro-life
every other issue is secondary, and I'm am Republican
and no the Federalist argument for states to decide on abortion doesn't work for me.
Murder is a crime in all 50 States. It's not up to the states to allow murder or not, but to decide how to punish it.
murder, esp as regards the insanity defense.
You favor a const amendment banning abortion, right? Or do you think that the Sup Ct should rule abortion is illegal via the 14th amendment?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Amend and rule illegal, leave no loophole. People who go elsewhere to get one must become expatriots etc...
or life in prison?
Just curious about the strength of your convictions.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
if all murder was punishable by life in prison or death I'd agree to that. But it isn't. So your analogy is just a fairly shallow attempt to make an argument. Nice job soaking that strawman in diesel and setting it ablaze, though.
I'd certainly support a very, very, very long prison term for anyone who either performs and abortion or procures an abortion for a third party. I've got no problem with treating having an abortion with the same severity that we treat vehicular homicide.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
different murder and manslaughter crimes.
Abortion proponents must live on farms---so many straw men around.
He is not calling it manslaughter - he is calling it murder.
And to me, if the woman goes to the abortionist, it must be premeditated.
Why is this a strawman?
It is only if in your fantasy world, does passing a law makes the crime go away. What's wrong with actually talking about what would happen if you got the law you wanted?
So, if you can answer a straight question - what is the suggested penalty for the mother?
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
if you are willing to say manslaughter is not a degree of murder that is fine in your world.
Your strawman is the requirement for life in prison or death. Murder does not necessarily, or even most commonly, carry either of those punishments.
No, I don't believe passing a law makes a crime go away, but I'm glad to see you can recognize abortion is a crime. I do believe that criminals should be punished. Just as I don't advocate allowing armed robbery because the laws we have against it don't prevent it, neither do I believe we should tolerate infanticide, in or ex utero, just because it is convenient and/or profitable.
And to me, if the woman goes to the abortionist, it must be premeditated.
Interesting to you, I'm sure, to others not so much.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Still can't answer the question?
What would you recommend be the penalty for a woman who has an abortion? Would it be different than if she drown her kids in the bathtub?
(I really don't expect you to answer)
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
None--no penalties for the mother. While there are outliers on this position, most pro-lifers I hear from want to focus on the doctors---i.e. the people who actually perform the abortion.
Yes, it would be different that if she drown her kids in the bathtub, as the mother is not actually the person performing the abortion while in the bathtub scenario, the mother is the sole actor.
I know you don't actually want to listen to what the pro-life community thinks, but the vast majority would NOT pursue criminal sanctions against the mother.
There would be sanctions against the doctor. It would be a felony, with a punishment consistent with a manslaughter conviction.
You would know these answers if you ever cared to really find them out, but . . . .
Know what most pro-life people thought.
Interesting that mother goes free - she is the one instigating and paying to have the 'murder' committed.
It makes me feel like you aren't as sure it's murder as you would be if a mother paid to have her kids killed.
Why the difference? Is it only political and what you think can be done at a first pass?
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
As bathtub drowning due to PPD (post partum depression) or severe financial stress. The murder by the mother would be punished, but likely not by life in prison or death. Especailly in the PPD case it's likely the mom would get therapy and go to a corectional/psych facility for 5-7 years, then be let out on probation (and ideally Norplant)
For Mother
First time offence--Mandatory Norplant for the next five years, removal of all state assistance and scholarships (medical, school, and welfare), community service, and parenting classes.
Second offence--equal to local penalty for premeditated murder plus forced sterilization.
For Doctors
1st offence=loss of medical license, community service, $100,000 fine
2nd offence=local penalty for contracting for murder
Of course there would need to be a timely review and appeals process for medically indicated abortions (for pre-eclamptic mothers etc.)
Second, the criminal act would be committed by the Doctor. I don't know any pro-lifers who want to place criminal sanctions of the mother.
Third, the penalty should be some type of manslaughter.
Straight answer. No penalty for the mother.
So the penalty would be nothing if she risked her life to do it herself and if a doctor made sure the mother didn't die, he would go to jail?
How about if she took an abortion pill?
Under you rules, how can the mother get off completely free? Wouldn't she be an accomplice to murder? I'm no lawyer, but it would sure seem that way.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,
There are all sorts of specialized criminal laws that target what you would call murder.
For example, if you drive over 45 MPH in a work zone and cause the death of a worker in Michigan, you are subject to a specific criminal charge that is neither murder nor manslaughter (although the penalty is commensurate with manslaughter).
That is my position on abortion.
In terms of the pill, same principle--the manufacturers and distributors of the pill would be the focus of the criminal charges.
Again, the charge of "murder" would not be applied to anyone involved, neither the doctor nor the mother. Keep using the word, but understand that nobody is talking about applying this penalty in the context of abortion.
If the doctor is not charged with murder, then the mother will not be charged as an accomplice to murder.
I know you are hung up on the word "murder" but you should understand that there are many different penalties and charges under criminal law that result in the illegal causing of death that are not murder.
I suspect you will keep asking questions about murder and being an accomplice to murder, despite the fact that the crime of murder is but one crime of many that deal with an illegal action causing a death.
In terms of the pill, same principle--the manufacturers and distributors of the pill would be the focus of the criminal charges.
I'm not going to get involved in this debate other than to throw some facts out.
Mifepristone has other medical uses and trials are currently ongoing for many more. It's used as a contraceptive and to stop obstetrical hemorrhages which often lead to miscarriage. In many cases it's the only thing which allows a mother to carry a fetus to term.
Quoting wikipedia:
Other medical applications of mifepristone that have been studied in Phase II clinical trials include regular long-term use as an oral contraceptive, and treatment of: uterine fibroids, endometriosis, major depression with psychotic features, glaucoma, meningiomas, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, and some types of Cushing's syndrome.
In weighing this issue it's important to consider if the good you hope to achieve by banning the substance is worth the potential harm caused by it becoming unavailable for the use in the treatment of other medical conditions.
"In weighing this issue it's important to consider if the good you hope to achieve by banning the substance is worth the potential harm caused by it becoming unavailable for the use in the treatment of other medical conditions."
See: Marijuana, Medicinal
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Are you aware that the abortion pill is made EXCLUSIVELY in China?
If we would ban trade with China, as I've argued before we need VERY badly to do, that would not be a problem. We'd get rid of a lot of other dangerous garbage too.
That is total bull.
Besides. If you cut off trade relations to China, why should they ever listen to us? Trade, and the economic integration that follows, leads to greater stability because no one wants to attack someone who is an integral part of their economy. It would be suicide. Even the Chinese understand that.
Now also found at The Minority Report
"Listen to us?" Listen to what? Do you actually think they'll change their government?
I don't give a flip what the economic consequences are any more than I would have with slavery. US companies are de facto exporting slavery to another country when you look at how the government treats its people. And that is partially why we get disproportionately inferior and dangerous products in return. All the while, it eliminates jobs that Americans could be doing. In any event, I don't care what it does to any economy; it's more than worth it!
People and companies here need to get on the ball of doing things themselves if they want them done.
I will not back down from this position! Any perceived good about trade with China is a facade. Companies that trade with China ought to be put out of business.
So I guess since we opened trade with China years ago there had been zero progress on the people of China wanting more freedom?
Seriously, you care zero for the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who would be affected by a full cessation of trade with China? It would be a disaster. There would be massive job losses (not just here, but in China also) leading to levels of poverty unseen since the Great Depression. Your conscience would allow this to happen.
We are in agreement. Conditions in China suck, but cutting off trade will make them worse, not better.
Now also found at The Minority Report
No. If anything, China is worse! I certainly don't believe the US would suffer a net loss of jobs. Of course neither I nor anyone else knows for sure what WOULD happen, but even if you were correct, my conscience would still DEMAND trade stop.
Most Chinese people are essentially working as slaves. The government is getting most of the economic rewards and tortures and kills its people. We must not comply with that. Economic prosperity must NEVER trump human rights!
China's economy is the least of my concerns. They ay as well be North Korea.
This is probably why the "Abortion Is Murder" claim does not ring perfectly true among those on the fence.
Those on the fence suspect that there is a difference between Abortion and, say, stuff that gets termed "murder" by any given prosecutor. A difference in degree that is large enough to result in a difference of kind... and even the vast majority of those who are Pro-Life see that difference in degree.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
There are many examples of words being used in a generalized sense that are not accurate in the context of a more specific analysis.
It would be interesting to look at the pre-Roe statutes and find out what the criminal penalties were.
You actually raise a point that the court addressed at length in the Doe and Roe opinions in one of their failed attempts to rationalize their nonsensical argument. They noted that abortion had never before been classified or prosecuted the same as murder of the born.
However, I guess we don't know if it is true given that the opinion already contained so many other lies.
I believe the motivation for the laws in the first place was to keep the medical profession on par with its purpose and to ensure they followed ethical, professional, and safe practices and standards. Abortion, unless done to save a life, was not a legitimate medical procedure, and it shouldn't be regarded as one now. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not kill them. State legislatures had and still have every right to regulate doctors as they see fit.
The laws came into place shortly after the discovery of when human life began, and that may have played a role too, despite Margaret Sanger's attempts to portray the evolution of species within the womb (which probably still passes the liberals' definition of "science").
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
First time offence--Mandatory Norplant for the next five years, removal of all state assistance and scholarships (medical, school, and welfare), community service, and parenting classes.
Second offence--equal to local penalty for premeditated murder plus forced sterilization.
For Doctors
1st offence=loss of medical license, community service, $100,000 fine
2nd offence=local penalty for contracting for murder
Of course there would need to be a timely review and appeals process for medically indicated abortions (for pre-eclamptic mothers etc.)
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Abortion is murder: it's a mothers body/choice.
There is no middle ground here. No room for compromise. Two sides that have come to blows and no political solution. Even if the liberal side walked up to the absolute center, there could be no compromise.
The abortion is murder crowd has ceded the battleground, millions of babies will die because their principled stance allows for no compromise.
Member, American Conservative Party
I agree, its their choice. No Christian makes women kill their babies. Liberal judges gave them the license.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
because of pressuring men. I've even known a few who thought of it as their women's duty to them.
That does not absolve the women of their failure to fulfill their civilizing role.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
men or women, I wish more Americans really understood and appreciated their empowerment as free American citizens.
1 - Do you think that your response might contain an element of parochialism or, dare I say, sexism?
Women are free agents. Of course, if a person is forcably coerced, then they are absolved. But if not, then the fact that they rationalize their sin by blaming a man, does not absolve them.
2 - Will Americans and Europeans be seen as barbarians for not going to war to stop this holocaust?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
or (virtually or really) battered women, so many people need to realize they are free agents and others in the world should be, too.
I know you don't think I advocated those men I mentioned. I only offered that arrival at choice as a fraction of those who choose to terminate their own flesh and blood, human beings just as good as their parents, with their developmental processes obviously in progress.
reference!
smile
well played
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
We'll find out how compromise works in South Dakota this election. They got the signatures for a new ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and physical injury. Some have voiced opposition that the measure does not protect all life.
I would argue against them since they have one abortion center that has to fly in an abortionist from Minnesota once a week. They'll be out of business.
When it comes to abortion, there is a world of difference between the letter of the law and how it is actually followed and enforced (or disobeyed and not enforced).
For Mother
First time offence--Mandatory Norplant for the next five years, removal of all state assistance and scholarships (medical, school, and welfare), community service, and parenting classes.
Second offence--equal to local penalty for premeditated murder (varies state to state) plus forced sterilization.
For Doctors
1st offence=loss of medical license, community service, $100,000 fine
2nd offence=local penalty for contracting for murder (most likely lifein prision or in some states death)
Of course there would need to be a timely review and appeals process for medically indicated abortions (for pre-eclamptic mothers etc.)
abortion issue. Would it work for the state to become the arbiter for the termination of an unborn child except in cases of medical emergency which should require the medical staff and immediate family to make the decision? My thinking lies in my belief that only the state should have the power to take the life of a person, and my limited understanding of the judiciary that it requires a jury of 12 to sentence a person to death. Could we not require that a woman seeking the termination of her unborn child come before a jury of her peers? She of coarse would be responsible for all court cost, lawyer fees, and medical cost.
more later
ps This could also apply in shiavo cases.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
good idea for legal process for terminating babies with chromosome problems, or babies of rape victims or incest. I'm not sure it wouldn't be used to push through voluntary non-indicated abortions in more liberal states though. Could be used to review medically emergent abortions though!
I like
The legal process is far too slow and inefficient for that. Pregnancy only lasts nine months, and late term abortions are far worse for the baby. If we did that, we'd have to go Dutch and allow infant euthanasia (though they are trying to raise the age limit there).
is the idea that maximizing freedom is the center. We Goldwater-Reagan conservatives are not in the center, we are extreme in our view of "leave us alone". Other than that, I agree with you totally.
There is a deffinition of members of both parties that care little about personal freedom.
"Democrats want government out of their private lives and in charge of their economic lives. Republicans want government out of their economic lives and in charge of their private lives."
The true conservativism I believe in maximizes freedom and minimizes government meddling.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
a while back ago. But that was during the more heated infighting going on in the party. I put in a blog here of the same name: Liberty Coalition (not to self-promote, but I think we share some ideas here).
I'm more of a liberty-centric, limited central government, classical liberal than a conservative. An independent supporting McCain, so I think we may be hitting some of the same notes from different keys here. Let me know what you think.
_____________________________________________
- "Make love not war? Real men can do both!"
you are a conservative in the Goldwater mold. Goldwater today would be called a libertarian-conservative only because there is a group now of big government conservatives that have gained power with GWB and Bill Frist.
Remember, Goldwater was called "Mr. Conservative". We "libertarian conservatives" will not cede the name conservative to those who claim the mantle but do not walk the walk.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I have excised 'big-government conservative' from my vocabulary. I don't think we should give those people - who I call squishes but others might call moderate - the benefit of using OUR name for THEIR non-conservative doctrine.
You're absolutely right. The GOP is not in the hands of conservatives right now. We're working to change that.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
_I used big government conservative as a euphemism for a much more controversial term. I do agree they should no longer be called conservatives.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
that I hear around here equates to "social conservatives must give way". How about "center" meaning that each of the 3 legs of the conservative stool (social, fiscal, defense) must compromise THEIR principles too? Why doesn't "center" mean "let's get out of Iraq" or "let's rein in free trade" or some other form of "inclusion"? After all, if we conservatives would just adopt a more isolationist stance and support the Democrat position of getting our troops out of Iraq, we would undoubtedly gain a ton of support in November. Or if we'd adopt some more protectionist positions, we'd no doubt gain some support in the union ranks. Where would you propose drawing the line?
"Center" does not mean "social liberal/libertarian". It means giving ground all around. Stop using "center" as a means to eject social conservatives from the conservative movement. "Center" in your world seems to mean chopping one leg off the 3 legged stool...and a stool like that is awfully hard to sit on.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try. Here's to all three legs of conservatism& kicking the legs out from under the Dems. Happy landings libbies!
I'm not kicking the legs out from under social cons. Having been reared as one myself, and remaining proudly so today, I see no point in setting social cons adrift. What I am advocating with this post is not some vague "third way" attempt at triangulation. It is an understanding that in a country of 300 million people, each with their own self-identified issues and needs, no one single group can claim a solid majority. Purist politics in such a diverse nation will render both sides a minority.
The model is like this: the three conservative legs (fiscal cons, social cons, hawks) are the anchors of an outreach into the center. Understand that the reason most people are in the center politically, is because they have deliberately not chosen a side, generally because they don't care about politics. I care, and that is why I'm self-identified as a righty. The Kos Kids care, and they have chosen to be lefty. The center doesn't care about politics, except that they wish to be left alone by the government. If conservatives can understand that the way to win, and swing the pendulum back to the Right, is to reach out to the center with the limited government platform (and not demand they also adopt pro-life, pro-gun, pro-this and that), that will produce a 60-70% national majority, EVERY TIME.
Per one commenter above, I'm not trying to hijack the center for conservative purposes. I am trying to propose a way for the conservative anchor to add more weight by attaching the Leave Us Aloners to the group, and thus drag the general sway of politics back to the Right.
gains.
Democrats have learned this, and now run pro-life candidates like Casey to victory.
As this years primaries show (Huckabee had a lot of supporters), there are a lot of social conservatives who will stay in the conservative tent who otherwise are not particularly conservative on economic or foreign policy issues.
Redefining conservatism as conservatism minus the pro-life requirement for national candidates is not a recipe for victory.
It is a recipe for defeat.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Unfortunatly it would also negate most of the reasons I vote Republican. I care about more than just limited government. Honestly if it protected parental rights, the unborn, sanctity of marriage, and religious freedoms-I'd be willing to vote for a more intrusive, even borderline totalitarian government.
Freedom is nothing with out the freedom to live a moral life and raise your kids in the moral system you believe in. I'd rather protect life, family, and religious freedoms than social and financial freedoms if it came down to it.
Of course, traditional conservatism champions both, so we don't have to choose
How can behavior that is coerced be moral behavior?
If someone holds a gun to my head to force me to be good, I'm not really being good---I'm just being a puppet.
The thing the social cons and fiscal cons need to understand at some point is that both are linked by freedom.
America is prosperous and religious because it is free. Remove freedom, and we lose the rest.
Put another way, a government that tells you where to live, what your job is, etc. is a government that is going to tell you what to believe and what books you can read.
Puppetry preferable to losing a generation to abortion, or seeing our countries morals and values fade away. But, as I said Conservatism champions both.
Those polygamists down in Texas feel the exact same way.
If it was that simple, Reagan would have figured it out . . .
What position do fiscal conservatives hold, that you believe is rigid and unyielding, that should be compromised in fairness to the center?
What position do national security conservatives hold, that you believe is rigid and unyielding, that should be compromised in fairness to the center?
Member, American Conservative Party
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”