The Myth of the RINO?
posted at 9:02 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Two weeks ago, I directed readers to an analysis by Keith Poole of UC San Diego on the relative ideological positioning of the three main candidates for President. Poole provides an excellent analysis of Congressional voting patterns called the Poole Report, which provides the broadest basis used for rating members of both the House and the Senate. The Poole Reports use roll call votes that have at least 0.5% of members voting in the minority. For example, the 2007 session of the Senate had 388 data points, as opposed to the ACU’s 25 and 107 for the National Journal, which gives a much more complete look at the partisan nature of voting for both Republicans and Democrats.
Poole’s analysis shows a fascinating and perhaps disturbing trend. Despite the perceptions of many in and out of the blogosphere and punditry, the parties have moved away from compromise, not towards it. Poole’s charting of partisan voting behavior over the last 40 years makes this plain:
Note the progression of the voting pattern, and where today’s candidates would have scored on this timeline with their 2008 positioning. In 1968, McCain would have been on the right wing of the Republican Party, and both Obama and Clinton would have been significantly on the left side of the Democrats. By 1988, McCain exists squarely in the GOP’s mainstream, and both Obama and Clinton remain on the left wing of the Democrats. Now, McCain’s fixed 2008 position puts him on the moderate side of the party, while the mainstream of Democrats have just barely reached Obama and Clinton’s position.
Now re-run the animation and look at what happened to the center in American politics. Forty years ago, members in both parties routinely overlapped, and their mainstreams existed closer to the center. The crossover point came just to the right of center and about halfway to the peak of both parties. In 1988, the crossover point hit about the same spot but much lower on the density scale, and the overlaps of both parties extended much less into the density of the opposition. Now, there is almost no density at the crossover point and the overlap has all but disappeared entirely.
What does this mean? It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology. Congress has become a place where party-line votes prevail on an almost-exclusive basis. Those who believe that we lose elections because of a lack of party discipline and loyalty in the legislature have targeted the wrong culprit. Neither party has a lack of discipline, but both may have allowed a critical gap to open with the American electorate that could threaten the two-party system.
Much has been made of independent runs from Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader, but this shows that they also miss the point. The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center. At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them. This could be the greatest opportunity in decades for a real third party to form and represent the gap that the last 40 years has opened between the parties. That opportunity will not be realized at the presidential level, but rather in the House and Senate.
This gap does have meaning in the presidential race. Even though Republicans have many structural problems in this election, they may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties. Not only does McCain occupy a spot on the spectrum closer to the center than anyone else, he’s also perceived to be more centrist. He has a track record of independence in his voting record that frankly is almost nonexistent in today’s politics. While that certainly (and legitimately) frustrates conservatives, it speaks to a wide range of American voters who find themselves lost in a deepening and widening valley between two peaks.
If McCain can capitalize on that and can find messages that resonate with those voters — and especially if he can demonstrate the hard-Left credentials of his opponents — he may find a treasure trove of support in a year where Republicans elsewhere are likely to take a beating.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
You are a gentleman and a scholar. Excellent posts today, btw.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Agreed.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Yeah, I’m feeling pretty much the same way concerning Romney. I do think McCain will shoot himself in the foot if he fails to pick someone with unquestionable conservative credentials (if there is such a thing).
It’ll be interesting to see who he picks.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM
OK, I have to ask. Who would you like to see on the McCain ticket?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I thought the readership’s near vomitous reaction in the recent thread about Huckabee being near the top of his pick list was telling.
Personally, it would be very difficult for me to vote for that ticket. The Huckster a heartbeat away from the Presidency is not a comforting thought at all.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM
How on earth is this thread still going?
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM
I’m probably not the one to ask about such things, as others are much more knowledgable. But I’d like to see Michael Steele on the ticket. Not just because he’s black, but because I like what he stands for. And Bobby Jindal is showing some real promise, as well. But he needs to finish his work in Louisiana and have that success and experience under his belt before tackling the Presidency.
It’s not, BH, really. Just yacking among ourselves now that the furor has died down a bit.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:31 PM
We’ve been waiting for you to show up. Techno brought in another keg.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Who would you like to see on McC’s ticket, and why?
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Last fall, after voting straight GOP for 30 years, I officially changed parties to “Independent”. Too many RINOs, too many back stabs. Bush has been good, in my opinion, on most things. It is going to take a lot for me to vote for McCain for POTUS, regardless of his VP pick. If he picks Huckabee, I will vote against him. If he picks Romney, I might be convinced just based on McCain’s age to vote for him and to wait it out. I agree that Romney might be a drag on McCain. Picking Palin might gain McCain some of of Hill’s supporters, not on ideology, just identity politics. And, it reduces the average age on the GOP ticket down closer to the likely dem team.
AZCON on May 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I like your choices. Steele would be well received by conservatives. I can only imagine the hell the libs would put him through. I know he endured it in Maryland, but on the national level its got to be far worse.
I like Jindal. I hope and pray he ends up in the GOP leadership someday. They could learn a few things from him.
I can see it now. Its the 2012 GOP Convention. He rides the same elephant in his immigration enforcement video up to the podium…..sigh.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I seriously considered that myself. It’s been a long time since the GOP has actually represented my interests. This election I’m in survival mode for the nation. I can’t bring myself to abstain from voting and handing the third branch of government to the dems. There would be no stopping the idiocy. I think we can at least slow McC down with voiciferous vigor. The dems will completely ignore us.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Strange isn’t it? I tried reading most of the posts but too many egos flailing about so I started jumping among the pages and that made it unbearable so I’m going elsewhere.
jerrytbg on May 18, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I’ve been reading the comments on and off all day and doing a good job of not wading in. I enjoyed the csdeven reference too. I haven’t seen him post here in ages.
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM
It’s been a very amusing thread!
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Pity that those most qualified or fit for a position must be subjected to such nastiness. It’s no wonder we wind up with the megalomaniacs we’ve got for leaders. Most are drawn and driven primarily by the power rather than the desire to serve wisely.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Palin just had her fifth child, and the baby apparently has some special needs….I wouldn’t anticipate her accepting the VP slot because of the insane campaign schedule…hard to do with her family responsibilities.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:44 PM
At this point, I honestly don’t know who I’d pick. I really like your suggestion about Michael Steele. He’s young (relatively speaking), articulate and I like what his stated principles are. I’ve been impressed with how he handles himself in the interviews I’ve seen and read.
Outside of that, I like Sue Myrick. She kinda reminds me of a female version of Jesse Helms. She speaks her mind and does it intelligently, IMHO.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I floated that idea a couple of weeks ago and got very little response. She’s only been in charge for a couple of years, so that’s working against her. Kind of a similar situation to Jindal, but I really like her long term prospects.
Me too. If the dems didn’t already have the house and the senate I’d vote a write-in for POTUS.
BadgerHawk on May 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Sorry ’bout that Jerry. Slow news day and we were bored.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Sanford is the golden pick, IMHO, but he campaigned for McCain in 2000 in the dirty SC race, and might not want to slog through the nastiness from members of his own party again. Bob Riley of AL is a great guy, great family, sweet Southern lady wife…very competent executive, and the Paulbots down here don’t like him, which I see as a positive.
Did you even know that a few very poor communities in AL were devastated by hurricane Katrina? It got no press coverage to speak of because Riley handled it well, and it wasn’t as bad as what happened to Mississippi (which Barbour also handled as well as he could).
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I’m not familiar with her. Have to do some reading and catch up.
Is that the lady from Alaska? I remember you posting something a while back. I’m encouraged by the quality of our young Conservatives. And the troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan… I’ll bet we get some awesome leaders out of those fine individuals. Truely soldier statesmen/women.
Right there with you on that. That’s the thing I really disagreed with the kid about on this thread. He was more than willing to burn the party to the ground and cede all three branches to the idiot dems. That’s maddness, imho. The damage would be massive. Sure, McC’s gonna screw some things up, but the dems are infinitely more dangerous.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Giuliani would be fun just because Dobson and Weyrich would soil themselves….of course only fun if they won. It’s not worth handing the WH to Obama for the theater, probably.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Yeah, she’s not well known nationally though she did make national news recently when she suggested that Carter’s passport be revoked.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/04/rep-sue-myrick.html
GT on May 18, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I’m not familiar with either of those folks yet. The only reason the VP slot is important at all to me is because of McC’s age, to be honest. Well, that and if he were to pick a Conservative, I think it would help the GOP support him more than they are currently.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Heh! I like her already!
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:03 PM
I haven’t heard anybody mention Riley as a possible VP. He’s my governor and I like him, but he’s not super high profile down here either. Just a good, solid, conservative guy.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Rudy would’ve been my second favorite pick after Fred. Would he actually agree to be VP?
That would be some scary theatre, right there. I’m still hoping he finishes coming completely apart at the seams before November. Looking good so far.
I know it’s politically incorrect, but I saw a guy at the supermarket the other day with a t-shirt that had a graphic of obama, che-style, only with great big Mickey Mouse ears. I laughed out loud when I saw it. Couldn’t help it.
The African Americans in the area were not amused, however.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Well, its past my bedtime. Old geezers like me need our beauty sleep.
Y’all behave!
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Here’s “Miss Patsy” as people say down here:
http://www.firstlady.alabama.gov/
Here’s Gov. Riley:
http://www.governor.alabama.gov/
not a ton of info without digging, but just if you’re curious.
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Hadn’t even thought about the possibility of putting a woman on the McCain ticket & wish I had a name to suggest. The same funky chicken theatrical proviso would apply, of course, but it would sure shift the PC dynamics, wouldn’t it?
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 11:11 PM
‘Night GT.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Thanks Funky C! Much appreciated.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Appreciate the encouragement, techno. Thanks.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Better on the guvnor:
http://governor.alabama.gov/issues/issues.aspx
and
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:16 PM
It would indeed. What’s a lib to do with a Conservative woman on the GOP ticket? Bet the identity politics go right out the window. We’re sub-human, don’tcha know?
I’ll be thankful when we can get past this near complete ideological dichotomy we’ve got going on in this country right now.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I’d take credit, but techno would call me egotistical.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Appreciate your knowledge and insight. I learned a lot today.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Janice Rogers Brown
heh
McCain’s got the balls to offer it to her, but don’t know if she’d accept. It would be excellent theater :-).
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Something to consider.
The New Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, 1977.
Read the whole thing, as they say.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I’m off to bed now…good night
funky chicken on May 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM
G’night Funky C. Think I’ll call it a night myself.
G’night kid.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Ditto that to the nth, techno. On a somewhat related note, when I first landed on this thread, I meant to post this link to an Iowahawk piece, tracing the evolution of a conservative congressmen. Maybe the night owls among us might enjoy the comedy version of Ed’s chart, or just a little comic relief.
JM Hanes on May 18, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I see where you’re coming from Cyber there were conservatives in the Democratic party at one point, you grew up in a different era… you are not a typical conservative from what I gather… a little more center… but not liberal…
You’re always welcome Cyber…. I like you… since you grew up in the 50’s and 60’s I bet you have some great stories. I like talking to people who grew up in those times … You said you were a Christian too who like me, believed we were living in the last days (ie, we’re witnessing the birth pangs Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24). I’m VERY relieved you see this — tells me alot about you. Anyways, I’m a right-wing radical Baptist (not radical in the sense of crazy .. lol ..just conservative …a real conservative) so maybe we will disagree on a few things Cyber, but no two people agree on everything anyways. Remember, just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make the rest of them bad. You can still learn from that person. Carry on buddy…
apacalyps on May 18, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Glad you agreed with most things on that conservative checklist. Sounds good, techno! Now if we can only get you to stop cussing (just kidding, well, in a way I’m not).
(But) I don’t think gays should be persecuted.
If I may clarify, I don’t think gays should be persecuted either, the Bible says homosexuality is morally wrong. Why do I think this? Well the answer is to look to Word of God. And while we could spend a whole day looking at the morality of homosexuality, let’s just look at two verses:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (reward that was due them).” Romans 1:26-27
I’m not trying to isolate homsexuality as this particular wicked sin, and then use it as an excuse to be condescending toward another person, treating someone who’s gay almost as though they’re some sort of leper. We must remember ALL sexual sin is offensive to God. Homosexual or heterosexual sin, whether it is adultery, sexual promiscuity, fornication, sex outside of marriage, or even lust, which Jesus said is “adultery of the heart” (Matthew 5:2) is sinful in God’s sight.
apacalyps on May 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Oops, forgote to quote you.
If I may clarify, I don’t think gays should be persecuted either, the Bible says homosexuality is morally wrong. Why do I think this? Well the answer is to look to Word of God. And while we could spend a whole day looking at the morality of homosexuality, let’s just look at two verses:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (reward that was due them).” Romans 1:26-27
I’m not trying to isolate homsexuality as this particular wicked sin, and then use it as an excuse to be condescending toward another person, treating someone who’s gay almost as though they’re some sort of leper. We must remember ALL sexual sin is offensive to God. Homosexual or heterosexual sin, whether it is adultery, sexual promiscuity, fornication, sex outside of marriage, or even lust, which Jesus said is “adultery of the heart” (Matthew 5:2) is sinful in God’s sight.
apacalyps on May 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM
apacalyps on May 19, 2008 at 12:22 AM
ME:
FLENSER:
Maybe the 1660s. In that general time frame, American colonists, drawn from diverse cultures and regions, often following very different customs, began to recognize their commonalities and mutual dependence, partly in contradistinction to the “savages.” It was around that time that the idea of “white people” became popular - as opposed to Germans, Britons, Highland or Lowland Scots, Irish, French, and all the varietous religious and socio-economic sub-groups (See OUR SAVAGE NEIGHBORS, by Peter Silver).
In Federalist #2, Jay was accentuating perceptions of commonality among members the first post-Revolution generation, which were arguably just as real as any differences, but don’t change the fact that, even then, Americans were by heredity, social status, and outlook a motley amalgam - even before you consider the different regional interests that nearly tore the young country apart both in its early years and during the Civil War, and that led to extreme divisions over other major events like the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. Ideological differences over issues such as whether to maintain a standing army, operate a central bank, prosecute political disagreements as seditious acts and statements, allow or limit or aim to extinguish slavery, and so on, also contradict the idea that there was some idyllic unity in early America that was violated only in later years or during certain unique epochs (like the Civil War).
And it was of course in recognition of these and other centrifugal forces embedded within the very nature of the country, as well as in response to external threats and influences, that the counterweight of Americanism - as enshrined in the system of government at the founding but also in the social attitudes most famously observed by de Tocqueville - grew up. E pluribus unum and all that - and a recognizable part of the American character in encounters with non-Americans up to the present day.
I don’t even see how this point can be controversial, though it gives me pleasure - makes me feel proud as an American - to expound upon it as though it might be.
Very much so. The idea that it was in our interests and also a unique national mission to foster democracy and/or Americanism around the world has also been there since the beginning, and is hardly an invention of George Bush and the neo-cons. The impulse has taken different forms in different eras - Manifest Destiny and Wilsonianism to cite two well known examples - but the real myth is that Americanism has ever, or for any extended period, been predominantly isolationist.
As for immigration, it’s often excited controversy, but the fact remains that the country is itself an immigrant construct, has undergone multiple expansions and extensions of sovereignty, and has also accepted multiple waves of immigrants - massive alterations whose relative sizes dwarf the current estimated numbers of illegals, and probably even the follow-on waves feared by the immigration apocalypticists so influential at Hot Air. I’m not arguing that “open borders” are a good thing, or that the current situation is supportable, only that assimilating large numbers of new citizens wouldn’t be out of character or historically novel, and hasn’t been and doesn’t have to be an unmitigated evil.
You seize upon my use of the word “total” in describing the system of democratic capitalism. It was an overly technical use of the term on my part, and a mistake in that it obviously led you to impute something totally (!) alien to what I was trying to say. “Democratic capitalism” is one descriptive term for what others might call “the American way of life” or “the American system”: free market capitalism subject to frameworks controlled by democratic processes and institutions, and, implicitly for most users of the term, also resting on customs and moral assumptions consistent with the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition.
Whenever I use the term, I think of a book that was very influential on my personal transition from college age leftist to conservative grown-up years ago - THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM by Michael Novak, which tries to explain the exceptional success of the American experiment in moral as well as social, economic, and historical terms. Before “neo-con” became a widely misunderstood pejorative, it was considered a seminal text of Reagan Era “neo-conservatism.” I haven’t glanced at it in years, but I see that it’s still in print, intend to re-read it soon, and will highly recommend it.
I sure hope that’s enough for now, though I guess I’ll have to see whether any threatening polemical brushfires have started up while I’ve been putting this wordy post together.
CK MacLeod on May 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM
“…this wordy post” was a pure delight to read!!!! (says the daughter of an English teacher)
” I’m not arguing that “open borders” are a good thing, or that the current situation is supportable, only that assimilating large numbers of new citizens wouldn’t be out of character or historically novel, and hasn’t been and doesn’t have to be an unmitigated evil.”
I believe it isn’t possible to put too much emphasis upon that particular word though–and that’s where today’s illegal immigrants differ from yeteryears immigrants (in significant numbers at least).
Auralae on May 19, 2008 at 5:07 AM
The problem with this chart is that it doesn’t measure degrees. For example voting with or against the party on some miscellaneous appropriations is significantly less important than betraying the party with Amnesty or McCain Feingold.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 5:51 AM
I know your heart is in the right place with this post. But I’d like you to know that some people would take it as ‘Church Lady’-like tongue-clucking condescention and would resent the attempt at behavior modification that lies at the root of your words.
It smacks of nanny-state-ism to me, and I prefer someone else not make the major decisions in my life. That’s what Freedom is all about, to my way of thinking.
I understand why you’re attracted to Huckabee. The Shepard/Sheep relationship is a concept heavily taught in churches everywhere. But it’s been my experience, during a little over a half-century so far, that in the Shepard/Sheep arrangement, it’s usually the Sheep that get fleeced. It’s more about power and control over the flock and keeping a steady income stream than doing the work the Church is supposed to do on Earth. Cynical? Probably. But directly informed from my personal experience.
I know it’s not that way for all religion, but my personal experience has almost always worked out that way.
I prefer the no middle men (or women) approach in my relationship with the Big Guy. It’s worked out so much better for me.
So I will respectfully request you to stop trying to convert or reform me and let me take comfort and guidence from my faith and relationship with God in the way that I see fit.
And please stop throwing scripture at all you disagree with, or at least at me when you post. I’ve read the Bible several times and find comfort in many of its passages. But I resent the Sunday School lessons and the implication that I am not aware of the passages you quote. Most of us here on HA are not children.
You may not want to hear it, but big blocks of scripture turn most people completely off and defeat the very thing you’re trying to communicate. Keep in mind this is coming from a Christian. Am I a perfect Christian? Not even close. Nor will I ever be. But I’m the one who has to stand before the Father when my time comes, and that thought does not frighten me.
Again, respectfully and without rancor,
techno_barbarian
techno_barbarian on May 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM
A simple left/right alignment for each vote is not sufficient. You also have to rank how important a vote is.
Voting against say Lieberman’s new climate change bill is much more important than voting against a group of earmarks that may total a billion or two. (Not that a billion or two isn’t important, it’s just that the bill in question will be more costly by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.)
MarkTheGreat on May 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Thank you for your kind words. I agree that assimilation is key, but I also wonder whether our application to the task would be as important as aligning the incentives. An individual with an opportunity to become a full-fledged citizen has a much greater incentive to learn about and join the culture than an individual who is under actual or potential threat of being expelled, and denied full participation. I don’t think it was the brilliant public education system of 1920, and it certainly wasn’t teams of social workers or access to public funds and services that turned my mother’s parents into patriotic and highly productive Americans. They were presented with opportunities that, considering where they came from, were breathtaking. It was something that they still marveled about almost literally up to the day they died. On my father’s side, immigration to the colonies occurred a few hundred years earlier, but every move west was a new immigration experience and new founding, and every generation of Americans in its own way has had to re-create the country. Democratic capitalism is a huge adaptation and assimilation machine (kind of like a Borg Cube, but in a good way).
CK MacLeod on May 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Borg rule!
.
GT on May 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I realize that we are well into the 7th page of comments at this point, and likely everything that CAN be said about this issue HAS been said.
However, as this IS the internet, I will still take a moment to put my two cents in:
I think the real problem with this study is that is assumes that there is an unmoving “center” in politics. The problem with this theory is that politics is a fungible and flexible thing.
A more accurate animation of the chart would show the “center” of the chart moving to the RIGHT at a FASTER rate than the GOP voting or McCain shows. McCain would still fall on the right, and the COP would still be moving to the right, but not NEARLY as rapidly as the “center” is moving to the right.
So, in the corrected model, a view from the “center” as a static entity would show both McCain and the GOP moving SLOWLY to the LEFT, with the Democrats RACING to the left, rather than the slow creep of each party away from the center as their charts show.
wearyman on May 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
MacLeod
Fine, I won’t argue with that. Not too much any way. The French were certainly not part of the initial American founding, though some were absorbed later on. But you are describing more a “melting pot” model than a mosaic one. And a melting pot is defined by commonality, not by difference.
I don’t know exactly what that even means. I think you’re saying that Jay was either confused or lying. I think you’re wrong in either case. Jay was refering to the British Founders, and his comments describe them accurately.
Completely off topic. By that definition, not even England or Germany or France or China are “exclusive”. We are discussing whether America can and should exclude people on the basis of things such as race and religion, not the question of a standing army. That you need to resort to this sort of ideological issue to conjure up an America riven on ethnic grounds suggests a weakness in your position.
Lots of ideas have been there since the beginning, this among them. But your response above completely skips my point, which you quoted. Here it is again.
This has noting to do with Manifest Destiny, unless you think Manifest Destinity should logically lead to all the people on earth becoming part of America. So I’m still wating for a response here.
As for the whole Manifest Destiny/Wilsonianism/neoconism strain of thought, the mere fact that it’s been around for a long time does not make it conservative. By that standard the ideas of Rousseau can be called conservative. So can the ideas of Karl Marx. Longevity does not equal conservative.
Conservatism, by definition, is not universal. This makes it distinct from all the other totalist ideologies in the world - liberalism, communism, Islam, Christianity, what have you. Conservatism is founded on the idea of pluralism, that people are not fungible.
All countries are immigrant constructs. No country on earth is populated by people who sprung up from the ground.
You don’t point to any such forces “embedded within the very nature of the country”. Differences of opinion on how to accomplish goals are natural.
You seem to be celebrating differences of opinion as to what the goals are. Those differences can only lead to the destruction of the polity.
You don’t know what you are talking about. The current wave of immigrants will make the US a Latin American country within the lifetime of many readers here. Now, you may want to “celebrate” that fact for some reasons of your own, but it’s not a conservative action.
I think you have essentially agreed with my summation of your position. You think that “American conservatism” is just another way of saying liberalism, and that the only thing it seeks to “conserve” is endless change for it’s own sake. Do you agree?
But you ARE arguing that people who say otherwise are “apocalypticists”, driven by “fear”, and are at least implicitly un-American, as evidenced by their resistance to the change in the ethnic and ideological makeup of their country. So what exactly are you saying?
Of course, in the “America as propositional nation” school of which you seem to be a member, America is NOT their country. America is not the American people. America is an “idea”, and an ideal, one you define and the unfortunate American people have to live up to.
flenser on May 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
That seems like a remarkably disingenuous way to comment on illeal aliens, who are not supposed to be in the country to begin with. The manner in which you conflate them with your own mother’s parents, who I’m sure came here via the proper channels, is likewise quite irritating.
Treating unlike things alike is unjust.
flenser on May 19, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Apocalypticist here:
Between 10% and 20% of the entire Mexican population is already in America, illegally. Mexicans are taught that we took their land unjustly, and it is still rightfully theirs, and eventually it will be part of Mexico again.
If we reward their criminal behavior with amnesty and welfare benefits, isn’t that aligning the incentives for the rest of them to do the same thing?
All those waves of immigration in the past were not illegal, and the immigrants were not granted instant and full membership into a welfare state. It’s mind-bogglilng to me how anyone could think that adding 12-20+ million poor and uneducated people to the welfare rolls would be a good thing, in light of our already massive problem with Social Security and the impending retirement of the boomers.
They don’t want to be assimilated, as a general rule. They don’t want to be American citizens, as a general rule. They don’t want to learn English and be fine upstanding civic-minded members of the community, as a general rule. They want to work and make money to send back to Mexico, and when they’re ready to retire, they want to go back to Mexico. Unless, of course, Mexico has reclaimed its land by that time.
We’ve tried this before. Reagan granted amnesty to only about 3 million(?) criminals. This is what we got. Secure the borders, enforce the laws, and then we can talk about changing the laws and/or expanding guest worker programs.
Immigration Pollyannas scare me.
misterpeasea on May 19, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I think I disagreed with pretty well everything you said here techno. Um.. (thinks it over) ..it’s ‘Church Lady’-like tongue-clucking condescention for pointing out that you have a foul mouth? The Bible says we shouldn’t swear Techno. And how’s about it’s offensive to me! That comment to me about oral sex the other day was horrible. And I couldn’t disagree more when you say I support Mike Huckabee because of the Shepard/Sheep relationship. C’mon now.. talk about condescention… sheesh… Governor Huckabee is a genuine 100% pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, Christian conservative! That’s why I like him. It has nothing to do with this…uh, whatever you call it, that Shepard/Sheep thing … and that other stuff you said about Christians not using Scripture because it turns people off. Techno, the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Romans 10:11). I’m not ashamed to use God’s Word. It’s music to my ears. I used it correctly to point you your support for homosexual marriage is wrong. Now I’m sorry if you disagree with me techno, but it’s not me you’re disagreeing with. That’s what God’s Word says so don’t be upset with me for pointing that out to you. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105). Anyways, I’m tired today. Don’t want to debate. Have a good day/night. Seeya.
apacalyps on May 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I can’t tell you how sorry I am to have caused you to feel irritated, flenser. Maybe you should focus on some pleasant thoughts for a while, and avoid internet discussions. I apologize in advance if the rest of this post exposes you to further irritants. If you find it too uncomfortable to continue, I’ll understand, and will eagerly await your return to these discussions, perhaps after a reasonable recovery period.
I was replying to someone else on the subject of assimilation. My own position on illegal immigrants is that it’s unfortunate, in many ways extremely unfortunate, that a sizable population is here illegally. Unlike you, however, I consider measures that would allow a significant number of them to become citizens in good standing to be desirable. As for my actual argument dealing with the alignment of incentives and processes of assimilation, you were apparently too irritated to address it.
Apparently, beneath the rule of law cover, your anti-immigration position is in no small part motivated by fears that the U.S. will become, as you put it, “a Latin American country within the lifetime of many readers here.” Before I know how to respond to that prospect, I’d have to know what you mean by “Latin American country.” Language use? Typical skin color? Breakfast burritos instead of bacon and eggs? Catholics? Espanol?
Whatever you mean precisely, I don’t accept your assertion on face value. If, however, you’re referring to some rising-line extrapolation into the future of current birth rates among the legal Latin American population, along some 10 - 20 million formerly illegal new citizens, eventually resulting in a plurality of US citizens being of Latin American derivation, I frankly can’t say that I would be terribly disturbed by the idea. I certainly wouldn’t be disturbed enough to support measures that would destroy the country - the land of opportunity and freedom - in order to save it.
As for the idea that the Founders and each successive generation afterward were characterized less by ethnic or ideological uniformity and isolationism than by divisions and differences that threatened the country’s integrity and survival, as countered, however, by constitutional government guided by a shared sense of America’s unique mission in the world - that’s a subject for a study of history that can’t be undertaken here.
I’ll observe, however, that in my opinion the scholarship and the tradition are both heavily on my side. I’ve already referred to one book on the diverse ethnic and ideological make-up of colonial America. There are many, many other studies on the subject. As I said, Jay’s views on the Founders notwithstanding, I don’t think the larger view I’m advocating is very controversial.
As for the ideological history, I do happen to have to hand one concise take on the subject. In passages from OF PARADISE AND POWER aimed at the “remarkably resilient… myth” of American isolationism, Robert Kagan references Jefferson’s “empire of liberty” and to the “great destinies” and “noble career” of the new nation as envisioned by Hamilton, and argues that, “[f]or those early generations of Americans, the promise of national greatness was not merely a comforting hope but an integral part of the national identity, inextricably entwined with the national ideology.” Continuing:
At one point you give your own views of what you call “conservatism”:
Whose definition? I don’t understand what exactly you’re associating yourself with here, or what precisely you think it has to do with the other issues we’ve been discussing. I can’t imagine how an ideology of the sort you otherwise appear to be espousing, defying the central experiences of the country’s history, from the Founders all the way across the continent and the globe and 230 years to the present day, could be characterized as “conservative” except in some very contingent sense: i.e., you think you’re a conservative, so whatever you believe is conservative, and whatever you don’t believe is un-conservative.
Not at all. Among other things, I regret that you skipped over the sentences where I described Americanism as being, in my opinion, accepting of change, and a great cause and driver of change, but not a fetishization of the idea of change at the cost of liberty. To close, I’ll defer to Ronald Reagan who said, famously - and long before Barack Obama started distorting the line for his own purposes - “We hear talk that it’s time for a change. Well, ladies and gentlemen, another friendly reminder: We are the change.”
CK MacLeod on May 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Pretty much exactly what I expected from you, though I was hoping you would be a bigger person and take it in the conciliatory spirit in which it was offered.
I stated my opinions and my reasons for forming them. You can’t handle it. Fair enough. I’m not pure enough for you. I get it.
I still maintain that you give Huckabee WAY too much credit. I do not find him to be the man of God, nor the man of honor that you do. His actions indicate otherwise, and a man should be judged on the fruit of his actions.
Just do me a favor, if you would. Lecture and preach at somebody else from now on. I’m not interested in hearing it from you.
We clear?
You are not my keeper nor are you my spiritual better, but thanks for offering. I know you mean well.
techno_barbarian on May 19, 2008 at 6:37 PM
No animosity on my part techno. None at all. You actually seem like a pretty nice guy (from our brief conversation).
That has nothing to do with it. Sorry if I came across like that. When I as a Christian point out sin that is going on around me, it’s not because I’m better than anyone, it’s because I love God and I desire to see His will done in the lives of others as His will is done in heaven. In the process of judging, I must also examine myself, and I do.
No problem. You’re entitled to your opinion. Oh, and I never said people must vote for Huckabee or they are not Christians. That’s propoganda coming from the scoffers.
Never said I was your keeper. You said that. I didn’t. I’m a wicked, vile, sinner, just like everbody else. And if don’t like the things I say then don’t respond to me. My plates already full dealing with all the scoffers anyway. My prayers are for you techno. May the good Lord Jesus bless you for ever. Thanks.
apacalyps on May 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM
MacLeod
I was expecting better than this, I must admit.
Yes, so I gathered.
I did address it. Immigrants should be assimilated. Non-citizen illegal aliens should be expelled.
Yes, I know that liberals always think that “rule of law” is a conservative “cover” for “lets get the brown people”. Thanks for sharing. Again, I was hoping for more than a rote recitation of liberal talking points.
I’m so glad you were able to deduce that fact, aided I’m sure by my telling you. Spare me your triumpant “Aha!”. On to the substance.
Culture. People are not fungible units, regardless of what liberals think. They carry a culture, a way of looking at the world embedded in them. In computer terms, people are PROM’s. The culture of Latin America is not conducive to our way of life. It is not conducive to “democratic capitalism”. A glance at Latin America should make this obvious to you.
You’ll have to explain to me how enforcing the law will “destroy the country”. If I cheat on my taxes, will it “destroy the country” if I am prosecuted for it? If not, why will enforcing the law with respect to illegal aliens and illegal employers do so?
“Opportunity and freedom” are not a blank check for anyone on earth to walk in here if they feel like, any more than they are a blank check for you to walk into a bank and help yourself to money.
Not in the liberal halls of academia, I’m sure. Outside of them, however, your notions of the triumpant march of liberalism are not widely shared.
Read the Federalist papers in their entirety and you won’t find any support for your ideas.
So what? Robert Kagan is not a conservative, so your citing him in support of your theory is underwhelming. Everything you say is liberalism. My objection is to you trying to pass off liberalism as conservatism. So far you wan’t even concede that’s what you’re doing.
Poppycock. The Founders were what we would call “isolationists”. For instance, George Washington - “The great rule of conduct for us,” Washington wrote, “in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith”.
Or John Adams - “we should separate ourselves, as far as possible and as long as possible, from all European politics and wars.”
To a large extent “Manifest Destiny” was an isolationist creed. In the place of US entanglements abroad it substituted American expansion to the Pacific. That was Adams view, and he was very much an isolationist.
No, I give the definition as understood by the founders of conservatism. Read Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver, Bill Buckely, and the others who got the American conservative movement into politics. Read F. A. Hayek. Even read Irving Kristol, who wote some very critical things about the capitalism you want to champion. In fact, though you don’t seem aware of it, conservatism all the way back to Adam Smith has been far from being a cheerleader for “capitalism”. I’m telling you what conservatism is understood to be by conservatives. The disciples of Ayn Rand may worship businessmen, but conservatives never have.
What on earth is “all the way across the contintent” supposed to have to do with this topic? The population that did exist prior to American expansion was killed and/or displaced by your imagined “inclusionists”! How is the settling of the West supposed to be a support for your theory, rather than a confirmation of mine?
Can you explain the difference between liberalism on the one hand, and your conception of conservatism on the other? I think that will throw some needed light on the differences here. What specific differences exist between liberalism and your conservatism?
flenser on May 19, 2008 at 10:02 PM
The Founders, very much including Jefferson, were not big believers in the theory of fungible people. Here is Jefferson discussing Latin America.
In this he was prescient. Even many Latin American political theotists have come to the same conclusion - that their people are not suited to American style liberty. And how did Jefferson feel about the people in the then United States?
Hmmm. Not exactly what we consider “inclusive” and “liberal” by todays standards. Are you sure that Jefferson was a forerunner of your political theories? You might want to read the man himself instead of taking Kagans word.
flenser on May 19, 2008 at 10:13 PM
The problem is Illegal immigration.
Johan Klaus on May 20, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Than just make it legal, as Bush and McCain and Kennedy want. The problem is immigration which is not serving the best interests of America and Americans.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM
I’m pretty sure that MacLeods ideological and abstract cast of mind, which expects flesh and blood people to subordinate themselves to ideas, was alien to Reagan.
Here’s a great speech he gave in 1977.
MacLeod, he’s talking to you. Reagan again;
I don’t think you do defer to him, but you’ll use him if you can.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Yay!! I finished the thread!!! *Whew!*
,
have you been following Blogging the Qur’an?
I had to catch up there–it took me quite a while to read every single comment…but there were a couple of places where a scripture quoting Christian was exactly what was called for…places where questions or assertions went unanswered. I for one would LOVE it if you’d comment over there! (oh-and feel free to quote to your heart’s content to me–I love it!)
Glad I lurked! I’ll take your requests to apacalyps to heart, as I’m of a similar bent…I love including scripture in my posts…not to lecture in any way-it’s just, well, it makes my heart sing! –but I understand completely where you’re coming from, things like tone, inflection, etc just can not be communicated clearly in this medium, and an apparent lecture, or condescension of any kind can be very offensive; whether intentional or not. I’m with apacalyps, I view myself as in the company of some of the vilest of sinners…which I guess is why I’m so very grateful for His grace
.
. AMEN!!!!!!!!!
Yep-Doctor Zero, you’re my hero too!
The shy easily startled part of me would of course much prefer a less abrasive debating style (yes, on the part of both sides) but I have enjoyed especially these later posts.
Any and all ad hominem attack really puts me off. Other than that, this has been a great thread!
I would like to mention that illegal immigration crosses the conservative/liberal spectrum more than we might realize. My Dad describes himself as a “knee jerk liberal” quite proudly (a state employee of over thirty years, a social worker) and my Mom, a registered Democrat, herself a adult basic education teacher–including English as a Second Language–both of them–from EXPERIENCE are more anti-illegal immigration than any of my so called conservative friends….but then, my parents always took such pleasure in “tag teaming” the people they came across in their jobs…Mom helping get their GED, or ready for vocational training (Doctors from places like Pakistan didn’t make it through their LPN training) –while Dad in “Work and Training” helped people take those steps away from “the dole” and toward being more financially independant. They were looking more at “teaching a man to fish” rather than job security!
“Politically Correct” and “Melting Pot” just don’t mix. America desperately needs to remain a melting pot, and multiculturalism is like tossing water on the burner. (just my two cents)
Auralae on May 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Give it up, people. CK doesn’t argue in good faith, he argues to display his own maturity and reasonableness, and contrast it with the lack thereof from the eeevil “far right-wing” and “apocalypticists” (pretentious diction and Rule #2).
And when somebody ignores the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, you know they aren’t arguing in good faith.
“The rule of law cover.” Priceless!
misterpeasea on May 20, 2008 at 2:56 AM
It’s hard enough to keep an argument in focus in a setting like this one without also having to deal with heaps of quotations and dubious appeals to authority. If you want to make a point, it’s your job, not mine, to sort relevant wheat from irrelevant chaff in your reading, and in the meantime it’s ludicrous to suggest that you alone possess the definitive summary and distillation of the collected works of Buckley, Kirk, Ronald Reagan, and on and on.
I’m also not interested on page 7 of a dying thread in addressing your multiple impertinent or simply ill-founded asides and quibbles, much less in starting up a little food fight with MR PC, who appears to have appointed himself unofficial CK MacLeod scold.
I believe that the crux of our disagreement is first in the greater weight you put on what, in order to avoid buzzwords, we can perhaps call the objective cultural content of conservatism in the American context. I think that we both believe that there is more to American conservatism than affinity with some abstract American idea or appreciation for the mechanics of a checks-and-balances governmental system. You appear, however, to operate under a more strict, if never precisely delineated definition of what that cultural inheritance consists of, and you also appear to conceive of it as much more vulnerable to dissolution and devaluation.
Finally, you appear to believe that immigration - and by no means just illegal immigration, as you’ve underlined above in your response to Johan Klaus - poses the single greatest threat to this all-important cultural inheritance, and that the greatest immigration “problem” is the one caused by Latin Americans. You say:
I take it you’ve never read THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM, since the greater resistance to democratic capitalism on the part of Catholic and other cultures, as compared to predominantly Protestant and also Jewish cultures, is one of the book’s major themes. However, the fact that the author himself is a Catholic, as well as the obviously more important fact that recognizably democratic capitalist cultures have taken root in Catholic as well as in largely non-Judeo-Christian cultures (in Japan and South Korea, for instance), demonstrates that there are no absolutes in this matter. I guess it also needs to be said that there are numerous successful individuals of Latin American derivation living in the present-day USA, along with other individuals from groups that would be considered even more resistant to assimilation.
In short, there is no inherent reason why assimilating even very large numbers of Latin Americans, even to the point that they constituted an ethnic plurality of the population, would have to alter the nature of the United States in a truly fundamental way - unless you believe that the United States is (like most nations) primarily the expression and possession of a particular ethnic group or culture. This view - “all men are created equal, though my ethnic group is more equal than others” - would put you, in my opinion, far outside the mainstream of American political life. If that is what you believe, I strongly doubt that all of the individuals whose authority you invoke would be glad about the association.
Depends upon what you mean by “enforcing the law.” Perhaps you can name a significant set of laws that have ever been enforced perfectly and completely. Even assuming you aren’t striving for absolute perfection, I don’t believe that you could achieve the immediate and permanent expulsion of the vast majority of illegal aliens except by imposition of martial law or other police state measures. Anything short of that will already begin to include trade-offs: Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi, you’re willing to forgive and forget to some greater or lesser extent.
On this note, you ask your questions about taxes backwards. The issue isn’t whether a given individual should or shouldn’t be prosecuted for tax evasion. The comparison would be to a regime aimed at enforcing all tax laws to the letter on every single person subject to them. Because such a goal would be absurdly impractical (without massively altering the laws), we accept that in the real world many, many people will get away with evading full payment of the taxes that they lawfully owe.
I know of no one in the mainstream of the immigration debate who is really contemplating full enforcement of all laws regardless of cost and effect. No can realistically claim to occupy some absolute moral high ground vis-a-vis “respect for the law.” There will always be compromises and revisions, means and ends. Alteration of impractical laws is always an alternative when they are regularly violated and can’t be enforced.
In the expectation or at least the hope that this will be my final contribution on this thread, I’ll close by answering the question you posed regarding my views of the differences between liberalism and conservatism. You’re very concerned with labels, and seem to claim for yourself the ability to decide who is and is not a conservative or a liberal. You may again be disappointed with my replies, however, as they’re not very unconventional or unusual.
In one of my earlier posts, I offered a shorthand version of what I believe conservatism means in the American context. Even shorter: Unlike conservatives in other countries and traditions, American conservatives have the ideas of the founding, the so-called American experiment, to conserve.
The American founding has sometimes been associated with the ideas of the European Enlightenment, as well as with the ideas of the ancient democracies, but it’s also associated with values and political mechanisms (representative government, freedom of speech and conscience, etc.) conventionally referred to as “liberal” in the 19th Century context. This ideology is nowadays sometimes referred to as “classical liberalism” in order to distinguish it from 20th Century American liberalism, which has been shaped by history and practice, not to mention the influence of Progressivist and other, mainly leftwing influences, into something very different.
All of the Founders were liberals in this classic sense of the term, in that preserving and protecting “liberty” was one of their chief preoccupations, arguably their central preoccupation. In that sense, the United States has been and, thankfully, remains a liberal nation. However, that also means - and it’s only superficially a paradox to say so - that maintaining classically liberal values and civic life is in the United States a conservative project.
As I indicated above - and as Michael Novak in particular helps to explain - I don’t believe that American conservatism reduces without remainder to the protection of classical liberal values, or can ever be a completely abstract ideal devoid of cultural (or moral, ethical, and historical) content, but it’s not and can’t be exclusionary on the basis of “race, color, or creed” either, and in my opinion it even more certainly can’t be reduced to some privileged, quasi-mythical racial-cultural essence. If my position makes me less a conservative in your eyes, then we’ll have to differ, for, if I have understood you correctly, then you believe something that I consider to be both deeply un-American and profoundly un-conservative in an American context.
CK MacLeod on May 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM
You are the one who began making appeals to authority, from that book you read, to Kagan, to Jefferson, or what you think Jefferson said. So I’m perplexed that suddenly appeals to authority are out of bounds.
And you don’t mention what was “dubious” about the links I gave to Reagan and jefferson.
I’ve read them. You, I strongly suspect, have not. So I’ll tell you what they said, and give you page numbers or links if you need them.
Oh, so now we’re ok again with “dubious appeals to authority”? I’m getting whiplash here. Why not simply say “Do as I say, not as I do”?
It’s amusing that you’ll reject people like Kirk and Nisbet, but you think Novak is a good guide to American conservatism. Hint- “democratic capitalism” is not conservatism. It’s not liberalism. It’s not libertarianism. And it’s not Catholic or Christian either. It’s one of the goofy abstract ideologies Reagan condemed.
That’s a matter of quasi-religious belief for you. But by definition, the reason China is the way China is, is because it’s full of Chinese people, who think and act the way they do.
If you fill America with different people it will by definition be different. You can’t simultaneously sing the praises of change and go on about how America is defined by change and how we need immigration because change is good, and then try to insist that immigration won’t change America.
Well, you can, because you are doing just that. But you are contadicting yourself badly.
Perhaps you can name a single set of laws in American history which have been broken more consistently, with government assistance, than our immigration laws these last thirty years. Nobody is asking that they be enforced perfectly, and it’s dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. It would be nice if they were enforced about as much as the laws against selling cigarettes to minors, for instance.
]
Yes, yes, yes. We are all familiar with how to lefties, all conservatives are either nuts or Nazis.
Again, this is stupifyingly dishonest. You already know the response to this silly strawman you tossed out. So why say it? Does it give you some sort of emotional pleasure?
As usual, your hypocrisy is breathtaking. You are the one who decided that he would describe what is and what is not conservatism. I’m simply correcting some of your misconceptions.
God, you’re a long winded bore. You go on for paragraphs in order to express a six word concept.
To the extend that the Founders were “classical liberals”, it’s important to observe that todays “classical liberalism” has little resemblence to the liberalism of the late 18th century. The Founders may have been “classical liberals”. You can argue that Burke was a “classical liberal”. But classical liberalism was not remotely as equalitarian or as individualistic as the modern so-called “classical liberals” like to think.
Again, simply reading Madison in the Federalist papers would make this clear. The Founders “classical liberalism” was indifferent, even hostile, to the universalist ideas you and the other modern “classical liberals” are tossing around. Read Federalist #54, then try to square it with your grand sweeping ideas of a brotherhood of man.
As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about. Modern left liberalism is a close cousin to you and your ideas. They have simply carried your ideas to their logical conclusion.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I think it needs to be stressed that Catholicism is NOT conservatism. Novak seems like a good guy, but his views are no guide to what political conservatives believe.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The typical carelessness - or is it just pointless dishonesty - of that comment and the tactic it represents, extracting a fragment from its obvious context in order to make a hypocritical attack, is why in the future I will refrain from wasting any more time trying to take you seriously, flenser.
CK MacLeod on May 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM
You said that anyone who does not agree with you about amnesty for tens of millions of felons is either a nut or a Nazi. What “context” would you like to add to that?
Here is your exact quote - “Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi, you’re willing to forgive and forget to some greater or lesser extent.”
By all means, provide the missing “context” for your statement.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Hey, Auralae, hope you’re doing well. I haven’t really followed the Blogging the Qur’an section all that much. Not that the topic doesn’t interest me. Maybe I’ll add a few comments in the future.
Looks to me like you love truth and anybody who loves truth is a friend of mine.
apacalyps on May 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I stand by that statement in its entirely: The idea of an immediate and permanent expulsion of all (or, as I said, the vast majority of) illegal aliens is lunacy. The idea of the “letter of the law” enforced to the last violator, without exception or compromise, is likewise lunacy - in every province of the law. An unwillingness to acknowledge the necessity of some trade-offs in any law enforcement regime, that some violators of the law will escape punishment, that any attempt at universal enforcement of virtually any form of law-breaking (from jaywalking to tax evasion to murder) is lunatic or extremist. Some murderers will get away with murder - always. Perfect justice is not achievable by human beings, and the few times anyone has tried to get near it are usually referred to as “reigns of terror.”
For the rest of the context, you can just re-read the relevant section of the original post: There are no absolutes on this one. No one has an absolute moral high ground. It’s a simple point that a child should be able to understand. Suggesting that anyone who asserts it must be Nazi-baiting like a “lefty” is either careless or dishonest - or, to add another alternative, maybe just dense.
CK MacLeod on May 21, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Comment pages: « 1