Like thousands of other undergraduates, I flocked to Washington, D.C. this summer to intern and build up my political resume. As summer is coming to a close and I will shortly be trading long days at the office for long nights at the library, an interesting event occurred during my final week at my internship at Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center.
I was chatting with one of my fellow interns when I noticed she had a stack of Pro-Life stickers, T-shirts, and pamphlets piled up on her desk. She apparently was given the material at one of Grover Norquist’s “Wednesday Meetings,” by someone who asked her if she would be interested in starting up a Pro-Life group on her college campus. Like a good young conservative activist eager to fight the liberal establishment, without hesitation she precipitously agreed.
My intern friend proceeded to ask me if I would like to have a sticker for my car. When I replied with a solemn “no,” she proceeded to Socratically question my position on abortion. When I told her that I do not consider myself “pro-life” or an evangelize for the movement, my friend was quite taken aback and looked almost insulted. My young colleague ardently disagreed with me, to no surprise as she is Catholic and a strong social conservative. But what’s notable was her initial response to my view of the issue, “Maybe you are working in the wrong place.”
Now of course the MRC is a conservative organization, and leans to the right on abortion. I chose to intern there because I am a conservative on foreign policy, immigration, economics, and basically every social issue, I don’t even consider myself “pro-choice.”
This kind of seclusion regarding social issues seems to be an overwhelming theme of the conservative movement and Republican party politics lately. More than once, I have been labeled a “squishy moderate” by my College Republican counterparts because of my view on abortion.
Apparently, gone are the days of Frank S. Meyer’s and William F. Buckley’s “fusionism.” While maybe supply-side economics won’t fix the financial problems of today, and SDI won’t help win the Cold War, a return to Reagan’s “big tent” philosophy would be a positive for conservatism. How can we rebuild a party when we practice seclusion rather than inclusion? Does one need to check every box on the conservative ideological checklist in order to be a Republican or a conservative?
76 responses so far
1 barker13 // Aug 28, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“Like thousands of other undergraduates, I flocked to Washington, D.C. this summer to intern and build up my political resume.”
Hmm… let me ask you a question, Sam, and please don’t take it the wrong way; pretend you’re in a philosophy class and I’m the professor just throwing this out for discussion:
Do you see this – this thousands of undergrads flocking to Washington DC to build “political” resumes – as a healthy thing for our country… for our society?
I mean this endless proliferation of staff, staff, and more staff… most of them with no real skills or experience other than hopefully being able to read and write in their own native language with a modicum of comprehension and skill… most seeking to either graduate and immediately “break in” to “the club” at the peon level or else go on to law school… is this something you see as a positive development?
(Hey… again… don’t take my question the wrong way and don’t personalize it as a shot at you. It’s not. Indeed, interning at the MRC is a far better and more useful gig for both you as the intern and them as the sponsor than had you interned for a Member of Congress or Senator.)
“…her initial response to my view of the issue, “Maybe you are working in the wrong place.””
Hey… she was WRONG. Still…
Is she good looking? (*GRIN*) Does she have… er… potential… from your perspective (*WINK*)
Hey… Sam… you’re a young guy – keep your perspective on its proper target!
“This kind of seclusion regarding social issues seems to be an overwhelming theme of the conservative movement…”
So you and the Frumites tell us… (and tell us… and tell us… and tell us…)
Well, my advice for you is to stand on your principles; just be ready to back them up with cogent, rational, intellectually consistent reasoning buttressed with fact. (*WINK*)
“This kind of seclusion regarding social issues seems to be an overwhelming theme of the conservative movement…”
Again… (*SIGH*)… right out of the “Frumite Handbook.” (*CHUCKLE*) Attack the movement. Hold yourself aloft as an example of… umm… a more “reasonable” conservatism.
“More than once, I have been labeled a “squishy moderate” by my College Republican counterparts because of my view on abortion.”
Suck it up. (*SNORT*) Either prepare yourself to out-think, out-fight, out-drink, or out-score your peer detractors.
What the hell is WRONG with your generation…??? Can’t you take a little ball busting? And if the ball busting goes beyond the pale… then respond by beating your “opponents” at their own game.
(*SHRUG*)
“…a return to Reagan’s “big tent” philosophy…”
Son. I’m 47. My first presidential vote was for Ronald Reagan. I worked for his re-election – IN BOSTON! The fact that Reagan’s “big tent” philosophy extended to making George H.W. Bush his VP and thus heir apparent (and then heir!) was what led to the end of the Reagan era and the beginning of the Clinton era.
Sam. Stick around. Read my posts. (*WINK*) Beware the false promises of… er… “Frumism.”
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
BILL
2 joemarier // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I think this from MP Hannan is on point…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6103235/There-is-no-harm-in-agreeing-to-disagree.html
3 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I am 47 too. But I never considered fusionism before, but I voted for Regan. He made me feel good.
4 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm
5 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:42 pm
6 dmalone1 // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Maybe your intern friend is working in the wrong place? If she feels that strongly, why doesn’t she join Operation Rescue, and devote herself entirely to it? The future of the Republican party will be safer in decidedly more inclusive and tolerant hands.
7 MFarmer // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Yes, you can dissent, she can dissent, I can dissent. Isn’t this a wonderful country — so far.
I sometimes wonder, if the conservative base believes the moderates are chasing true conservatives away for the election booth, and moderates believe the base is preventing cultural diversity growth in the Republican Party, which one is right, and why? Are there enough “true” conservatives to win an election, without women and minorities? Would a more moderate approach bring women and minorities to the Republican Party and win back power, even if it chased the base away?
8 BoolaBoola // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:07 pm
You should have told her: right-to-lifism is murder and ALL right-to-lifers are murderers. It doesn’t have to make sense. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it.
9 MFarmer // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Or tell her that for every child that’s born, at least 100 quiet nights out for a peaceful dinner are ruined.
10 sricher // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Bob, did you really just call the author “son?”
You can’t in the same breathe say something that makes you sound like you’re 85, and then turn around and give girl advice like you’re 30…
Unless of course the “son” was just intended to be belittling…
And for whatever faults you suggest “Frumism” may have, at least Frum treated Sam like a grown person and let him post his article… I would bet there weren’t any “sons” or “sports” in their email exchanges…
It pains me to say this because I love your loyalty to this site, and I like a lot of the points you raise… But I just had to say something about this.
11 Moderate // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Hi Sam,
I’m also a current member of C.R. (an elected officer at my school’s group). My views – moderate to conservative not just on abortion and social issues, but on foreign policy and economic issues – are probably to the right of 2/3rds of voters, but to the left of 80% of C.R.
My solution was to get elected so that I could have a part in setting the agenda. This year, our group is making a concerted effort to downplay socially contentious issues and to be more inclusive of a campus populace which voted for Obama at a 95% clip.
Maybe it’s not feasible to downplay abortion at your school. No matter, though, you and any fellow moderates should (if you’re not already) angle for leadership positions so that the rigid ideologues aren’t the face of your C.R.
12 Moderate // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Re-reading your article, I mistakenly assumed that you were a member of C.R. That’s not clear at all on second glance.
Umm, to stay on topic, most of my above post could be applied to any level of Republican organizing, really.
13 balconesfault // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:31 am
barker: “Do you see this – this thousands of undergrads flocking to Washington DC to build “political” resumes – as a healthy thing for our country… for our society?”
Wow. Barker and I have exactly the same reaction to something. Put it in the books!
I can understand young people hitching onto politics because there’s something they feel super passionate about … that an issue or candidate is more important than all the other things they could be doing with their lives at that time.
But resume building via political wankery? I can already see these youngsters sitting around in Washginton for the summer in a well fitted office, writing up the next e-mail or direct mail solicitation to the party faithful …
“are you tired of our system being led by inside-the beltway career politicos with no real world experience and no interest in anything except getting their hands on your money so they can advance their careers? Contribute now to fight this scourge!”
14 sinz54 // Aug 29, 2009 at 10:58 am
What I would have discussed with this young lady are the benefits of a Republican “50 state strategy,” in which Republican candidates are actively supported to run against Democrats in all 50 states.
And if she thinks that’s a good idea, I would follow up by asking her whether a staunchly pro-life social conservative could win in Oregon or Vermont.
The Dems’ 50 state strategy required them to run “Blue Dog Dems” and “Fighting Dems” who were more moderate than the base on budget issues and national defense. Their base actively supported those candidates, despite their ideological differences–because the base really, really wanted to win a majority in Congress.
The GOP base seems to feel the opposite: They would rather remain a consistently ideological minority, all marching in lockstep on everything, than become a big tent with room for differences of opinion.
And that’s because if you ask them, they will tell you they are conservatives first and Republicans second (if at all). They care more about being true to conservatism than about winning a majority by making alliances with those who may disagree with them on some issues.
And that mindset has to change.
The base of the party has to care about the party as much as it cares about ideology.
15 barker13 // Aug 29, 2009 at 11:58 am
Re: Sricher // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:57 pm (#11) –
“Bob, did you really just call the author “son?””
(*SNORT*) It’s… er… BILL.. not “Bob.” (*WINK*)
And yes… I did throw a “son” out there. (It breaks up the monotony.)
“You can’t in the same breathe say something that makes you sound like you’re 85, and then turn around and give girl advice like you’re 30…”
Sure I can! Heck… I did! (*GRIN*)
“Unless of course the “son” was just intended to be belittling…”
No. (Seriously… no.) (*SHRUG*) It’s just part of my writing style.
(Sricher… com’on… if you follow my posts even a bit you’ll know that when my goal is to “belittle” I’m not at all coy about it.) (*CHUCKLE*)
“And for whatever faults you suggest “Frumism” may have, at least Frum treated Sam like a grown person and let him post his article…”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Sricher. I rarely “suggest.” I’m more prone to come right out and say. (*WINK*)
Next… are you REALLY suggesting that Frum deserves a pat on the back simply for “accepting” Sam’s contribution? If anything Frum owes Sam “thanks” for the free labor – just as he owes all of us regulars thanks. (*SHRUG*)
Anyway… Frum’s a big boy. If he has anything to say to me he has both this blog and my email address. Heck… he’s always welcome to post whatever comments he sees fit at MY personal blog. (*SHRUG*)
“…I love your loyalty to this site…”
(*GRIN*) Don’t love my “loyalty.” Love my insights. (*SMILE*)
“…I like a lot of the points you raise…”
(*CHUCKLE*) “Like…???” As in “appreciate?” Or do you mean “agree?” (I hope the latter!)
“It pains me to say this… … But I just had to say something about this.”
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
Sricher. By your tone it sounds like you’re worried you’re offending me! Nonsense! It’s cool, dude! (Or dudette!) Everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion while I find what YOU apparently found off-putting to be slightly comical, I’m certainly not “offended” by your critique.
Hey… one final comment: Do you have ANY thoughts regarding the meat of my post #1?
* Hey, Sam… what happened to you, buddy…??? Ya gonna respond to us or not?
BILL
16 barker13 // Aug 29, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:31 am (#14) –
“Wow. Barker and I have exactly the same reaction to something. Put it in the books!”
(*ADDING A CHECK MARK TO THE BOOK*) O.K., Balc… done! (*WINK*)
Balc. What do you think of the follow as an interesting story topic for an enterprising “local” reporter to look into and report on:
Of all the staff employees working for “the local Congressman” in Washington and in his district offices, how many of the non-clerical aides have degrees in… finance… a bachelor’s in a chemistry, biology, physics, engineering… specific training and personal experience “doing” construction or indeed any useful?
Same question regarding the staffs of the two Senators representing the newspaper’s state.
(*SHRUG*)
Yes, yes, I know… the “experts” are on the committee staffs… but these experts get their reports FILTERED through the direct member staff.
(*SHRUG*)
My point… we largely have the blind leading the blind in Washington. This is why lobbyists have such power. It’s not just the bribes… er… contributions… it’s the fact that most of these folks don’t know as much as you, me, or Sinz on a wide variety of topics (which you, I and Sinz often disagree on amongst ourselves).
And it gets WORSE from year to year. (*SHRUG*)
Hey… an experiment: Call up your congressman (congresswoman?) and both of your Senators and ask how many military veterans they have on direct full-time staff?
Hell… ask your congressman (if he or she is a liberl) how many conservatives he or she has on staff and if your congressman is a conservative ask how many liberals he or she has on staff.
(*SHRUG*)
See what I’m getting at…???
Lack of knowledge ADDED to lack of ideological diversity… it’s a bad combo.
BILL
17 rbottoms // Aug 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm
No.
You do need to work on that one:
18 sinz54 // Aug 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm
THIS IS A TEST. PLEASE IGNORE. THIS IS ONLY A TEST.
THIS HAS BEEN A TEST. WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULAR DISCUSSION.
19 Churl // Aug 29, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Yes, Sam, you can, at least for now, dissent all you want. And others can dissent right back at you. Get used to it.
Now, finish school and get a job in the real world and maybe get a wife and father a kid or two and get a taste of real life before you move to DC and start telling the rest of us how to live our lives.
20 barker13 // Aug 29, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm (#19) –
***OFF TOPIC***
Ya know, guys… and perhaps it’s only me… (*GRIN*)… but this whole “giant quote marks” graphic presentation (aligned or not!) gets on my nerves the same way my particular… er… “style” of adding “expression inserts” into my posts annoys some of you.
(*SHRUG*)
Oh, well… different strokes for different folks!
(*WINK*)
BILL
21 greg_barton // Aug 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Dissent is not allowed, unless you’re against a Democrat. Get used to it.
22 greg_barton // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:01 pm
BTW, it’s “an evangelist for the movement” not “evangelize”.
23 sinz54 // Aug 29, 2009 at 8:02 pm
The “blockquote” tags are the preferred way in HTML to quote someone else’s material. That New Majority’s website designer chose to implement “blockquote” in that cheesy way was a mistake–but a mistake that can be fixed, if enough of us complain and demand a more streamlined implementation.
I intend to.
24 greg_barton // Aug 29, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Opinion.
25 Chekote // Aug 29, 2009 at 10:06 pm
What I would have told her is that conservative means limited government, strong defense and individual freedom. It has nothing to do with social issues. We need to reclaim the meaning of “conservative”. Otherwise, the movement is doomed. For goodness sake, we have been fighting about abortion for almost 40 years and nothing has changed, legally speaking. ONE procedure was made illegal. That’s it. How many more decades will it take before the pro-lifers realize that Americans don’t want government to get between a woman and her doctor? Why is Obamacare so unpopular? It is not the stupid death panels or the latest idiocy coming out of Palin’s Facebook. It has to do with the FACT that Americans don’t want government involved in the doctor-patient relationship.
26 balconesfault // Aug 29, 2009 at 11:59 pm
It has nothing to do with social issues.
Too bad nobody told this to John McCain before he selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate!
27 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:23 am
balconesfault // Aug 29, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Agreed.
28 sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:23 am
Chekote: “What I would have told her is that conservative means limited government, strong defense and individual freedom. It has nothing to do with social issues.”
That is incorrect on both theoretical and historical grounds.
The original definition of conservatism antedates the issues of national defense and libertarianism. It meant a philosophy that tries to preserve traditions and supports slow change. Among those traditions were a traditional view of religion, sexual relations, marriage, family, etc. Remember that William F. Buckley, who practically single-handedly created modern conservatism, first became famous for his first book “God and Man at Yale,” in which he argued that modern universities were forcing secularism on their students, breaking down their traditional religious beliefs. As far back as the 1950s, conservatives like Buckley drew their moral code from Christianity (for which they were sharply criticized by Ayn Rand, whose ideas would be incorporated into modern libertarianism).
Note that in the 1930s, America’s staunchest conservatives were against a strong military. They consistently fought FDR’s attempts to rearm America. And in the earliest days of the Cold War, the staunchest conservatives, like Taft, were against the Marshall Plan, NATO, etc., and wanted us to abandon Europe and withdraw to Fortress America.
More recently, social conservatives, who opposed the counterculture with its libertine morals, made their alliance with economic conservatives (whom I believe you are championing) circa 1978. They’ve been allies ever since, against the common enemies of foreign socialism and domestic liberalism.
So when you say that “conservative” has nothing to do with social issues, you are erasing about 50 years of American history.
I would like to see social issues de-emphasized for the present. I believe that conservatives have more winning arguments to offer. But that just represents a re-ordering of domestic priorities.
29 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:43 am
So when you say that “conservative” has nothing to do with social issues, you are erasing about 50 years of American history.
And what did Buckley want the government to do about religion? Impose it as many of the current crop of SoCons want to do? I don’t think so. The SoCons need to fight cultural battles in cultural institutions. That is the lesson still to learn. Yes, conservative means you want to preserve and embrace prudent change in terms of culture. But that not the same as SoCons wanting to push the teaching of evolution in science classes. Denying rights to gays based on the belief that it is sin and denying women the right to control their reproductive life because of religious doctrine.
To say that social issues should take a back seat is not workable and it is wrong. You cannot say you want a limited government and yet push the SoCon agenda I described above. You cannot say you don’t want government involved in health care but push for legislation that would put government between a woman and her doctor. SoCons should vote for the GOP because they agree with our principles of limited government, strong defense and individual freedom. If the only reason they are voting for the GOP is that ridiculous pro-life plank, then we are better off without their vote.
Finally, you can disagree over policies like the Marshall Plan and still be for a strong defense. The GOP puts the national interests above all else. The Dems have a tendency to want to subject national interests to the veto of the international community. That is what I mean by a strong defense.
30 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:45 am
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 29, 2009 at 8:02 pm (#24) –
“The “blockquote” tags are the preferred way in HTML…”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Yadda, yadda, yadda, Sinz. (*SNORT*)
It’s frigg’n ANNOYING. (And you seem to be agreeing with me even while “prefacing” your agreement with a “shot.”
Why can’t you just come across as a normal human being and write something along the lines of…
“Bill’s right.”
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
31 barker13 // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:43 am (#30) –
“And what did Buckley want…”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Chekote. Were you THIS annoying as a student in school…???
Seriously! Yes, Sinz can get on my nerves too, but when he’s right he’s right; and Sinz was absolutely 100% dead on with regard to his post #29.
Now I know it’s human nature not to appreciate being told you’re wrong, but for Christ’s sake… learn to live with it and indeed APPRECIATE it when someone corrects you in such a way as to ADD to your knowledge and thus hopefully save you from advancing incorrect theories in the future.
BILL
32 Cforchange // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Sam has hit gold – the base is on a religious mission not one of fielding candidates who are exceptional at managing government. If this was not so, we most likely would be talking about Rudy accomplished today!
Come to it folks, we are fighting an interparty religous war. The minority has been loosing but so to is the GOP.
33 anniemargret // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:43 pm
chekote: “The GOP puts the national interests above all else. The Dems have a tendency to want to subject national interests to the veto of the international community. That is what I mean by a strong defense.”
Pooh. Hyperbole.
The Democrats want a strong military; we are just against waging wars against countries that did us no harm – actually a more ‘conservative’ viewpoint than all those Iraq war supporters of Bush/Cheney who never asked a single question about whether or not it was strategically important to do so.
This is yet another broadbrush against Democrats who are also, like Republicans, are not easily confined to a single ideology. I am myself, a left of center Dem, and on social issues, I tend to think liberally, but can appreciate the concern for the rising deficits.
I am still, and always was, for a strong military, but I dislike militarism. There is a difference. I don’t this this country needs to be involved in every skirmish on the planet, nor do we need to be invading ‘pre-emptively’ unless there is an immediate and clearly distinctive and proven need to do so. Bush/Cheney manipulated the fear of 9/11 to invade Iraq. That doesn’t sit well with me, nor with millions of others. We need a transparency from the White House on putting our military in harm’s way and draining financial resources.
And that does not describe what has happened in Iraq, which by and large Republicans and conservatives still support unilaterally. The few that spoke out against it were quickly denounced by their party.
Democrats also believe in garnering allies, not supporting the bullying tactics of the previous administration. Thousands cheered Obama in Europe. You think this is a bad thing??
We need an intelligence system that works *with allies to unite against fighting worldwide terrorism. Calling the French names is idiotic, as is Rumsfeld’s ‘old Europe’ rant. Neither was constructive, neither assisted this country is fighting terrorism.
And as for the GOP putting ‘national interests’ above all else…please… They put partisan politics above all else. Healthcare reform is necessary-the status quo is unsustainable. If both parties can discuss the merits/demerits about how to contain the costs of healthcare reform, fine. But we are 37th in the world in good healthcare, just below Slovenia. Millions do without insurance, and I have a an adult child, one among my three, who is among them. This is a national disgrace.
The question of government between the patient and the doctor sounds just fine as a political point, but insurance companies have been putting themselves between the patient and the doctor for decades, haven’t they?
btw, Chekote: I have agreed with you on some issues, and if this blog is going to mean anything, it would be worthwhile to debate issues, and I think you are less abrasive than some others here. I agree the Religious Right has intruded itself dangerously in American politics, and I am solidly in favor of separation of church and state, even I consider myself still a Roman Catholic. This is a ‘conservative’ positition, or used to be. I also agree with you about abortion. If the ’social conservatives’ spent as much time worrying about reducing poverty and costs of poverty, as they do about abortions, we would make some headway. If they would worry more about the costs of ‘domestic violence’ against women and children in this country as they do about abortion, we would make some headway, both from a moral issue, as well as a financial one.
Again, these should be ‘conservative’ issues, yet I am a registered Democrat, and see no reason why I would be changing my political party any time soon, given the nasty abrasive nature the GOP has adopted in the past decade.
34 balconesfault // Aug 30, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Sinz: Among those traditions were a traditional view of religion, sexual relations, marriage, family, etc.
If I may be so bold … wasn’t the very idea of America – rejecting the Church of England, rejecting the Divine Right of Kings in order to embrace Democracy, believing that God may have given us unalientable rights, but that mankind better develop some strong secular institutions to protect those rights given how poor the the Church had done in that regard over the ages … completely and thoroughly based in a liberal view of religion, given the time?
35 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The Democrats want a strong military; we are just against waging wars against countries that did us no harm – actually a more ‘conservative’ viewpoint than all those Iraq war supporters of Bush/Cheney who never asked a single question about whether or not it was strategically important to do so.
Annie, please stop refighting the rationale behind the Iraq War. Let’s face it. At the time, the majority of Americans supported the invasion as did the majority of the Senate. The policy of regime change in Iraq was adopted in 1998 under the Clinton Administration and was approved by the Senate by a 98-0 vote or something like that. (too lazy to look it up now). 9/11 and the fear of another attack combined with bad international intelligence (thanks to Saddam Hussein wanting his neighbors to think he had WMDs) let to the Iraq War. It was a unique situation and it is not a test of whether one is for a strong defense. What I was referring to in my post was the infamous “global test” proposed by Kerry during one of the debates with Bush. It was not hyperbole.
36 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:17 pm
And as for the GOP putting ‘national interests’ above all else…please…
I was referring to foreign policy and the GOP is generally unshamed about protecting American interests abroad. No “global tests” like the most Dems who seem to think that apologizing and seeking an international consensus is preferable. I don’t know why you brought health care into the discussion. I was talking about foreign policy/defense.
37 Chekote // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:30 pm
But we are 37th in the world in good healthcare, just below Slovenia. Millions do without insurance, and I have a an adult child, one among my three, who is among them. This is a national disgrace.
Those stats are ridiculous and you should not base policy on them. I have lived and experienced the health care systems in the USA, Europe (Italy mostly) and Central America. There is no comparison between the quality and level of care you get in this country vs. the other places. The reason we spend more on health care is because you get more care. Most sophisticated tests, treatments, medication. In the other countries where I lived, the tests are fewer. The treatment is less and the waiting time is longer. Also, even at US county hospitals you get a semi-private room. My mother in Italy was in a large room with another nine or ten patients. No air conditioning. In Central America, my sister-in-law’s bed after giving birth was parked in a hallway because they didn’t have any room. So there she was trying to nurse her newborn daughter as nurses and visitors were passing by. No private rooms. No pretty wall paper with nice art. No TVs with cable. No DVDplayers like you have in the US. Some of the hospitals feel like hotels compared to what I experience abroad. We have problems in our system for sure. They need to be addressed. But please, let’s not pretend that you get better care in Slovenia.
38 anniemargret // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:48 pm
chekote: we cannot get into a tit for tat debate on the merits and demerits of whether we get better healthcare in this country vs Europe. I know many, many people who have gone thru horror stories here in this country, and others will say otherwise. We all know people in other countries who will support you and your contention and others who won’t.
I really don’t care about wallpaper or a private room. I DO care about my son who fell thru the cracks, who due to a ‘pre-existing chronic condition’ and who cannot qualify for Medicaid because he is just above the poverty level guidelines, and the millions of other Americans who must worry themselves sick about their children, spouses, mothers or fathers. As I said I am a Christian in heart and soul, and my ethics cannot square with ignoring the plight of these people.
My sister was recently dx’d with a tumor and her primary care physician told her she would need to see an endrocrinologist asap because they felt it was cancerous. Not only could she not get in for 3 months (!) to see one, even her own primary care doctor could not break that long interim. Her good fortune won out in the end, because it was a pre-cancerous tumor only, but her and her family’s agony for three months was a scary thing for them all.
Is is common? perhaps…probably more common than you think. My point was a simple one. The status quo is unsustainable; the costs of healthcare are skyrocketing, bankrupting thousands, while the recession increases these numbers because people are losing their jobs – and their healthcare with it. btw: I had a wonderful experience in England with my former husband, who almost died from toxic poisoning – he got excellent healthcare, immediate and complete and we walked out of the hospital debt-free.
For every horror story about Europe and elsewhere, there are excellent stories. Stories abound. We need to look at the best situation in Europe and the best aspects of our healthcare here and work on it.
I would like to see the Republicans work seriously on this issue with Democrats and Obama. But they are not. They are posturing and hoping the clock will run out, thinking it will put them back in power.
Also: The stats are true, not ‘ridiculous.’ Look it up.
39 anniemargret // Aug 30, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Chekote: Kerry wasn’t the best spokesman at the time for the Democrats.
40 ltoro1 // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Sam, you should feel free to dissent on whatever you want. However, you should not feel entitled to be free from disagreement.
41 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:21 am
Kerry wasn’t the best spokesman at the time for the Democrats.
Same with Bush. As far as England. You care was not debt free. Someone else picked up your tab. So England is great for toxic food poisining but please check out the cancer survival rates compared to the US. I agree there are problems that need to be addressed. I don’t need some stat that God knows what methodology was used to arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that Slovenia has better care. How many heads of states have gone to Slovenia to get care? I know many have come to the US.
42 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:49 am
Ireign: “However, if Democrats drop the public option, they can pull at least 5 or 10 Republicans.”
I disagree. Grassley and others have already stated that a bill should have 75-80 votes … in other words, should not pass unless a majority of the Republican Delegation supports it. And Republicans will enforce discipline to avoid giving Obama any “win”. I will bet against more than 3 Republicans voting for anything called “Health Care Reform” this session.
43 rbottoms // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:55 am
Lucy: Look Charlie Brown, I promise I won’t pull the ball away this time. Really.
44 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:10 am
Can YOU give an example of a majority conservative party in any western country in which social conservatives are DOMINANT, and in which social conservatives write the entire domestic portion of the party’s platform?
I never objected to social conservatives being in the GOP. I do object to the fact that they seem to have become the public face of the GOP, with the domestic part of the GOP’s platform being tailored just for them.
On domestic issues, the 2004 and 2008 GOP platforms are hard-right platforms; there is not even any acknowledgment that there are other views in the GOP (as there used to be in the 1972 and 1976 platforms).
45 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:14 am
Sarah Palin was known in Alaska as a reformer, not as a crusader for the Religious Right.
But ever since she became nationally known, she’s stuck to social issues. (She’s opposing ObamaCare on its alleged “death panels,” not on its cost or its effect on the private insurance market.)
That’s because on social issues, it’s easy to shoot from the hip without having to know very much. Sarah Palin can talk about her son Trig and the rest of her family and abortion and “death panels.” It’s a lot harder to discuss whether to raise taxes or raise interest rates or reach out to Russia to try to get them to approve sanctions against Iran or whether Iran can be deterred by America’s nuclear umbrella. To answer those questions takes homework and real evidence; and so far, Sarah Palin has shown no inclination to do that.
46 jmac82 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:03 am
Sam, as a recent MRC employee, I can tell you that intern is NOT representative. I depart from conservative orthodoxy on a few issues, and while I had spirited debate with my coworkers, I never felt a sense of exclusion. There are several secular libertarians on staff who never indicated they felt they’re in the “wrong organization.”
47 Cforchange // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:12 am
Perfect Sinz – that’s the issue.
Further ireign, examing your own words:
“College Republicans tend to be among the most hardcore conservatives. Of course, anyone who distances themselves from the Republican platform is going to be more liberal amongst that group. On the plus side, with a few exceptions (think Karl Rove, who generally considered more liberal in that crowd), most that are involved in the college Republicans don’t end up playing that big of a role in shaping the party’s future. ”
So if the college republican’s are the most hardcore “conservatives” which you must concede is primarily Pro Life – don’t you think that has an absolutely huge role in shaping the party’s future? If this force discourages youth membership because of this single issue and the party dwindles as it has – they have a huge voice in a non majority crowd. Isn’t this classic big fish, little pond? Isn’t that what the Right to Lifers want – one view, doesn’t matter how many voices??? Hence the cry of Rhino, leave and we’ll build from here! This is precisely what Sam is trying to inform the group about – it’s a huge problem.
I’ve experienced this very encounter and I’ve been a registered Republican for over 20 years. I’ve experienced this in the first person, not on some anoymous blog – Just like Sam I’ve been told this is not the party for me. Come on ireign, if your’re Pro Life be honest you feel the same way. The only reason that you would possibly back down is that we’re losing. Losing members, losing elections and not recruiting even close to a majority.
Sinz has the timing correct – the Life mission has moved center front. The line in the sand has been drawn. But not everyone in the party agrees so here we blog, everywhere else we lose our footing as a party. Party recruitment has been a failure and just how long do you think existing members are going to stick around if they’re told to leave because of their view on abortion while at the same time, GOP leadership has just flat out disgraced themselves in the economic arena. How can we trust “the base” to select the next candidate -their judgement has been proved to be distorted.
Life for many a living child has become near hell all prior to the election of BO. Everything contributing to this hell has fallen on deaf GOP ears which indicates to me that the party focus has been one of irrational consideration of one single issue. Interestingly, the base appeared content because of their silence during the past 8 years. Perhaps they were thinking they were progressing on their “real issue” but in reality the population at large had abandoned their noise to focus on faltering prosperity. We’ve been left in the dust.
irreign, in your very own words you unwillingly reveal the true problem.
48 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Hey…?!?!
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
What ever happened to Sam Theodosopoulos…???
(*ROFLMAO*)
BILL
49 Rightwingsparkle // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:46 pm
No, you don’t have to “check every box on the conservative ideological checklist in order to be a Republican or a conservative,” but being pro-life is foundational. If we don’t stand up for life, then who will? We are the party that understands the value of each and every human life. It is probably the most important part of the party platform. Without the right to life, all other rights are moot.
You should have listened more closely to that intern. She is very intelligent, compassionate, and wise.
I should know. She’s my daughter.
50 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Re: Rightwingsparkle // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:46 pm (#51) –
“…being pro-life is foundational.”
To you. (*SHRUG*)
And, hey… I respect that! Just don’t insist that I take the same line. (*SHRUG*)
“It is probably the most important part of the party platform.”
To YOU.
Again…
To YOU.
Not to me. (*SHRUG*)
“She’s my daughter.”
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Oh, wow… Sam… Sam… Sam… I’d LOVE to know how this is playing out as a personal drama over at the MRC – what office blowback there’s been!
Jeez… the girl’s MOM is calling you out here at NM.
(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
* Hey… good for you, “Intern’s mom.” (*WINK*) We may disagree on the issue, but in terms of having the guts to express yourself rather than simply throw out a hit & run “contribution…”
You’re MY kind of Republican, RWS; Sam… not so much.
51 sktheo // Aug 31, 2009 at 5:35 pm
First of all, my post wasn’t an attack on the MRC as some have claimed. There is not a word of criticism directed towards them. Moreover, I was not suggesting that they a “close minded” outfit that doesn’t tolerate different viewpoints. I wrote about a specific exchange with a fellow intern, in no way was I trying to characterize the MRC. I greatly respect the organization and the great job they have done and continue to do regarding the liberal media.
My point is that a return to a “big tent” and “fusionism” kind of philosophy would be positive for a party that is in desperate need of reclaiming moderates. That is not to say that the GOP should not remain the party of the pro-life movement, or that they should moderate their platform regarding other social issues. However, we should not label those who dissent on certain issues “persona non gratia” but unite with them on other issues where they do identify as conservative.
In regards to rightwingsparkle, I did listen to your daughter and I was friendly with her and I think for the most part she liked me, though I wouldnt be surprised if that has changed. She is very smart, driven, and talented. My post was in no way meant to show her in a negative light. Actually, she was’nt even the intern involved in the exchange!
52 Rightwingsparkle // Aug 31, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Well, when I spoke with her she mentioned that another intern might be the one in the post, but I had three people tell me it was about my daughter. Oh well, you need not worry. She still likes you. She doesn’t stop liking someone just because they disagree with her and neither do I! I appreciate the compliments about her.
To my point about it being foundational. What I mean by that is that any other issue that you care about, foreign policy, immigration, economics don’t mean much if one doesn’t have the right to live.
Our platform says this:
“Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
We sometimes forget that this belief is grounded in “the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence.”
53 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Should Conservatives embrace identity politics and promise goodies to minority groups? Like no criminal charges for murdering the voiceless? Preferences based on skin color or ethnicity for education? That should sway them over to our side….but what’s the point in that?
Western women should be eternally shamed for using their newly gained economic and political power to immediately commence the mass murder (human rights abuse) of the unborn, the most vulnerable minority on the planet, for their social and economic benefit.
54 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The question should be…..can other people dissent from you?
55 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Western women should be eternally shamed for using their newly gained economic and political power to immediately commence the mass murder (human rights abuse) of the unborn, the most vulnerable minority on the planet, for their social and economic benefit.”
Go ahead and espouse that – but you’re living in a country where a large percentage of the population does not consider abortion to be murder. And this after 40 plus years of highly heated rhetoric on the issue. If you think “scream louder” is going to help here, which seems to be the whole point of the Palin-wing of the party right now, is going to be wholly counterproductive to the Republican Party – but scream away. It’s essentially a theological debate, and theological debates are so often won by raising the rhetoric.
56 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:30 am
Yes, I can hear you now, telling the Christians that Slavery is just the way it is, you are only marginalizing yourself with your radical anti slavery politics.
Slavery is a theological debate?
57 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:46 am
So in your estimation, human rights are defined by the Left and any minority or groups that they think should have their human rights violated in the most egregious of manner, no one should oppose the willy nilly genocide of that group, based on political calculations for power.
Um, I think Ill stick to defending liberty and human rights.
58 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:46 am
Slavery is a theological debate?
Apparently to some it is, given the number of biblical verses which defend slavery, which were used by slaveowners to justify the institution for decades. In fact, I’d say that the humanist arguments were what swamped the theological … there WAS a theological debate over slavery, thanks in no small part to the Bible, but there was not debate whatsoever from a humanistic/freedom perspective.
59 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:50 am
So Marx was A OK with the institution of slavery? rollseyes
So the most egregious human rights abuse in this country no one should say a word about, but Gays not being able to marry is a travesty that cannot be abided…..and shame on folks for opposing gay marriage and opposing abortion.
It doesnt get any crazier than that!
60 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Where the hell did Marx come into this discussion?
Again, a large percentage of your fellow countrymen do not consider fetuses to have rights independent of the will of the woman who carries them. To grant a fetus rights against the will of the woman basically is a way of commandeering her body for the service of the state, reducing her to a status of incubator. Childbirth is a phenomenal experience for a woman who wants a child … but I would not decide that a woman who does not want one should be forced by the state to go through all the physical and hormonal changes and take the risks of delivery for some imagined rights of the unborn.
61 Cforchange // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm
escapereality – I ask you the same question. Should Conservatives embrace identity politics and promise goodies to minority groups?
There are plenty of other severe injustices experienced by American living children, not putting these crimes on equal footing has been very damaging to the GOP. If only someone would march to end freedom for sexual predators or stop junkie hookers getting paid for children, usually at least 5, in their care maybe then would I see that the GOP’s platform for life as one of reason. However, hearing Coulter justify gunning down a man at his place of worship as a tit for tat puts “Life” GOP style in very clear perspective.
Dissenting??? Remember this discussion started because someone asked Sam if he was registered to the proper party over his belief. You are correct in asserting that like minded Sams are the minority in the GOP but then again the GOP is a minority itself. Connect the dots, connect the dots….
62 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Yes, Slavery was excused and apologized for as well……blacks are infantile and or sub human, inferior, dont you know. We cant infringe upon slaveowners property rights!
So was any number of egregious human rights abuses thoughout history. Look at the Nazis and the Jews…..or the Cultural Revolution in China…..or the slaugther of Native Americans in teh US.
People in centuries to come will look back on horror at the mass slaughter of human life that is abortion, just as we look back upon slavery with revulsion.
And you defend that.
Shame on you too.
63 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Some people vehemently believe that their egregious human rights abuse is justified or that they benefit greatly from it and want to continue abusing others human rights…..and it may be uncomfortable and unpleasant to break these human rights abusers, however….
“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”
64 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:31 pm
People in centuries to come will look back on horror at the mass slaughter of human life that is abortion, just as we look back upon slavery with revulsion.
As I said … scream louder. It is certainly the pathway to a New Majority. Out of curiousity, do you consider a woman using an IUD to be a murderer?
65 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:35 pm
You are correct in asserting that like minded Sams are the minority in the GOP but then again the GOP is a minority itself. Connect the dots, connect the dots…. CforChange
As you well know, Conservatives via their religion and churches do advocate helping the poor and teh needy, and put their money where their mouth is. However you seem to think that they are somehow lacking by not advocating government programs and welfare statist solutions.
So your argument about Conservatives not caring is just Leftwing talking points not based in fact or reality. Your real disagreement is in advocating for government and statist solutions. It doesnt surprise me that you are both ill informed and indoctrinated into believing that the secular state is the great redeemer and promises a pathway to utopian visions….via the schools system, historical revisionism and the media and hollywood….but alas.
The Josef Mengele of Partial Birth Abortions was more than just a doctor doing his duty. You probably dont know that, being as ill informed and propagandized as you seem to be. That being said, murder is murder. However, I wouldnt shed a tear for Himler either.
66 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Of course, I havent been screaming. Your problem seems to be that I speak for the Unborn Minority’s rights at all.
And that in a nutshell is your problem.
Furthermore, while I abhor the tactics of screeming and yelling that the New Left instituted in the 60s and have made the Established Political Zeitgeist Reality of today…..someone has to counter them. If you dont like this form of political action(which has been very effective for the Left over the last 40 years) then you should put a stop to it, but ending it on the Left. Ending it on the Conservative side will only yeild the public sphere to the Left and they will continue to successfully weild it. But maybe that is exactly your politics anyway…that the Right should yeild to the Left, that Leftwingism is enevitable, and things would be more pleasant if no one put up futile resistance.
67 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“Of course, I havent been screaming.”
Look at the Nazis and the Jews
Sorry man, but going Godwin is the internet version of screaming.
68 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm
balconesfault:
Kathryn Jean Lopez, now editor of the National Review, has crusaded against all forms of birth control:
“Women weren’t liberated when they were told they could act like men sexually, because anyone who lives in the real world knows that biologically and practically, such a thing is impossible. And if you doubt that, watch Jennifer Aniston’s character in He’s Just Not That into You. It was the sexual revolution that made her misery possible — living into her 40s with a guy who didn’t have to think about real commitment thanks to the Pill.”
–Kathryn Jean Lopez
Ms. Lopez has stated that preventing abortion through birth control is not enough for her. She believes it’s important for women to become less sexually active, and to remain virgins till marriage.
I guess that means that Condoleeza Rice, who never married, has to remain a virgin.
69 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This argument that woman are not capable of being responsible for their own actions is utter tripe and frankly disrespectful to woman as equal intelligent rational human beings.
Actions have consequences. The Left would like to disassociate actions from consequences, by ensuring equal outcomes….also known as radical egalitarianism. In this fashion they can use the state to equalize everyone, no matter their actions or even cultures that produce ill effects for individuals.
Woman do not have to get pregnant. They can refrain from having intercourse which ensures that they will not get pregnant. They can use available birth controls and hope for the best….but if they get pregnant then they have to willing to live with the consequences….the responsibility of bearing and raising a child.
So you are either infantilizing women….or you are allowing women to abuse others rights in subservience to their own selfish social and economic benefit…..or both. And either or both are dispicable…..and lack respect for women and unborn children.
This idea that women are so weak willed and mentally deficient that they cant be held responsible for their own actions….and thus become entrapped as subservients to the patriarchy or the state is so pathetic, that I cant believe that you are making it.
70 sinz54 // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm
rightswingsparkle:
That answers that. I’ll remain a registered Independent.
BTW, single women are the second fastest growing voting bloc in America. Most of them will stay out of the GOP too.
71 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm
If you dont want to stand by principles of human rights, even if that makes you the minority. Then I suggest you leave the Republican Party and join the Democrats or create a Third Party.
72 balconesfault // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm
This idea that women are so weak willed and mentally deficient that they cant be held responsible for their own actions
Actually, it is you who is arguing that women are so mentally (or at least, morally) deficient that they cannot be entrusted with deciding whether a non-sentient clump of cells within their body should be allowed to remain there.
73 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:22 pm
BTW, another version of the Women cant help themselves so others rights should be trampled upon…..is the Islamic Burqua. Men cant help themselves so womens rights should be trampled upon.
Or that rape should not be criminalized because men cant help themselves, she was wearing provacative clothing.
This is what you are doing with women and the unborn.
74 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Actually, it is you who is arguing that women are so mentally (or at least, morally) deficient that they cannot be entrusted with deciding whether a non-sentient clump of cells within their body should be allowed to remain there. —balconesfault
Like this…
http://mgwriters.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/aborted-black-baby.jpg
BTW, what you are doing is what the defenders of slavery did. They moved to deny that blacks are fully human and thus did not deserve human rights. They started measuring slopes of foreheads, intelligence, nose widths, etc.
Exit question: Why are murderers of pregnant women charged with double homicide? When the woman can determine the next day that the clump of cells is not human and then dispose of it and not be charged with murder? Seems kind of arbitrary to me.
75 Cforchange // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm
escaper – Once again, Sam’s point is completely revealed – we don’t agree so I’m some ignorant liberal Hollywood loving loon certainly not a good Republican.
I am not asking for government programs and if you actually knew anyone living and trying to improve their impoverished community you would learn – they are smart caring people. They don’t want a hand out either. They want laws and enforcement that are effective. They want an environment conducive to free market – that can’t happen when we all turn our backs leaving the criminals and mentally ill residing there mostly unsupervised. Further, this element is there thanks to shrewd businessmen probably sitting next to you in church, that operate little section 8 enterprises.
It is not entirely a random event that certain neighborhoods attrack the less desireables – it’s all organized. Section 8 operators can bring a neighborhood to its knees and expose public safety risks to many innocents. Add organzined crime who also live in the tony burbs and there’s chaos. You need to hear this one part of our ills because you just wouldn’t learn this while standing in front of a health clinic. If you take a gander out a Megan’s website and start to contemplate the risks to children living in proximity to these character’s maybe you would develop a bigger heart for the living – just listen to Jaycee’s story. I can’t – I’m not over the last shocker George Sodini. Sorry, money gifts just can’t undo this damage which could be prevented.
You’ve brought up an interesting trend where the GOP has been so adverse to paying taxes but then loves to give through their faith. Maybe this biased giving hasn’t worked either because it is tax revenue reductions that have given way to disolving mental health institutions freeing these folks to street living or for the smart ones, internet assault rifle shopping.
Just because you’re clinging to the religion crutch doesn’t prove Christian value ligitimacy. Look at Ensign and Sanford. People who act on their own accord usually act out of sincere faith, kindness and anonymity. Plus sometimes it’s not the money – it’s guidence and reassurance to rebuild confidence is needed more than cash. Sometimes it’s a new eye and voice to assess what is wrong. Here in my rustbelt – local affluent churches are not in the circle to help and heal.
Don’t worry though, if an alternative party rises up to directly confront the issues crippling our country like our broken judicial system, tort abuses and our idle manufacturing base – I’m out and I’m not alone. I’m in good company that feels that the GOP not me, has gone astray.
76 EscapeVelocity // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Clinging to my guns and religion, heh?
LOL!
Partner, Christians everyday help the poor and the needy through the sweat of their own brow. Your slanderous lies and ill informed prejudices are not insightful.
If you dont like the GOP, then leave and form your own party, or better yet, join the Democrats and have an inter-Democrat party battle for control of the party with Blue Dogs and New Leftists, assorted racists, sexists, and groupists.
You seem to think that I am against being tough on crime and cleaning up the failed welfare policies. I am not. That would be the Democrats. Your battle seems to be largely with the Left, why dont you take it there.
You dont have to believe in God to do or support the right thing. But you dont have to attack Christians while doing or supporting the right thing. You might even can form alliances with those dispicable ignoramouses. LOL!
You must log in to post a comment.