In these turbulent times for conservatives, it’s refreshing to see a return to traditionalism. Last week, British Conservative leader David Cameron attended a gay pride event and apologized for his party’s previous hostility to homosexuals. As a result of this return to Tory pragmatism and rejection of ideological rigidity, the party is expected to win the gay vote at the next election – an astonishing reversal of fortune.
In particular, he apologized for an infamous (and now repealed) Thatcher-era piece of legislation, known as Section 28, which banned local councils from promoting homosexuality as anything other than abnormal. He acknowledged the obvious truth that it had poisoned relations between the Conservatives and gay people: “I’m sorry for Section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. We have got to move on and we have moved on.”
Contrary to the claims of some right-wing critics, Cameron is staying true to his party’s history. Just as the GOP has formed new coalitions, crafted new policies and modified its identity to reflect changing times, the Conservative Party has always been concerned with gaining and holding power. It has not sought to represent an immutable set of conservative principles or to memorialize Churchill or Thatcher, any more than the Republican Party exists solely to preserve Reagan’s legacy.
In the broad sweep of history, Cameron’s outreach to same-sex couples isn’t particularly shocking. Reinvention is a long-standing Tory tradition. Consider, for instance, Disraeli’s extension of the franchise to working-class men in the 19th Century. For introducing such a reform that nobody would find objectionable now, this great Tory statesman was attacked by his party’s right-wing for, in the words of the Marquess of Salisbury, a “political betrayal which has no parallel in our Parliamentary annals.” And, as Cameron pointed out at the gay pride event, “The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister.”
Unlike today’s GOP, whose leaders seem uncomfortable with the concept of evolution, Cameron knows that defeated parties must adapt or die. When he became leader in December 2005, the Tories were flatlining in the polls, in third place among under 35s, and out of favor with women, minorities, urbanites, educated voters, and just about the whole of the north of the country. An infamous piece of polling revealed that otherwise popular policies would suddenly lose their appeal if presented as Conservative proposals! Do any Republicans recognize this scenario?
Cameron understood that it was his duty to change this, if only because democratic politics requires two sane and functioning parties capable of engaging with each other and the electorate. He knew that his party had to demonstrate, unambiguously and unceasingly, that it had changed its attitude, tone and priorities. This meant less focus on “core issues” like tax cuts and immigration, and more disquisitions on social responsibility, climate change, health care, education, inequality, and, yes, gay rights.
Politically, it’s worked. Almost immediately after embarking on this traditionalist agenda of ruthlessly pursuing power, the Tories rose in the polls, and now enjoy massive leads over the government. Indeed, their resurgence has sent shockwaves through the other parties. Labour fumes impotently while the social consensus it helped create is completely co-opted by the Conservatives. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats, who had serious aspirations of becoming the second-largest party, have been wonderfully destabilized by Cameron’s moderate social agenda, environmentalism, and defense of civil liberties.
The poll showing Tory support among gays is no aberration, either. In his first conference speech as party leader, Cameron argued that all marriages are special, including same-sex unions. He promoted two openly gay MPs to his Shadow Cabinet, has pushed for talented gay candidates to run for office next year, and argues for tax breaks for gay couples in civil partnerships. This makes sense in a country that, like America, has become more accepting of gay equality, and will continue to move in such a direction.
But it’s not just a case of cynical vote-grabbing. Cameron’s sympathetic approach to gay people is consistent with his idea of a connected society, in which social beings find meaning and identity through relationships. This leads to the flourishing of institutions that stand between individuals and the state, of which the most important is marriage. So instead of stigmatizing a group on the basis of its sexuality, he is reinforcing his vision of a British society that no longer centralizes power, but recognizes institutions as the engines of diversity, belonging, expression, and shared knowledge and history.
More broadly, and paradoxically, shifting the public’s traditional perception of the Tories allows the party to articulate traditional conservative policies. It is a subtlety that eludes many on the right. It’s easy to forget that the party is officially committed to cutting taxes and welfare, restricting immigration, building more prisons, taking back power from the EU, dumping Labour’s flagship human rights legislation, abandoning multiculturalism, and giving local communities more control over schools and policing. Only now that the public are convinced of the Tories’ moderation and decency are they willing to give a fair hearing to these ideas.
Cameron’s successful courting of the “pink” vote illustrates that social change represents an opportunity for political leadership, rather than an excuse for nostalgia, resentment, and alienation. Far from being a radical modernizer, he is more properly seen as a traditionalist who knows that his party’s objective is not to flatter its base, but to broaden its appeal and advance a center-right agenda. His very first challenge to the Tories during his leadership campaign should reverberate in the minds of every Republican in the next election cycle: “Some say that we should move to the right. I say that will turn us into a fringe party, never able to challenge for government again. I don’t want to let that happen to this party – do you?”
28 responses so far
1 Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:24 am
I must confess that I am not sold on gay marriage but I am sold on civil unions. Gay people have legitimate grievances which must be addressed. However, there is nothing I would like to see more than openly gay individuals as part of the GOP leadership. Conservatism is about limited government, strong defense and individual freedom. It is not about anti-gay rights, obsessing about abortion or trying to teach creationism in science classes. But I repeat myself.
2 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:52 am
And I’m fine with Gay Marriage… but I just don’t get this whole “Gay Pride” thing.
I mean… I’m not “proud” of being a heterosexual. (*SHRUG*)
The other thing is… no, obviously a person who’s in favor of Gay Marriage opposes discrimination against homosexuals for being homosexual… but that doesn’t mean that I consider homosexuality “normal.” Folks… OBVIOUSLY it’s not!
Now since homosexuality falls outside of the “norm” does that make it fair game for derision, scorn, hatred, and discrimination? Certainly not! But homosexuality still “abnormal” in the comparative sense – the sense that heterosexuality is NORMAL.
Hey… I’m not trying to be cute, to play word games here… but words do matter; words do have meaning. The word “normal” has a definition and so does the word “abnormal.” (*SHRUG*)
Are all marriages “special” as Cameron states? YES! Marriage is (should be at least) a bond of legal as well as spiritual commitment. Can two homosexuals be “committed” to each other in that sense? I’d say yes – and I say the law should recognize this.
Anyway… my two cents worth. (*SHRUG*)
BILL
3 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:17 am
barker13: You would understand “Gay Pride” if you recalled that 40 years ago, before the gay movement, gays and lesbians lived lives of fear and shame.
In school, gay students were bullied, harassed, and even beaten. There were laws against “sodomy” which basically made gay sex a crime, even in the privacy of one’s own home. Police had to arrest a certain percentage of gays to meet unwritten quotas, just like they had to arrest a certain number of prostitutes.
Admitting you were gay was cause for dismissal by many employers, including the government. Acting out the stereotype of gays–limp-wristed, effeminate–was sure-fire comedy material in movies and the theater. Basically, gays were pariahs, in some ways worse than the situation faced by blacks in that era.
“Gay Pride” simply means that gays don’t have to accept being pariahs anymore. And I salute them for that.
4 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 11:32 am
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:17 am –
“Barker13: You would understand “Gay Pride” if you recalled that 40 years ago, before the gay movement, gays and lesbians lived lives of fear and shame.”
WHY won’t you address me as “Bill” Sinz?
I know… I know… not a big deal; it’s just one of those “little” things that grate on my nerves. Whether I’m right or wrong to do so, I consider it rude.
The other thing… WHY won’t you clear up the matter of your gender? Again… NOT a huge deal in the scheme of things – HOWEVER… the fact that if memory serves you identified yourself as female prior to the NM “upgrade” yet after – that first day when they were getting the bugs out – your “identity” popped up as Stephen.
OK. Back to the topic…
I hear what you’re saying… but while I “understand” your point I disagree with the reasoning. Here’s why: It places the emphasis on the “action” of being a homosexual, not on the “equal rights” aspect in a social or legal sense.
Hey… have all the pride you want in gaining your civil rights (I share that pride IN COUNTRY that we’re advancing on that front) but this whole “Gay Pride” thing (the parades, etc.) just antagonizes your average American (who isn’t as “enlightened” as you and me, Sinz!) and in the end brings us back full circle to my original point that there’s nothing to “take pride in” in being a homosexual – anymore than there’s “pride” to take away from being a heterosexual.
Anyway… we’re disagreeing on the margins here. I’ll be curious to see what other responses (if any) our exchange he garners.
BILL
5 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm
To answer your questions:
1. I am accustomed to NEVER using a poster’s real name in any of my replies. If you want me to call you “Bill,” I’ll do so from now on.
2. U.S. Male.
3. Gay “pride” as an anodyne for gay shame, that’s all.
6 sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Jamie Boulding, if you’re reading this:
Is there a disconnect between the Tories and British scientists, comparable to the disconnect between the Republican Party and American scientists in the U.S.?
That is, are the vast majority of scientists self-identified Labourites, or what?
7 Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Recently, I was listening to Michael Medved show (can’t take Hannity any longer) and he was interviewing Joe Scarobough. The latter seemed to suggest the Tory approach for the GOP. Tone down the rhetoric on social issues to win moderate votes in order to advance a conservative approach to governing. I think this is the recipe for success. Now, how do we implement it? Nobody is providing a roadmap.
8 dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:54 pm
sinz54, I don’t have any stats but just to try to answer your question about the Tories and scientitists. Comparing British and American conservatives is not really all that useful. For example Tony Blair famously refused to discuss God but then so do conservative leaders. In fact Tony Blair is more religious than many conservatives. Ideologically most UK conservatives aren’t evangelical, in some ways the Tories are the GOP with evangelicals taken out. The party has roots in Anglican protestantism but it’s a very different christian animal. So the disconnect with science doesn’t exist in the UK like in the US, although you’ll find that academics in the UK will probably have more liberal views generally. Politics in the US is far more tribal than in the UK.
9 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm –
“If you want me to call you “Bill,” I’ll do so from now on.”
Thanks. I appreciate that. And if you’d rather stick to Sinz than Stephen… I’ll respect that.
(*HANDSHAKE*)
Re: Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm –
“,,,can’t take Hannity any longer…”
And again… (*HANDSHAKE*)
(*WINK*)
“Tone down the rhetoric on social issues to win moderate votes in order to advance a conservative approach to governing. I think this is the recipe for success.”
Yep. We’re agreed on that too.
“Now, how do we implement it?”
(*SIGH*) I wish I knew.
Let me ask you, Chekote… do you at least understand how much of the “tone” of the anti-Palin, anti-Rush, “Frum-like” rhetoric creates as much push-back from “Barker Conservatives” as the bible thumpers provoke in folks like you and Sinz?
Re: Dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 12:54 pm –
“…Tony Blair famously refused to discuss God…”
And Blair is a very spiritual deeply religious man. (Just “trivia;” no “point.”)
“…in some ways the Tories are the GOP with evangelicals taken out.”
Umm… yeah… to an extent. But “which” GOP? Not the Reagan GOP. Not the Gingrich GOP. More the Pappy Bush GOP. (Would you agree?)
“The party has roots in Anglican protestantism but it’s a very different christian animal.”
Yep. (*THUMBS UP*)
“…you’ll find that academics in the UK will probably have more liberal views generally.”
Ohhh, Yeaaah…! (I’m presently reading the second “Brit authored” history of the decline and fall of Rome recommended by David Frum and these guys CLEARLY feel hemmed in by political correctness to a suffocating extent. Their books actually go AGAINST what they describe as the present “perceived wisdom” and “proper way of thinking” about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but it’s clear that they perceive themselves as having taken huge career risks by publishing the books they have and holding the views they do.
BILL
10 Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Bill
This site has social conservatives but not Bible thumpers. I don’t know where you live but here in Texas GOP meetings are pretty much evangelical prayer service. This has to stop. It is a political party not a religious denomination.
11 dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Bill, hard to really pin down the Tories to one of the personalities you mention but George HW would probably be the closest, certainly he was very popular with the party when he was in power, the preppiness probably helped given the preppiness of the Tory Party, but all those strands exist. David Cameron seems to be trying to make sure he doesn’t lay out any ideology, partly because as soon as he unveils a popular policy New Labour steal it. Basically they’re a low tax, low regulation, privatising, pro-family, euro-sceptic, muscular law and order party that doesn’t like too many immigrants, who’ve given some assurances on public spending which they’ll definitely break, lead by old Etonians.
Liberal academics? Who knows, hard to say really. Scientists in Britain come out in favour of things like drug liberalisation, green reforms, nuclear power, genetic engineering and food standards, all of which cross the political spectrum. They tend not to like things like faith schools or homeopathy on the NHS and are routinely ignored by the government. At a guess I would just nudge to the liberal side but it’s hard to say.
Any chance of a name for that book? You might be interested in a book called The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti. Not a man you’ll share a lot of common ground with politically but it’s a good book. Part of his thesis being that because the history of Rome (and much subsequent history) was written by aristocrats, a class bias effects our view of the period. He puts forward some good evidence to back up his claim.
12 JohnMcC // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I really appreciate the civility of the comments here. So much that I registered today. Usually I don’t comment a lot. But I lurk alot. Mostly, y’all are sharp and civil.
So maybe I can toss out a thought I’ve had lately (well…specifically since the Palin resignation) that was sort of summed up by the remark above: ‘It is a political party not a religious denomination.’
Don’t you hear the groaning of the timbers in the building that is the Republican party? Is it going the way of the Whigs? A political party in which the significant mass of followers no longer trusts it’s leaders is going to splinter, seems to me.
Now I’m a fairly left Dem. But this does not seem to me like good news. Any administration needs a damn good opposition if it’s going to succeed in the big-picture, world-stage problem solving.
Am I mis-interpreting what going on with the Repubs? ‘Cause I really really worked my ass off for Barack. And really despised GWBush & crew. So my emotional stance makes me doubt that I’m seeing it as it really is.
13 midcon // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:01 pm
johnmcc,
Yes, we need at least a two party system. But in a nation of 300 million people I believe that a 3 party system would be even more beneficial. And your observation is generally correct in that GOP has imploded and is busy eating its young and itself from the inside out. Some of that is a typical response of the losing party. The Dems have the done same in the past. The crux of this is the fight over the Independents – the ones who actually decide elections. Both the Dems and the GOP need the independents in order to win, but they both try to do it while remaining true to their far left and far right philosophies. A difficult balancing act at best. I remain convinced that both the parties are dinosaurs and have outlived their usefulness for getting anything done including governing. If the independents could only get organized, we’d have the real blast and might even accomplish a thing or two!
14 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Re: Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:36 pm –
“This site has social conservatives but not Bible thumpers.”
Agreed.
“I don’t know where you live…”
Harriman, NY 10926-3030 (*GRIN*) Just address any “fan” mail to “Bill” and they’ll get it to me. (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
“…here in Texas GOP meetings are pretty much evangelical prayer service. This has to stop. It is a political party not a religious denomination.”
I hear ya. Heck… though I’m torn (I’ll explain what I mean by that in a moment) I’m largely in agreement with you.
AND… let me add… let me anticipate another example that Sinz or you might provide: The same thing happens in the military. Yep. And it reaches up into the top ranks.
Yeah… I’m aware of – AND wary of – confusing “conservatism” with Christianity.
Now… to go back to what I meant by “I’m torn.”
Ya watch “King of the Hill,” Chekote? Ya think “Hank Hill” represents the kind of guy this country needs MORE of, not less of? Well I do!
Sports – football in particular – is HUGE in the South and to a lesser extent the mid-West; let’s say “The Bible Belt.” Does religions – particularly Protestant Christianity – play a supporting role in a sense with pre-game prayers and after-game “thanksgivings” and the like? Yep. (And the same with the military.) Is this “troublesome?” Yeah… I suppose I can make an intellectual argument that it is. Still… whether right or wrong I see “positives” as well as negatives in connecting the “values” of sports and the “values” of the military with the “values” of the Anglo-Saxon heritage… which includes Protestant Christianity and nowadays Catholicism.
Hey… as I type this I KNOW that I’m rambling a bit and not coming across as articulately as I’d like… but I’m basically “talking” off the cuff via typing this post.
Am I getting my point across…???
Chekote. You know how I identify myself as a libertarian leaning conservative – how I throw in “constitutionalist” and “nationalist” when I expand upon my philosophy? Well, add “traditionalist.”
NO! I don’t want there to be a doctrinaire Christianity to Republican conservatism, but YES, I do want Republican conservatism to reflect “broad” traditional Christian Anglo-Saxon values. And I won’t apologize for this.
The question is… where to draw the line. What’s “too much of a good thing” when it comes to “values” politics? Well… this is why I tend to seek specificity when we’re having discussions here. When push comes to shove where I come down is often a case by case decision. Oh, sure, obviously I’ve got “themes” I stick to, but while I pride myself in being intellectually honest and consistent, “exceptions” is not a dirty word to me.
Anyway… just to trail off… I’m VERY cognizant of the fact that I’ve always lived, gone to school, and worked in an area of the country (the Northeast – specifically the New York suburbs and Boston) (oh, yeah… and London, England) where in order to be surrounded by bible thumpers you’ve really gotta LOOK for them.
(So, yeah… that’s my way of saying I don’t discount your different perspective.)
(*SMILE*)
BILL
15 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Re: Dacookson // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm –
The book I’m reading now is “How Rome Fell,” by Adrian Goldsworthy.
Previously (last month) I read “The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization,” by Bryan Ward-Perkins.
BILL
16 barker13 // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Re: Johnmcc // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm –
“Don’t you hear the groaning of the timbers in the building that is the Republican party?”
Yes. But the “rot” is more hypocrisy and irresponsibility than Christian fundamentalism or “anti-environmentalism.”
As I wrote earlier, while I’m not a bible thumper myself, as long as they’re not going overboard (the bible thumpers that is) I kinda look upon them as providing strength (traditional values – WASP socialvalues moreso than Catholic religious values) to the GOP.
But even with the more “Catholic” straight religious doctrine stuff my sympathies often reside there – with “them.”
Here… let me be specific.
Abortion. I don’t believe that “life” (in the sense of protected human life) does or should be seen as “sacred” at conception. I’m a heart beat… brain wave… viability kind of guy. (If I’m wrong… well… if there’s a God, then God help me!)
With me so far?
So… that’s MY position. In simplest terms, I’m ok with first trimester abortions, opposed to third trimester abortions, and believe the second trimester is where the heart (excuse the pun) of the debate truly lies. That’s both my “political” belief and my ethical belief.
SO… where do I stand if forced between the “pro-choicers” and “pro-lifers?” I stand closer to the pro-lifers. Hey… disagreeing with me on whether life should be protected from conception is “permissible” to me from an ethical standpoint. I respect the “absolutist” pro-life position based upon sincere fundamental human ethics.
BUT… go to the other extreme. Go to those who would defend partial birth abortion (intact dilation and extraction if you’d prefer) for theoretically ANY reason. To me… these people are pure evil. (Well… maybe not “evil,” but definitely fanatics – nuts!)
See where I’m coming from…??? I can see how one can argue that at conception you DON’T have a baby. I can see how one can argue that you’re dealing with a baby from the moment of conception. What I CAN’T accept is some nut telling me that at seven… eight… nine months the “fetus” in the woman’s “belly” ain’t a frigg’n baby – a human being.
(*SHRUG*)
“Am I mis-interpreting what going on with the Repubs?”
Not misinterpreting so much as mistaking where the emphasis lies with regard to the split between factions of the Party.
BTW… I’m a registered Democrat. I’m not a “real” Democrat (in terms of supporting a liberal Democratic Party), but the RINOs in Congress and Bush (notice the order I place the two in!) pissed me off to such an extent that I re-registered as a Democrat in the winter/spring of ‘06 and voted for Left-wing Democrat John Hall (who won by the way) for Congress in November of that year in order to FIRE my RINO congresswoman (of the time) Sue Kelly.
I also voted for Bob Barr, not John McCain, for President in ‘08. (*SHRUG*)
I also SINCERELY supported Obama for the Democratic nomination – knowing full well he’d probably win – because I “bought” his “hope… change… new direction” mantra, particularly in opposition to HRC, who I looked upon as the Devil. (Corrupt. Power hungry. Insincere. Selfish.)
Anyway… just a bit of background to go with the policy specifics. Basically I have no tolerance for corruption, irresponsibility, hypocrisy, incompetence… all the things the RINOs and to a lesser extent Bush stood for.
UNFORTUNATELY… in my not so humble opinion we’re out of the frying pan – into the fire!
God help this once great nation…
BILL
17 Jamie Boulding // Jul 16, 2009 at 5:52 pm
sinz54: I don’t have any stats on voting preferences of British scientists, unfortunately. I’d be interested to know. For a sense of how the Tories are engaging the scientific community, it’s worth reading a recent speech by their science spokesman, Adam Afriyie, at the Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=8436
18 Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Bill
Let me give you an example of Bible Thumpers using the GOP to promote and impose their religious values. This is an excerpt from the Texas 2008 GOP Platform:
Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to
perform a marriage ceremony for such.
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Pornography – We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses.
This is the stuff I object to. What you are talking about is preserving heritage. It is quite different from the SoCon agenda.
19 dacookson // Jul 17, 2009 at 8:05 am
I think this is what people are worried about.
20 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 9:47 am
Re: Chekote // Jul 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm –
“Let me give you an example of Bible Thumpers using the GOP to promote and impose their religious values.”
OK. One more time…
Chekote. You’re looking at this from an almost reverse parochialism – an “enlightened liberal” parochialism.
To recap: *I*, William R. Barker, would vote “YEA” on Gay Marriage if the issue were on my state ballot. (You with me…??? Capice?)
That said, heterosexual marriage – marriage between man and woman – is a historical human norm across all societies. It’s not simply “Christian.” It’s not even simply “Judeo-Christian.” It’s across the board. Oh, sure, it may be one man and one woman Western society and one man and a number of women in other societies, but make no mistake, Chekote, it’s the “pro-Gay-Marriage” folks who are the “radicals,” not the folks responsible for the 2008 Texas GOP Platform.
Can you accept that? Can you accept this reality? You NEED to if we’re to have a rational discourse. (*SHRUG*)
Now am I on board with the whole “felony” thing? No. But again… they call “traditional” values TRADITIONAL for a reason. (*SMILE*)
(And then of course we have to recognize the legal/constitutional debate revolving around the issue; how does the Full Faith and Credit Clause apply to this issue?)
“We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit…”
Here again… (*SIGH*)… I see both sides of the issue where you apparently only see one. While *I* personally discount the “tearing at the fabric of society/contributing to the breakdown of the family” argument, I recognize that others have a right to disagree.
YES! Amazing concept…! I yield to others their right to possess a different perspective than mine!
(*CHUCKLE*)
“Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”
Well… I’ll let the Deity speak for Himself… but as to the Country’s Founders and the majority of Texans… are you seriously disputing the above statement, Chekote…???
Anyway… I could go on point by point, but you get the general gist.
Re: Dacookson // Jul 17, 2009 at 8:05 am –
(*SMILE*)
Cute. But bottom line I believe the Cap & Trade bill passed by the House to be a disaster in the making if anything remotely resembling it passes the Senate and makes it into law.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
21 Chekote // Jul 17, 2009 at 9:52 am
Bill
You can be against gay marriage but you don’t have to go and on about the “perversion” of homosexuality per God’s laws as the Texas GOP platform does. This element has hurt the party. We need to deal with it if we want the GOP to be a national party again.
22 sinz54 // Jul 17, 2009 at 10:24 am
johmcc: “Don’t you hear the groaning of the timbers in the building that is the Republican party? Is it going the way of the Whigs? A political party in which the significant mass of followers no longer trusts it’s leaders is going to splinter, seems to me.”
First of all, it takes real maturity to recognize that one-party rule isn’t good for the nation, even if it’s the party whose views you agree with (for the moment). Thank you.
Secondly, we have a two-party system. The way the voting for the Electoral College is structured, virtually squeezes out any fledgling third party. (Example: In 1992, despite widepread disgust with both the Dem and Repub parties, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, but ZERO electoral votes.) So in our two-party system, if folks become disenchanted with what Obama is doing, the GOP is the only other place to go.
Thirdly, parties have been written off before. The GOP was in even worse straits after the disastrous 1964 election, in which Goldwater was perceived as an extremist and enabled LBJ to win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, winning in states even considered Republican strongholds. Yet, four years later, a Repub (Nixon) won the White House, due to the Vietnam War and urban violence.
The political reality is that an opposition party defines itself by the failures of the incumbent party. Go look at the website of the British Conservatives, http://www.conservatives.com, and you’ll see that much of their platform consists of correcting perceived policy errors of the Labourites.
The Republicans will start to pull themselves together, after the Dems truly screw up at something–anything that affects Americans directly. We conservatives are waiting for something on which to pounce.
23 barker13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 10:59 am
Re: Chekote // Jul 17, 2009 at 9:52 am –
Agreed.
(*NOD*)
BILL
24 SFTor1 // Jul 19, 2009 at 12:49 am
Two issues: for the GOP to begin to regain its footing it has to embrace universal health care. It is a strategic, economical, and societal asset. It is no more “socialism” than having public fire and and law enforcement. That will show a real change in thinking. What are we waiting for, really? We know universal health care is cheaper and has better outcomes. It is one thing the private sector cannot be trusted with, for the simple reason that the Hippocratic Oath and the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders of the corporation are fundamentally opposed. Health care is a cost center, period. And no one should ever suggest that people shouldn’t be able to buy their own if they are unhappy with the public system.
Second, I think everyone sees the danger of the one-party system we had under W, and which is again in place with Obama. Not good. A third strong party is the obvious and imperfect answer, with its own inherent problems of paralysis and indecision. I suppose the only remedy is for the American voter to get smart enough to pull the lever for different parties for different offices, and to still hold officials to standards of performance. But that is not something that can be counted on yet.
25 barker13 // Jul 19, 2009 at 11:52 am
Re: Sftor1 // Jul 19, 2009 at 12:49 am –
“…for the GOP to begin to regain its footing it has to embrace universal health care. ”
We HAVE universal healthcare. For those without insurance the healthcare may be limited to “emergency” care, but care is provided – whether one pays for it “directly” or not.
“It is a strategic, economical, and societal asset.
So is housing. So is clothing. So is food. Again, society “provides” at a minimum (and often higher) level, but the rule of thumb is that the more money you have, the better housing, clothing and food you have too.
“It is no more “socialism” than having public fire and and law enforcement.”
Yes it is, Sftor1. Let’s be honest. Y*E*S* I*T* I*S*.
“That will show a real change in thinking.”
The question is… a positive change or a negative change? That’s where folks disagree.
“What are we waiting for, really?”
Consensus…??? Sftor1, seriously, it’s fine and dandy to call for “let’s go, full speed ahead,” but if a substantial number of people (perhaps a majority, it all depends upon which polls you cite and which specific questions – specific wording – you’re referring to) are shouting “you’re going the wrong way,” that’s where the problem lies.
“We know universal health care is cheaper and has better outcomes.”
Actually… (*SHRUG*)… we know no such thing.
“It is one thing the private sector cannot be trusted with…”
So you say. Others believe that the greater gamble would be trusting the government.
Sftor1… understand… many of us believe that it’s GOVERNMENT(S) insertion and interference into the health insurance and health care system(s) that is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in in the first place. We have a federal government and ALSO 50 separate states all with their own separate and individual mandates and regulations creating a mess; that’s what I believe. Here in New York State I’m prevented by law (by regulatory law) (as are all my fellow New Yorkers) from buying a bare bones catastrophic insurance plan or utilizing a HSA/MSA in an economically rational manner. Depending on which state you reside in you may have more freedom than I, but do you have the option of residing in your state and shopping for insurance in other states? If not then your liberties are being corralled. I see further government meddling more as a potential disaster than the potential “solution.”
Funny thing… the same folks who keep calling for MORE governmental control over healthcare and – I’m guessing – many of the folks who have in the past most strongly condemned infamous governmental healthcare failures such as the well-publicized failures of Walter Reed to live up to its reputation a couple years back and every so often the spat of stories concerning failures of the VA system. Oh… and then there’s medicare…
(*SIGH*) (*SHRUG*)
Hey… let the government “fix” medicare and then maybe I’ll be willing to trust them with further societal healthcare responsibilities.
“…the Hippocratic Oath and the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders of the corporation are fundamentally opposed.”
How so? You sound as if you believe government funding for healthcare will be unlimited. Whatever the doctor wants to do! Hey… you may be right… which should scare the hell out of you as it does me! And if you don’t believe that… well… then we’re back to how do you figure private “rationalization” of cost/benefit is incompatible with honoring the Hippocratic Oath yet government “rationalization” (care guidelines taking costs into account as compared to available resources) wouldn’t be.
“Health care is a cost center, period.”
I don’t understand what that means; I don’t understand what that means in relation to the provision of food, shelter, clothing, power, any and all human needs. Explain please.
“…no one should ever suggest that people shouldn’t be able to buy their own if they are unhappy with the public system…”
We’ve been over this. Many of us are convinced that the “public system” as proposed will basically “push out” private insurance – at least in large part, at least as it applies to the lower, middle, and even first tier upper middle classes.
(Hey… I’ve got an idea… why not start with imposing single payer DENTAL CARE on the American People. Let’s try that and see how it works. If after five years… ten years… it’s working fine and dandy, well, then we can talk about the medical field as a whole.)
“I think everyone sees the danger of the one-party system we had under W, and which is again in place with Obama. Not good. A third strong party is the obvious…”
If it’s so… er… “obvious”… why have all attempts be such abject failures?
No. (*SIGH*) While I sympathize with the theory and with the motivation behind it… it ain’t gonna happen.
“I suppose the only remedy is for the American voter to get smart…”
Hmm… perhaps Obama will propose a law: “Let it be hereby enacted, starting in 2010 each and every American will possess an IQ of 140 or above…”
(*CHUCKLE*) Oh… if only brains could be legislated.
“But that is not something that can be counted on yet.”
Join me, Sftor1… two words:
MILITARY
COUP
Not gonna happen… (well, not for decades probably)… but it’s a far more viable solution to the nation’s problems than expecting either the People or the politicians to wise up.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
26 potan221 // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Chekote or whoever the hell you are,
quote”Let me give you an example of Bible Thumpers using the GOP to promote and impose their religious values.”
You don’t seem to be too tolerant of religious people, why else would you call them “Bible Thumpers” which is a typical bigoted secularist term for practicing Christian. I say the Republican Party should kick out ignorant and bigoted pieces of shit like Chekote if it wants to become more “tolerant”.
27 barker13 // Jul 20, 2009 at 10:01 am
Re: Potan221 // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm –
MEA CULPA!
(Chekote… QUICK… get behind me and hide while I take care of this…)
Potan. It’s my fault. I’m the one who first injected the term “bible thumper” into the debate. I take full responsibility and apologize if the term offends you – it wasn’t my intent to offend anyone of faith.
While I too have noticed – and commented on – certain other poster’s seeming antipathy to those who view their Christian faith as the central tenet of their lives, I would stop well short of referring to Chekote as a “bigoted piece of shit.”
(*RUEFUL GRIN*)
Again… as far as I know it was *I* who first injected the term “bible thumper” into the conversation.
While I see and appreciate your perception – and where it comes from – in terms of the use of the phrase being pejorative, please believe me when I say that I wasn’t using it in that way, but only as “shorthand” in the context of my debate with “the other side” regarding the sincerity of “people of faith” who sincerely see abortion as murder in all circumstances.
Anyway… I just want to set the record straight.
BILL
28 Observer // Jul 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“It is a political party not a religious denomination.”
Wow. Bravo, Chekote.
Over 50% of my discontent with the last ten years of Republicanism summed up perfectly in just nine words.
You must log in to post a comment.