Thursday, February 23, 2012
Why the social issues ARE important
I'm getting the distinct impression from recent comments from BB, Dave Miller and Shaw that President Obama should not be judged on the poor state of the economy. That's just my take but if we are not to judge a president on the economy because there are certain economic forces beyond the control of his Administration, a kind of theory of economic fatalism if you will then by this standard Jimmy Carter was a great president. BTW I think Saty and Shaw keep coming back here because they like the challenge and even when Saty was recently seriously ill and had to rest in the living room before making her way to the kitchen feebly clutching the drawer and knocking all the silverware over while sucking on a bag of ice chips she still found the time to visit the site. OK so all we hear about these days, the new conventional political wisdom even among many conservatives is take the social issues totally off the table so as to better focus on the economic theme which seems to be the only thing of interest to them. This is certainly BB, Dave Miller's and soapie's position but can anyone tell why this analysis is so dead wrong exactly, way off the mark? Think for a minute, no you still don't get it?...well it's because everyone's narrowly defining the social issues as being only about abortion and gay marriage but oh there's so much more, a real treasure trove of social concerns out there. The very phrase "social issues" has the word social in it, we're a Society right? Drug abuse is a social issue, an important one so is broken homes and families, divorce. Gang violence while largely a law-enforcement issue is also a social issue as is crime in general as read about any 82-year old grandmother killed by a stray bullet in the Bronx. Say a porn store wants to open up shop next to a church and a school well there's your social issue right there and it ain't even related to abortion or gay marriage and if you're a local politician you'll be forced to take a stand no matter how much you may want to talk about the economy and chances are very good you'll come out against the porn shop. How can you NOT discuss the social issues? Obama despite running as a uniter has divided the country more than ever and well maybe because some folks believe the economy is beyond his control anyway he can afford to lay back and throw another log into the fire of the culture wars on things like birth control (been there discussed that). As for soapie's legendary consistency, apparently a part of his sexual charisma for Shaw and Saty that oozes out of his every pore I say you have the right to be inconsistent. As I see it there's a certain stridency to his philosophy which may be off-putting to many readers, it's one worldview his and Ron Paul's and if you don't agree apparently you're part of the same Cosmic Problem the growth of Leviathan and the loss of Liberty. Oh yeah smoking is a social issue too, a biggie. In fact if I listed all the social issues of relevance today it'd take up the whole page and maybe the better part of Page 2 so just wondering why liberals see everything through the prism of abortion and gay marriage. It ain't an evangelical thing you know:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The social issues center themselves around morality and values and more specifically religion as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThere is no religious litmus test for a presidential candidate listed in the Constitution.
One may certainly gauge the character of a potential candidate based on that individual's sense of morality and values.
BUT, to take such personal issues and attempt to use them as a motivational factor for a presidential candidate, which is precisely what the Santorum supporters are in effect largely doing, shows a great level of disdain for Constitutional governance.
The executive branch is not a means for theocrats to wage their holy crusades. Maybe in Iran but not here in the United States.
"As I see it there's a certain stridency to his philosophy which may be off-putting to many readers, it's one worldview his and Ron Paul's and if you don't agree apparently you're part of the same Cosmic Problem the growth of Leviathan and the loss of Liberty."
ReplyDeleteThe state is anti-thetical to liberty.
If you aren't for individual liberty then what are you for?
You either like individual liberty and freedom of action and subsequently fight for it or you effectively think people are pieces on a chess board that can be moved here and there and dictated to in a centralized command and control type of economy thereby giving greater power and authority to the state.
Tis why I've always said the political issue isn't one of left vs. right. It is the people; each individual vs. the collectivist state (Leviathan).
"I say you have the right to be inconsistent."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Just don't be surprised when no-one trusts you, understands your motivations, and essentially fails to gravitate towards your message out of uncertainty.
'Why the social issues are important'. No argument there.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important when social
issues are politicized by religion.
Let's open the conservative bag
of founding fathers:
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison; 1785
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." G. Washington 1792
""Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" John Adams
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
Thomas Jefferson-1813
..social issues, religious issues,
government. To paraphrase the founders- muck it up or render unto Caesar.
Well the thing is BB why are the social issues almost always meant to be about abortion and gay marriage? Read the NY Times and when they talk about the social issues and conservatives or the right-wing you know exactly what they're talking about. Any social problem is a social issue, it's a broad term covering a wide area. For someone to say they have no social concerns or social issues they care about (^) is really kind of amazing.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe Shaw and Saty are attracted to soapie's dark mood, angry libertarian guy sidles up to the bar Michael Madsen-ish in one of those existential/noir crime movies with the big cacti outside the diner......his nihilism, his 'tude about the respectable social institutions and everything society holds dear.
ReplyDelete"The state is anti-thetical to liberty."
& yet you're for states' rights, so is Ron Paul.
""The state is anti-thetical to liberty."
ReplyDelete& yet you're for states' rights, so is Ron Paul."
Yes I am for state's rights. And why? Because at least then you have recourse and freedom and liberty and greater ease of migration to get out from underneath laws that you don't like. No so when you have a one size fits all federal behemoth.
"I'm getting the distinct impression from recent comments from BB, Dave Miller and Shaw that President Obama should not be judged on the poor state of the economy.
ReplyDeleteLiberal will deny, deny, deny and then blame the Conservatives
They're too far removed from reality to understand what may be their own fault.
That's the reason why I can't stand CNN, or MSNBC is just insane over there. It's like a left-wingers cuckoo’s nest.
I think that Soapie's first comment here is going to make Shaw fall out of love with him, because he basically said that moral issues center around religion. So, I suppose an atheist cannot have morals all on their own? Even I don't think that is true.
ReplyDeleteSocial issues are based on the value we give to people's lives, for example, pro aborts give the unborn a value of zero. Plus, they don't think too highly of the poor because all they want to do is personally ignore them and let the government take care of them. Or they think the poor is incapable of helping themselves and can only make it if someone else just gives the fish instead of teaching them to fish. Those who learn to fish don't need the Democrats to give constant handouts to them!
"The social issues center themselves around morality and values and more specifically religion as a whole."
ReplyDeleteIf you consider the Ten Commandments as a basis for our morality and, therefore, laws, that's not necessarily true.
First of all, which commandments would be the basis of our laws? There is more than one iteration of them in the Bible.
Second of all, a majority of the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with our Constitution:
Commandment I. Nothing in our Constitutions requires an American citizens to worship only one god.
Comndmt. II. There is no law in our Constitution that says an American citizen may not enjoy owning or worshipping an idol or graven image.
Comndmt. III. There is no law against taking any god's name in vain, even the Christian one.
Comndmt.. IV. Nobody goes to jail for working on Sundays. It's not against the law.
Comndmt. V. No one will be arrested for not "honoring" their mother or father. It's not a felony or even a misdemeanor under our system of justice.
Comndmt. VI. Killing people is against the law [except in self-defense] in all cultures, and was a henious crime, even before the 10 Commandments. Nothing new there.
Comndmt. VII. Committing adultery is not against the law. If it were, Newt Gingrich would be serving a life sentence, or, worse, if he lived in Texas, he'd have been executed long ago.
Comndmt. VIII. Stealing has always been verboten in all cultures, and is against the law.
Comndmt. IX. Lying under oath is punishable by the law. Otherwise, people lie all the time, q.v. Sarah Palin's "death panels," and they are not sent to jail.
Comndment. X. Coveting thy neighbors wife and goods? Coveting is what makes capitalism hum along. It's called Keeping Up With The Joneses. Coveting thy neighbor's wife is just lusting in ones heart, something even our presidents engage in, but are not sent to jail for.
So only two out of ten Commandments has anything to do with our legal system.
We hardly need the Christian 10 Commandments to keep a population "moral."
Some, in fact many, people believe religion is a requisite for morality. It isn't.
ReplyDeletePS. Beth, first of all, I'm not "in love" with soapie.
ReplyDeleteI said I admire someone who is consistent in his stand on the issues and who argues from a rational point of view, not religious or emotional.
And that admiration has nothing to do with Z-man's characterization of him as a "dark mood, angry libertarian guy."
What is it with Beth and Z-man that they feel compelled to pigeon-hole everyone who has a different point of view and paste labels on them?
Can't you guys just accept the fact that not everyone thinks like you two? And that those who do not think like you two may, mirabile dictu, be moral and rational thinkers and not in some conspiracy to kill babies or drag people toward everlasting damnation?
Seriously Jo Jo, chill out, you were the one who joked with Saty to move over after she professed her love for the Soapster, I was just playing along.
ReplyDeleteNo I think I'm on to something Beth. It's the edge, his dark mood of course, angry libertarian guy but it's also political loner who strolls into town, tumbleweeds blowing around outside, sits down for a drink and the women look over. An enigma, "what's he thinking?" then he gets to Pro-Choice and they're hooked, riveted in fact. He's willing to go it Alone, no political party ("fuck them"), rugged individualist with the stubble. He ain't in town to lock up the hookers or burn down the weedfields or arrest the local abortionist. He's not a socialist but there's something about him I can just dig...am I right girls?
ReplyDeleteRe the Irishman's comment I really do think because it's Obama that some libs say it's wrong to judge him on the economy. It's always been traditional and time-honored, considered normal to judge a president, any president on the economy BUT and Dave and BB bring up good points about the price of oil then next time a Republican runs the country and the economy sucks then liberals like Shaw should give him a pass. This new idea that we shouldn't judge presidents on the economy even when it's bad it just needs to be consistent is all.
ReplyDeleteProbably has something to do with the fact soapster walks the walk. Once again he's a delegate dontcha ya know.
ReplyDeleteAllow me [italics are mine] :
ReplyDelete"It's the edge, his dark mood of course, angry libertarian guy [in the single context of which you know me, that mostly being politricks, perhaps. Yet, I don't know we've ever had a discussion outside the blogs] but it's also political loner who strolls into town [true enough libertarians, holding political power that is, are somewhat loners. However, if I and we worked solely within the construct of the Libertarian party perhaps your statement might hold some water. We work within the Republican party (as much as we at times abhor it) and have and are actually having quite an effect on the party locally, at the state level, and well nationally too. Secondly, I don't stroll into town. I live in town. I'm not an outsider in the least. Perhaps to all of you in the confines of this little blog here but I get around just fine in Mpls.] , tumbleweeds blowing around outside, sits down for a drink and the women look over. An enigma, "what's he thinking?" [actually, I'd more likely than not walked over and made their acquaintance when I spotted them. I am always meeting new peeps at Jager and 707] then he gets to Pro-Choice [are we still talking about the same Soapster here???] and they're hooked, riveted in fact. He's willing to go it Alone, no political party ("fuck them"), rugged individualist with the stubble [expanding liberty and building productive and beneficial societies with a mutual respect for one another doesn't require a political party. Political parties get in the way. At times yes…we do say “fuck em” as well we should. And, anyone who’s ever spent any time working within the constructs of one would say the same thing. Nonetheless, some of us within the liberty movement do labor tirelessly within the Republican party to effect change. As for "rugged individualist", I should mention I had brunch with 12 very close friends yesterday. Two words Z: Mutual Aid. Lastly, yes...I hate shaving.] He ain't in town to lock up the hookers or burn down the weedfields or arrest the local abortionist [nope. He isn't. And, lest it be forgotten, our first president grew fields of weed himself.] he's not a socialist [definitely not a socialist] but there's something about him I can just dig...am I right girls?"
Well, when you put it that way, yeah, you're right, boy.
ReplyDeleteI see soapster as a cross between Dirty Harry and Sheriff Bart.
Soap ya gotta allow a guy a certain dramatic and poetic license or perhaps it's the image the girls conjured up in their heads.
ReplyDeleteWell let me take a stab at this, and if you get my comments, you will know that i did not throw my computer against the wall in a fit of rage against the damn two anti robot words...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I believe it is indeed reasonable to consider where our presidential candidates land on moral, or social issues, in addition to fiscal, leadership, and legal issues.
And as you can guess for me, those social issues are probably a little broader for me than for most others.
For instance, I find it 100% disingenuous for Catholic politicians like Gingrich and Santorum to lay claim to a pro-life mantle, using a Catholic Church term like culture of life, and then not support the entire church teaching on the culture of life.
The consistent Pro-life stance of the Catholic church is against abortion and against capital punishment.
How do these guys claim to be good Catholics and oppose a central teaching of the church? If you can be a good and moral Catholic, as they both claim they are, and be against abortion and for capital punishment, why is the reverse not also true?
Would it not be possible for someone to support abortion and be against capital punishment and be good and moral?
For me on the social issues, and for most of them, it seems as if religious folks are pretty strong on claiming biblical authority on this, I tend to think by and large jesus would be pretty pissed at the whole lot, us included.
I am not sure a President can do a whole lots by himself. He seems more like an agenda setter, IMHO.
He can't pass legislation, can't mandate too much change, can't legally declare war, can't approve treaties, etc.
The budgets he signs are seldom his, although he does have input.
I don't know, with Obama, has he had a chance with a budget? Was it ever possible that congress was going to allow him to actually write a budget? How about a decent stimulus?
The economy is his now though, no question. But let's not kid ourselves, the GOP has blocked almost every attempt for Obama to enact his promised financial plan.
they said upon their electoral win in 2010 that the country had spoken and Obama needed to enact their pet legislative agendas. Maybe someone can tell me why they did feel this was true in 2008, or will be true in 2012 if Obama wins, as Paul Ryan has already said?
It's all fascinating stuff this how we judge Presidents...
Here's an interesting article that i do not see many conservatives commenting on... any thoughts gang?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastoramerican-dream-clashes-with-jesus-teachings-45146/
"I am not sure a President can do a whole lots by himself. He seems more like an agenda setter, IMHO."
ReplyDeleteHe can cease signing executive orders himself as well as not enforce those before him. He can, as commander in chief, bring the troops home, he can choose not to have the justice department go after patients who use medicinal marijuana, he can choose to not kill American citizens without due process of law or detain them without due process, et al.
"He can't pass legislation, can't mandate too much change, can't legally declare war, can't approve treaties, etc."
And yet they have done all 4 and then some haven't they? Executive orders are in effect legislation (unconstitutional as hell and even frowned upon by the ABA).
"mandate change"
Ah...history hath shown otherwise (New Deal, Great Society, Progressive Era....)
Legally Declare war
We certainly haven't let legality get in the way in the 20 century and onward.
"The budgets he signs are seldom his, although he does have input.
I don't know, with Obama, has he had a chance with a budget?
Was it ever possible that congress was going to allow him to actually write a budget? How about a decent stimulus?"
Wait wait wait.....are you suggesting we needed more spending and more stimulus; that what the president ended up getting wasn't adequate?
"The economy is his now though, no question."
What does this even mean? The economy is not a car or a house or a pair of shoes. The president doesn't "own" an economy. Does anyone even know what an economy is? How would you describe it?
And then of course there is the fact that just previously you stated the president essentially holds little if anything other than some agenda making sway.
Further, this president who seems to have all this biased media in his favor seems to be doing quite a pretty good job of dispelling any myths about the thriving economy given that the Dow is at about 13,000 points.
BUT, are the mainstreeters buying into the charade of inflating another bubble with fiat money? That's the $64 Trillion question right there.
"But let's not kid ourselves, the GOP has blocked almost every attempt for Obama to enact his promised financial plan."
Come on now Dave really? The president got globs and globs of new spending, the Federal Reserve lent a whole heap to the banks to keep the operation afloat, the president got an increase in the debt ceiling (with the help of roughly HALF of the the House Tea Party caucus), etc.
Dave I agree with the Catholic Church on both abortion and capital punishment but it's unclear to me in that I don't see the death penalty yet as being an official teaching or dogma of the church. Sure recent popes have spoken on it and there seems to be a very strong drift in the anti-death penalty direction but seems to me it's still kind of an open question at least theologically.
ReplyDelete