Not a bug, a feature
These people are advocating less government, restraints on federal power, and a return to “constitutional government.” Social conservatives who seek expansion of state power on issues from abortion to support for faith-based programs may find themselves at odds with a newly invigorated movement to shrink government and enhance individual liberty.
Well, one can hope.
As Krumm notes: they were a warning to the Republican Party: Leave us alone, or we’re leaving.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Goddamn it’s about time somebody realized there are a lot more people out there like me who are socially open minded and liberty oriented and tired of govt bureaucratic idiocy but extremely leery of the religious right.
There’s gotta be a happy middle ground here. If you’re opposed to theocracy and sanctimonious moralism, but also an individualist who opposes nanny-statism…you’re really SOL these days as you’re neither a Dem nor Repub under the current rubric.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
And how about all of us who are as leery of the religious Left who meddle in Government and push the open boarders, Liberation Theology, diversity bulldozer? đŸ™‚ They are also driven to have Big Government be their vehicle.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I, as a religious righty, know no one that wants a theocracy, or desires to infringe on anyone’s rights to worship or not whoever or however they choose.
If being opposed to abortion is sanctimonious morality, then count me in.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
What about me? I’m a State’s Rights Libertarian. I’m also a pro-life Atheist. I believe that the best way to enhance personal Liberty and to guarantee the most protection of civil rights is to enhance the power of state governments to RESIST federal power.
In the early days of the Republic, people who were opposed to the Federalists who wanted an all powerful central government were called either anti-federalists or Republicans, so I guess I’m also a Republican, even though the GOP is weak and incompetent.
Nothing is going to cause the Federal government to cede power. That power needs to be sapped and spread to other smaller governments on the state level, so we can better keep them in check. That was the original plan, anyway.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@chrisb
As a religious righty, do you oppose legalization of most (or all) drugs as well as prostitution?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
There’s this stereotype.
You know, the gun nuts who mutter about revolution, talk about shooting Federal agents, and generally scare white people.
Then there’s the stereotype of the Rabid Religious Right, pursuing theocracy, outlawing sodomy (and probably the old Common-Law marriage-by-cohabitation-for-seven-years…because its cohabitation), killing druggies.
Seems to be made of the same stuff. That is, a small, radical segment of the group somehow became the archetype used by the urban/coastal/liberal elites to describe this big, scary group that they don’t like and disagree with.
Not to minimize the fact that differences can between the secular/individualist/libertarian ideals and the religious-oriented/traditionalist ideals.
But I think we all need help figuring out what is stereotype and what is reality.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
The stereotypes are no longer working. That is how we got McCain as the Republican presidential candidate last time around, and Obama as president.
Wait until some politicians figure out how hard it is to harness as a political group those whose main interest is less power for politicians. I expect that only a non-incumbent will have a chance to get these folks’ votes. Or maybe someone like Mark Sanford (SC governor) who opposes federal empowerment.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I believe that the best way to enhance personal Liberty and to guarantee the most protection of civil rights is to enhance the power of state governments to RESIST federal power.
Yeah, that worked out GREAT for the personal Liberty of black people in the 1960’s, didn’t it…
April 16th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“Social conservatives who seek expansion of state power on issues from abortion”
– That is like saying people support expansion of state power because many people believe that child murderers should hang for their crimes. This lack of education and understanding of ethics is the biggest reason why there is such confusion on rights and such nowadays.
From what I see, the biggest problem with the small government/’liberty’ people I see is that there are no real coherent idea of what constitutes which. The definition of liberty is assumed, and then quickly breaks down when we start talking about what limits they are willing to accept to ‘liberty.’
April 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@ tgirsch
I suppose you believe that social behaviors and public opinion are handed down from on high? Black people were not suddenly accepted by racists after the 1964 civil rights act, ya know. There are still many places where discrimination exists, it’s just illegal to declare it. Just because a restaurant has to serve somebody they don’t like, doesn’t mean they don’t spit in their food, you dig? Why would you want to go into a place that was absolutely FILLED with people who hate you? Rule of Nature: If you enter a place where it is clear you are not welcome, leave and don’t go back.
The whole argument against state’s rights because of the exploitation of Blacks is a straw man. It’s something that people thought up to justify the crimes of one side by inflating the crimes of another.
Or perhaps you think we should just become a full-on democracy and let every citizen have a vote on every issue no matter how poorly informed they are and no matter how much they’ve been misled by the media?
“Vote on your cellphone on H.R. 2148-B! Hi! I’m stupid Bimbo X, and I think it’s really important that you vote NO on 2148-B. Now look at my tits!”
April 16th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I for one am a willing compromiser on the abortion issue because I can see both sides of it myself.
On the one side, there’s the view that Personhood is conferred on a fetus at the moment of conception. Kind of ridiculous (it is just a couple of fused cells and cannot possibly be conscious), but it is consistent with a larger worldview that generally has validity.
On the other side, there’s the view that Personhood is conferred on a baby at the moment of birth. This view is also ridiculous (clearly the baby has a consciousness as well as mostly autonomous body functions before birth) but also consistent with a larger worldview that generally has validity.
So, what can you do? You have to compromise somewhere. Nobody can say for sure what the appropriate compromise is. First trimester? Second trimester? Third trimester? I sure as hell don’t know, but personally I would be happiest with the line being drawn in the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. But that’s just me, and as I said, I don’t really know where the line should be drawn. But I know that it has to be drawn somewhere because either extreme alternative (moment of conception / moment of birth) is unacceptable. So, just as having one’s 18th birthday doesn’t make one any more fit to vote than one was on the 17th year and 364th day, a fetus/baby on the 100th day after conception is probably not any more or less of a Person than one on the 101st day after conception, but the line’s gotta be drawn somewhere, and I’m fine with that. Which kinda seems to be the status quo with regard to abortion (although the line is currently pretty fuzzy, to my understanding), and I’m fine with it staying that way.
By the way, the federal government does not generally punish murderers or define murder or other common crimes. The definition of murder (vs. manslaughter, negligence, etc.), as well as its prosecution, is a matter for the individual states. IMO the federal government has overreached broadly with creating (or un-creating) federal crimes. Many of our drug laws are federal laws. On the other hand, abortion has been disallowed as a crime by the fedgov; states may not treat abortion as a crime. Both of these cases are examples of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on the powers reserved to the several sovereign states in the 10th Amendment.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I just want a government that will secure the borders and take care of international relations and the military, maintain public services and facilities, keep the States from invading each other, and leave me the fuck alone.
Is that so gorram difficult to understand?
Regards,
Rabbit.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am
+1 Rabbit! Is the Constitution and the concept of a constitutional republic all that hard to understand? I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and neither party gets it. I think that it is time for neither plan A or B, but plan C.