Is this guy for real? He is blaming the Liberals for the Conservatives inability to articulate thier platform and message? Smacks of Hilary’s ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. Doug if the Conservatives really wish to get your message out, then you need to talk louder than the people who are spouting off rediculous rhetoric. I.E. this segment ” we defend Israel because we believe it will hurry some apocalypse along that will hasten the return of Jesus who will wipe out the Jews.” The sad thing is I have heard this myself from self proclaimed Conservatives and on a religous right talk show on little listened to AM radio, minus the wipe out the Jews part. Try reading some of the more Conservative posters on this very site. They are getting thier version of the Conservative message out.

am reminded of Martin Niemöller’s First They Came…

for all that PC has taken
for the schools… for the science… mathematics
for marriage… for personal responsibility

they came for American exceptionalism
and there was nobody left to defend it

These Hollywood Liberals have become so self-refential; they use their own Hollywood movies to “prove” those “self-evident” truths about conservatives. They perpetuate the cliches that become the “proof” for what they believe! Thus all the evidence they really need is right there “before their very eyes”.

“To conserve implies that something important is being lost that is worth holding on to.”

I guess that doesn’t include clean water and clean air, polar bears, the polar ice caps, and most of the forests in the Rocky Mountain region.

The word Liberal used to mean that you were for individualism and free market capitalism. Now it means collectivism and socialism.

The Left has been redefining words for years and it takes a lot of effort. How else can you make freedom sound bad and totalitarianism sound good?

If you’re for freedom, you’re a racist fascist. And if you’re a dictator, you’re for the people.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

Excellent essay. I would suggest that the message of what conservatism actually is, is already there in the form of the “10 Principles of Conservatism” as articulated by Russell Kirk on the website referenced above.

The problem is that they are articulated in language that the average American will have trouble following. We saw how two words “Hope” and “Change” seemed to be all many people could handle in a philosophy.

This is my attempt at making the 10 Principles a little more accessible.

1. True Morality exists, it is not relative.
2. Custom, convention and continuity work.
3. Dimissing history is foolhardy. See Santana
4. Slow and steady is the way.
5. Variety in all ways works. Systems which attempt to make everyone and everything equal fail.
6. Man is fallible and imperfect. Utopia doesnt and will never exist on earth.
7. Freedom and Property are closely linked.
8. Voluntary community is superior to involuntary collectivism.
9. Absolute Power whether in the hands of individuals or government, corrupts absolutely.
10. Change is the natural way of things. However some things must endure.

No doubt someone else can do a better job, but I believe the first thing American Conservatives have to do is publish something like this, a set of core principles.

I hope also that the usual suspects dont immediately create strawmen through misontruing what is written but rather address these and explain why they think they are wrong.

Doug,

I think an underlying issue is the movement away from logic and rely on emotion to win debates. Paint the other side as evil, mean, intolerant, stupid, and so on, you win. You can be utterly devoid of logic, but get their emotions up, you win. The entertainment industry is all about emotions. All it takes to get a smash hit is to appeal to the emotions, how else can you explain the existence of Saw XXIV, or whatever number they are on. Make ‘em scared, and the seats will be full. Do the same in politics and you make it easier to defeat the other guy.

Liberal: We want to clean the air by making every man, woman, and child pay us $967.34 a month.

Conservative: Wait a minute. That sounds kind of ridiculous to me.

Liberal: (screaming) The Conservatives DON’T want clean air.

The Press: Republicans oppose clean air.

Mr. Blifil: Have at thee, Mr. Strawman! You hate sex and the planet!

Strawman: Ooooooh nooooooo! I’m burning!

Enjoy the winning the arguments against the evil fat-cat Rethuglikkkan Christo-fascist cartoon you carry in your head.

DARTHROVE,

Try layin’ off the wine coolers.

Isn’t it funny how the trolls and attackers all hide behind pseudonyms?

Just sayin.

Doug, just a really excellent piece. I’ll only quivel on this perhaps minor point; ‘Essentials transend culture.’ Yes, but only because they infuse culture with meaning or don’t – as Ken did elaborate in his excellent response. Plato wasn’t alone in pointing this out – although he was a political junkie, maybe why Plato is, like Burke, such a easy conservative fan fav.

I look forward to you taking up the Christian Science influence post – please do. I worked for a C.S. not-for-profit in Cleveland. The Alcazar Hotel in the Cedar Hill neighborhood. They were all really decent and committed folks who were deeply involved in Hospice serivice, converting what was once a great hotel built in the 20’s partly to that use, underwritten partly by general public use.

That said, I and some fellow co-workers had one big problem with the job. No healthcare bennies. The joke went – if you brung it up they had an answer. GO TO THE READING ROOM. Except it wasn’t very funny really. Religiously, even philosophically sound, but it smacked of a bit of the plantation doncha think? You just gotta believe, that when you need it, faith healing will be there.

I don’t say this all in spite or satire. The Alcazar was really a very unique and special place. For many people it became a spiritual haven, not just retired Scientists, but loved ones who were supporting patients at the nearyby Cleveland Clinic & University Hospital and other world class facilities.

Except, as far as you could discern, THEY (Manamgement) ALL HAD HEALTHCARE BENNIES? Even though there was a lot of praying going on as well. It’s just that the hired help had one option and they had two, or six, or eight, or take your pick. They certainly helped me believe again – that having BOTH IS WHAT IS ESSENTIAL. Faith Healing does work, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. But that said, scientific med’s are much more consistent in the Miracles dept.

Sooooo…Mr BILFIL…I think you need to go a bit further to ‘retool’.

We conservatives do not ‘think we are clever’…ect,ect,ect. In the words of the immortial teen in JUNO, ‘would you do me a solid’ and reconsider your whole stale we love the seventies take on what pro-life means to those of us who’ve moved beyond ‘free love’ to recognize that infanticide is worse than a political statement?

Because if you insist on living in the 70’s, the least you can do is start by re-reading John Irvings THE CIDER HOUSE RULES – written in the ’80’s with the ’70’s very much on it’s mind.

From the article “and we defend Israel because we believe it will hurry some apocalypse along that will hasten the return of Jesus” Sadly Doug, I have heard this very theory on religious ‘right wing’ talk radio and TV. While you can say this is not part of the Conservative thinking, there are those among you claiming this very thing. The problem is you must reign in the insanity of your own party, or your adversaries will continue to use it against you. And your right. The leftist will be P’d about your “don’t believe in an objective immaterial truth” followed by “An example of an objective immaterial truth would be that “Murder is wrong.”. Thus implying that leftists don’t believe “murder” is wrong. I would be too. As you well know, the debate is actually what constitutes murder. Abortion? The death penalty? Self defence? Excessive use of force? Nice slight of writing there.
M Colins “Utopia doesnt and will never exist on earth.” I think most Christians would disagree.

Mr. Blifil,

“So if conservation is the point, why not fight the problem of unwanted pregnancy ……”

This problem can be easily defeated by keeping ones pants on. Conservation of time tested moral principals and common sense (That cannot fail to work) is the point. The Pro-Choice Movement seems to stand on the warped idea that getting knocked up is an unavoidable malaise requiring Ex Post Facto solutions to absolve original responsibility. Women have always had the right to choose what they do with their bodies. Men have always had the choice to be responsible for that which they create.

It’s called freedom, my friend. You reap what you sow.

==Mr. Incredible – January 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am

“And, yet, I’ll bet, you say Iraq never attacked the US; you fo’get the USS Stark, asail in the Persian Gulf, hit by an Iraqi Exocet.’

Difference is we aren’t giving billions of dollars to Saddam…==

We WERE subsidizing Hussein at that time. We were on HIS side then.

To Ken,

That was perect. Unfortunatly, politicians seem to use Common Sense as a last resort and they use that poorly.
What we need in Washington is TERM LIMITS. The Senator from my state has been there since 1962. The guy has never fillied out a job application, worked a hard days work in his life. His/was a drunk, cheater, and a murderer and he still gets elected, because of his last name and lots and lots of money.
Has a large trust fund and will recieve a huge pension from us. We are missing statesmen in this country. People who are successfull on their own and then decide to serve the country, not have a career as a politician.

If all politicians that was in office 10 years ago would be thrown out and replaced with someone who has some life expierences outside of politics, I would feel a little better.

“So you don’t see being forced to carry an unwanted child to term, either for adoption or to raise in penury, as a rather drastic Ex Post Facto solution?”

Wow. This guy is so far gone that he regards the miracle of childbirth as problem, and that the uncomplicated idea that a mother should not commit the crime of Medea, infanticide, strikes him as dazzling and confusing.

Motherhood is a punishment in his world view, but chastity is unacceptable and unimaginable.

Upon reaching such bizarre and abnormal (not to mention embracing a bad bloodline survival strategy, Darwin-wise) conclusions, one would think he would recoil and examine the premises that led him here.

1. What is sex for? Pleasure only, or reproduction, or both?
2. What is marriage for?
3. Can marriage exist if sex outside marriage is customary?
4. Is childbirth a blessing or a curse?
5. Is murder wrong?
6. Is murdering a child wrong?
7. Is murdering a child whose feet are outside the womb, but whose head is still in the birth canal wrong?
8. Is murdering a child who has crested, but not yet emerged from the birth canal wrong?
9. is murdering a child five minutes before he his birth wrong? What happens in those five minutes which turns the child into a non-person lacking any right to live?
10. Is fathering a child with no intent or ability to support a child wrong?
11. Is sexual reproduction related either logically or in a cause and effect fashion to sexual reproduction?
12. Is there a relation (either as a logical category or as a matter of cause and effect) between sexual reproduction and fatherhood?
13. Is it right to live for pleasure only? Are any principles more important than pleasure?
14. What is the point of sexual reproduction, aside from sexual reproduction, if the reproductive is hindered or aborted? Is it for pleasure only? Is it a past-time or recreation, like mixed double tennis?
15. Should a man fall in love with a woman before copulating with her?
16. Should a man marry a woman if he is in love with her?
17. Should a woman reward the man with the pleasures of the marriage bed if he is unwilling or unable to bind himself to a marriage vow? Should she submit herself to a man who does not love her?
18. Let us suppose she does copulate with one or several men who do not love her and cannot make a commitment to her: what are the expected, perhaps inevitable, consequences?
19. What happens to a culture that regards chastity as abnormal and fornication as normal?

This last question may be too hard for a leftist to answer, since leftism is a psychological mechanism used primarily to deny facts and ignore reality. For those of you interested in the reality, the answer to this last question can be seen in the heartbreaking book by Theodore Dalrymple: LIFE AT THE BOTTOM (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566633826).

I like this guy’s definition:

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

http://orrinjohnson.com/about-first-principles/

BILFIL…

I was just asking if you have any. Most likely not. Common Sense is parents, not teachers instructing your kids that unprotected sex leads to trouble when not in a committed relationship.
Common Sense dictates that if you show no respect, you get no respect, The problem with a lot of people nowadays.
Common Sense dictates that you work hard and stay honest, you will be rich, not with money or items, but with self respect and solid friends and family.
Common Sense dictates that life is to be valued, not trashed like the bar receipts from the bar you were at last night and the girl/guy you had unprotected sex with.
Common Sense dictates that you practice personal responsibility. Stop blaming everyone else for the mistakes that you made in your life.

Maybe if this country practices common sense on a larger scale, we would’nt be trashing each other.

Instead, we complain about stupid things that have nothing to do with the greater good. We are selfish, petty and moronic.

We care more about are sports teams than we do about our neighbors.
We spend tons of money on things that we can’t control, such as the weather(so called man-made global warming).

The kids today watch Jon Stewart/Colbert report as their news source.

They care more about American Idol than the American dream.

I could go on, but i guess i’m too slow.

Do you belive that the tax system is based on Common Sense?

Put that in your pipe and sm………er you probally don’t smoke.

NIGHTFLY I agree in principle to what you’re saying. The left does seem to less harsh on what the right would call a nut job. However, I believe it has been proven that you just can’t ignore someone out of existence, Hammas for one. I have noticed the right does a lot of laughing. This however makes them seem more like clowns than people trying to articulate their position. For instance, the day I stopped watching FOX News is when it was suggested that perhaps a breakout of West Nile Virus could be a terrorist plot. The learned “Dr” they had as a guest poo pooed it as ridiculous that Al-Quida was ‘training mosquitoes to bite people’. The morning crew all enjoyed a good guffaw. None of them pointed out that mosquitoes already bite people, and the actual theory was terrorists could easily introduce an infected dead bird in a mosquito-ridden area. To someone who is does not have strict loyalty to either party, this type of argument is silly. The right needs to repudiate in a manner that makes sense and seems adult to us middle of the road folks, also known as swing voters. Both parties have worked hard and long to ensure their own survival by squashing any ‘new’ parties. Thus the ‘fringe’ elements HAD to join the Dems or Pubs, and now you have an internal struggle to deal with.

Mr. Blifil,

I don’t want to get OT here, but again you mention the “Unwanted Pregnancy” and a bunch of speculative penalties (Which is nothing but your projection of what “Conservatives” believe) and then go on to mention Dr. Condom. There is a common sense sequence here that is out of order, even in your post. If #2 were employed, we wouldn’t have #1. Nobody is debating contraception.

The topic here is The Conservative Message. Belief in objective immaterial truth, and how to convey that belief. Diving down into arguments religious, sexual, and social, then backpedaling in the wave of emotional condescension isn’t getting it done, so thanks for the invite.

If you believe, as many do, that free wheeling sex reflects the enlightened man and betters society then go wild. No one is trying to stop you. If you can demonstrate where abstaining or actually using a condom has caused anyone harm, I’ll kiss your ass and maybe consider your argument.

“Do you like to drive on the highways? Do you ever watch TV? Fly a plane? The government allows you to do those things. How do you propose to pay for all those functions? Lemme guess. The free markets will take care of everything, right? Read the Wall Street Journal lately?”

Whoa, wait a minute. The government “allows you to do those things”? Was not aware that the Wright Brothers were government employees. Was not aware that televisions were developed in government labs, and all television programming is produced by the government. And driving on highways- granted you might have something there, given the government’s current taste for acquiring US automakers- but I did not know the internal combustion engine and the automobile were developed by the government.

Fascinating stuff mr. bialy- thanks for all the history!

MR BLIFL wrote:

“I know you think you’re being clever by not outright stating that we should substitute the word “abortion’ for the word “slavery.” In your view, accepting abortion as inherently wrong, like slavery, will lead us to conclude that all abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest. I assume you are advocating criminalization for women who have abortions, doctors who perform them, and men who impregnate. Since that’s the kind of punishment we level at people who practice slavery right?

I assume we’ll want to take a close look at women who miscarry (the hospitals call it “spontaneous abortion” btw). This will include proper death certificates assigned to the unborn, and full funeral rites will be required. Ever been to a funeral for an 8-week old fetus who miscarried naturally? Me either.

Similarly I assume you want to outlaw fertility clinics, since embryo implantation invariably results in embro destruction, and who are we to play God with embryos, deciding which may live and which may be sold into stem cell research slavery?”

I think, sir, that you are perfectly demonstrating the point of this article…. notice how many times you use the word phrase “I assume.” If fact, upon rereading your post, it looks like you don’t actually KNOW anything of the conservative mind at all, you just assume you do. Frankly, you’re wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I know you progressives tend towards absolutism, but really, why does a pro-life stance always seem to you synonymous with a total hatred and mistrust of medical progress? And why is the desire to preserve the basic right to life twisted into an intent to criminalize anyone who disagrees? Why is any opinion that’s NOT YOURS immediately labeled as extreme?

Furthermore, I don’t recall reading the word “abortion” anywhere in this article, so from where did you pull these crazy accusations to begin with? This is precisely the problem: that liberals are allowed to put words into our mouths, to define the conservative position because we and our leaders are frequently incapable or unwilling to define it ourselves.

As far as your assumptions, please remember the obnoxious saying that when you assume, all you do is make an A$$ of U and ME.

The Seventh Letter is kind of an obscure place to extract a formulation of Platonic forms from.

Anyway, what you’re saying is reminiscent (to jump forward a couple centuries) of Thomas Sowell’s thesis of American conservatism as the constrained vision of politics (human nature is immutable and imperfect), as opposed to European progressivism (human nature is infinitely malleable and perfectable). The former we know as a Biblical principle from the Judeo-Christian tradition and western civilization in general; the latter is an Enlightenment principle best expressed by Rousseau (or in a very different way, Nietzsche).

I honestly think most liberals don’t get that liberalism and conservative are relative terms. A conservative in modern day Cuba wants to protect the Communist Party and the regime– its assumptions, its policies, etc. A liberal wants to liberalize it, introduce ideas that are shared by American conservatives: the free market, freedom of religion, etc.

Of course the entire Platonic corpus leans in the direction of the constrained vision. It is a misunderstanding that leads some to say otherwise (as Peter Robinson gets Sowell to say on Uncommon Knowledge on NRO). What I mean is this: the idea of forms is about a universality of principle, made possible by divine perfection. This is Universal in that it is One thing. Philosophy, from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom,” is, according to Plato, about love of the One, Universal Wisdom.

Thus: how to reconcile Philosophy, which is One (as opposed to the modern sense– my personal philosophy, my philosophy of beer-making is to use plenty of hops, etc.), with Politics, which is obviously determined by arbitrary and accidental circumstances, such as the location of a city to the sea, or hereditary principles, or something else which is not Universal, like Philosophy. Which leads me to why people think that Plato was some sort of political idealist (whereas Aristotle was a realist [by the way, I think it is the opposite]). Most college students have read some parts of the Republic, where Socrates says:

“Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, — nor the human race, as I believe, — and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.” (Jowett trans.)

Of course one must always be wary of reading Plato at face value. Is he saying that we SHOULD have philosopher-kings? No, it is impossible. “Political greatness” and “wisdom” DO NOT “meet in one”; that, more than anything else, I think, is the point of Plato’s dialogues (and letters, esp. the Seventh Letter).

“He says that until we have these impossible philosopher-kings, “cities will never have rest of their evils.” Of course we know from Christianity, etc. (the constrained vision) that in fact humanity will never have rest of its evils no matter what– except in that ideal world, the Kingdom of Heaven (much like Plato’s Ideal Form-world). The point is that human institutions are imperfect and human nature is fixed and flawed.

Thus Wisdom– Political Wisdom (or Political Philosophy) consists in recognizing this and setting up institutions according to this understanding. This is the point of Plato’s (failed) attempt to influence the foundation of a regime in Syracuse and his last dialogue, The Laws (Nomoi), which is about this very topic.

So yes, conservatives preserve the ideal. But we do that by keeping it in heaven, in educating our children in virtue, in preserving Western Civilization and Christian Tradition. We keep it from government. This is the revelation that our founders encoded into our nations Laws, its Tradition, its Inheritance. That the ideal is in Heaven, and the Earth is for earthly institutions.

Our friends the liberals, on the other hand, have no need of civilization and tradition and heaven. These are at best useful myths; at worst tools of false consciousness imposed upon us. We must break free, perfect humankind! We have no need of the past, of these dead forms! We seek the ideal, and on Earth, a paradise on Earth, with Philosopher-Kings. They are naive, well-meaning people who do not heed the wisdom of our fathers. But we will all suffer for their ignorance.

Fergus,

Hear, hear. There is an old saying that fits this situation: Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Mr Blifil
“So if conservation is the point, why not fight the problem of unwanted pregnancy with contraceptive programs aimed at educating people about how to prevent pregnancy? Name me one conservative organization dedicated to such a proposition?’

I think we call those parents. Preferably, one man and one woman who teach their children.

Post your home email, address, and phone number, and we can have this debate over coffee! I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the majority of comments areas are conducted by people protecting their privacy by using psuedonyms. Some of them are even propogating conservative ideas. Imagine that.

Wow, guess who jumped right on that one. I think there’s a Carly Simon song about you, or is it?

Mr Blifil – January 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am

Post your home email, address, and phone number, and we can have this debate over coffee! I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the majority of comments areas are conducted by people protecting their privacy by using psuedonyms. Some of them are even propogating conservative ideas. Imagine that.

Wow, guess who jumped right on that. I think there’s a Carly Simon song about you, or is it?

At your prompting I looked up liberal and conversative on Roget’s, my god these guys at Roget’s make Wikipedia look like the Weekly Standard.

One of the synonyms for “conservative” is “white bread.” Are you kidding me?

Mr Blifil:
“I know you think you’re being clever by not outright stating that we should substitute the word “abortion’ for the word “slavery.” In your view, accepting abortion as inherently wrong, like slavery, will lead us to conclude that all abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest. I assume you are advocating criminalization for women who have abortions, doctors who perform them, and men who impregnate. Since that’s the kind of punishment we level at people who practice slavery right?”

I am curious: do you support the death penatly for criminals who commit rape or incest? Because you seem to advocate that their offspring be executed for the father’s crime. The Supreme Court says executing the rapist is unconstitutional but says his victim’s right to kill the rapist’s progeny is Constitutionally protected. I don’t suppose you appreciate the bitter irony in that.

“I assume we’ll want to take a close look at women who miscarry (the hospitals call it “spontaneous abortion” btw). This will include proper death certificates assigned to the unborn, and full funeral rites will be required. Ever been to a funeral for an 8-week old fetus who miscarried naturally? Me either.”

The hospital didn’t give us back our baby’s body: they sent it to Pathology. Were you there to console us in our grief? Didn’t think so.

Let’s take marriage, for example … My “liberal” stance on the matter, however, says that the essential truth to be observed and respected is the equality between *persons.*

That’s not your position. Your position is that same-sex marriage, generally referred to as gay marriage, has the word ‘gay’ in it and that therefore it is correct and progressive given that everything gay is good. All that has the label ‘gay’ MUST be supported to demonstrate one’s enlightened state of social transcendence, in the same way that a government program entitled in any manner only with the addendum ‘for the children’ must be correct and automatically supported because anything that is ‘for the children’ must be beneficial. The goal is not to align one’s views with what is best for society, but rather with anything that paints oneself in the best light relative to a mythological state of progressive perfection, aka ‘everything good and pretty and shiny’, defined most lazily by whatever issues are highlighted on the local news. (20 years ago same-sex marriage was not on anybody’s radar –- not even in places like San Francisco. I know; I was there, traveling in circles supersaturated with gays. To pretend this is a civil rights issue for the ages is utter and complete horsepucky.)

The origins of marriage are derived more from the biological evolutionary necessities of procreation in a highly intelligent, extremely social, slow-developing species like homo sapiens than it does with people ‘creating’ it due to some random cultural quirk. That you think marriage and other fundamental human institutions are arbitrary (and by extension their biological evolutionary underpinnings) is what makes you liberal, which is to say you deny your own humanity — reality (science) — in lieu of your own imagined, correct role in a mystical, mythological social and intellectual narrative of the ‘new’ man (or the metrosexual man, as the case may be), a ‘new’ society, a ‘new’ form of ‘progressive’ marriage, whatever. In a very real way your views are far more faith-based than those of any Christian, for instance, whose ideas have at least been tested in the real world for thousands of years.

In short, you’re not a bad guy, you’re just a ditz. Distilled into its essence, marriage has always been and will always be about procreation. That you ignore such obvious aspects of an institution in lieu of some sophomoric blather about equality and dignity says more about what you want SSM (and other issues) to be about than it does about SSM itself.

This is what makes you liberal*: the rhetorical sighs and other silly, breathless, effete nonsense. Oprah and Dr. Phil watchers might be convinced by such ‘arguments’, but I rather doubt that the women who watch those shows will ever show up here. You should know your audience.

And don’t forget: Some of were once liberal, perhaps even radical. Some of us know EXACTLY how liberals think because we’ve been there. Sometimes, though, it’s difficult to articulate the rather convoluted if pedestrian psychological peccadilloes of someone else when said peccadilloes come in so many different flavors and are just so damned … convoluted.

* By the way, I give you credit for being an actual liberal. Others, such as Math Guy and Mr Blifil, are not liberals. Neither are they Leftists. They are nothing more than political tribalists, full of hate and vitriol and conspiracy theories and little else. I don’t agree with you on SSM, but at least you’re not using politics as a cover for your bigotries (apparently), a rather common practice among modern Democrats.

Mr Blifil~

A common theme I hear on comercials, in studies, from pontificating liberals, is that the only sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is to use a contraceptive, normally stated as a condom. This is untrue, the only sure way to avoid those things is to keep your pants, as another on here put it. What do you have against people keeping their pants on that you find the idea apalling?

As for the notion that abortion should be legal for victims of rape/incest(which is normally rape), well, the odds of a woman getting pregnant from rape is slim, about 5% chance. It happens, but not often. What are those 5% supposed to do? adoption.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

I hear the word ‘Choice’ thrown out all the time. Its the woman’s ‘choice’ to murder the child (lets call it what it is). What about the child’s choice? what choice does it have? If you want to get right down to it, the woman the got pregnant most likely made the choice to have sex. She should then accept the consequences. The father too should be responsible for his choice, this is why we have child support laws.

Conservatives do not hate contraceptives, despite what you might assume. We just don’t believe they should be handed out to children. There are many married couples that use contraceptives because they are not yet ready to have children, this is perfectly acceptable. Abortion is not a contraceptive. a contraceptive prevents pregnancy, abortion ends a life. Our problem (for most of us) with pre-marital sex stems from the belief that sex is to be reserved for marriage, which is defined in the book of Genesis as between one man and one woman.

Miscairages are a different subject entirely. many women that miscarry (my sister-in-law for one, her first miscarry almost killed her) do infact name their child. They understand that life starts at conception, and that it was, in fact, a person.

As for punishing those involved with abotrion? We normal give those who murder a child life in prison or the death penalty, I think a twenty year prison sentence for an abortion Dr is acceptable. As for the mother, there is no need to punish her, she will punish herself enough. I have an aunt and two lady friends that have had abortions. Their sentiments are the same, they beat themselves up (mentally) for their choice. God will forgive them, I won’t stop loving them, but they can’t forgive themselves.

Now some questions for you. Do you know where the modern pro-choice movement began? it began in the early parts of the 20th century in a movement called Eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that some people groups are more highly evolved than others. Part of the movement was the forced sterilization of ‘lesser’ people. Margaret Sanger, the ‘mother’ of Planned Parenthood (and ostensibly the modern pro-choice, pro-death, movement), was part of the eugenics movement, which ran rampant in America until the end of WWII when it was discovered that Hitler took eugenics to its logical conclusion (wiping out the races he deemed undesireable).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

And as for we conservatives trying to get the government out of pushing contraceptives is part of our larger goal getting the government out of things it has not business being involved in. If you want to teach your children to use condoms and sleep around, then by all means, have at it, We conservatives would rather our children (or neices & nephews, or grandchildren as the case may be) save it for some one special when they’re ready for the responsibilities and consequences of their choices. The government, which so many liberals ripped for the last eight years for not doing anything right, doesn’t have the right or the authority to tell me, or anyone, how to raise their child. The government does have the right, however, to condemn murder. And killing some one who can’t defend themself and has committed no crime and is not a soldier fighting a war, is murder.

The funny thing about abortion, if anything about it can said to be funny, is that those that support abortion have had the good luck to not have been aborted.

Doug,
Way to go! This is a great piece! You are right that conservatives have allowed democrats to define us for far too long. We have been unable to find gutsy leaders who can articulate what a conservative American believes, our ideals, values and principles. Do you know what a conservative believes? Read more at:

http://conservativeamerican.org/conservatives/what-is-a-conservative/

Nighfly; Thanks for the assist. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Mr B. gushes typical Liberal rhetorical malpractice – AVOID REFUTING THE POINT MADE then bridge the ommission on to the next false premise. Abortion remains a devisive roiling issue because there is no parcing what IT IS. Your deconstruction on his ‘news flash’ about convienence was equally well put.

Kate O; Thanks for airing your laundry publicly – what a feast.

Jonah West; Thanks for a enlightening historical reminder. I mentioned Irving & CIDERHOUSE RULES for a reason. His protaganist was an orphan who KNEW EXACTLY what the good Dr, with all his good intentions, was ultimately pushing. His life was informed as an unwanted child who only survived because of an accident of timing. It’s also about the time (’89 or so) I broke with liberal orthodoxy.

Remebering why and how Planned Parenthood evolved into a mainstream member of medicine is important. But in my mind it’s Phillys Schlafly, beginnin with defeating the ERA, that really infused reality and tactical genius into the pro-life movement. And, despite Mr B. America has followed. All the hysterics are on the left. Criminalization is a breath away;Public & private funding is harder and harder to get;Qualifed medical professionals refusing to participate.

Among many of Mr B’s assumptions was that I was condesendingly implying that it’s all so ‘easy’. No it’s not, it’s often very hard and too often very tragic. What is easy now is to be pro-life, and for exactly why Nightfly articulated. What abortion is – is infanticide – a harsh but direct correct definintion. Not ‘choice’ or ‘late term’ or ‘early term’…edit euphemism out and there is no place to hide. That is progress as I see it – because all the shrill histronics on the left eminate from The fact MORE WOMEN ARE HAVING THE BABY.

Because it is all so complicated for Mr B and his ilk he will endlessly try and convince the rest of us it must be complicated for everyone. Liberal cant 101. It IS SIMPLE – should the point arrive. HAVE THE BABY.

Mr Blifil completely missed you point SammyD. He then proceeds to make up “your world view” and supplies it with a conclusion of his own, followed by a snide commentary based on his fantasy of his perception of your world view. Mr. Blifil’s mental neighborhood is one strange place. He is quite able to carry on both sides of a conversation. How tiresome, self-serving, and self-centered. Mr. B, a truly sad loser.

Just reading through these comments shows why conservatives are having problems with their message. Mr. Blifil (and maybe a couple others) is the only one with any connection to how all these high-minded ideas would work in the real world. Here’s a Truth: Teen-agers and other folks are going to have sex. The question is how you deal with that reality. Sex education and contraception have the best track record. There’s nothing wrong with pleasure within reason (balance). Nothing wrong with voluntary abstinence, but that’s not what humans are built for (A ship in a harbor is a safe ship, but that’s not what a ship is built for). Humans, unlike animals, have developed the knowledge to reduce or prevent pregnancy (and disease). Are we not supposed to be different (better?) than the animal world?

Here’s another Truth: Women (Girls) will have abortions. Always have, always will. Contraception can reduce the amount, but a not insignificant group of conservatives ARE opposed or favor restrictions, morality clauses for pharmacists, etc. You cannot deny that many on the religious right see some or most forms of contraception as like abortion.

Those who hold hard to a “Pro-Life” view, what does your world look like? How do you get there without a degree of authoritarianism I shudder to imagine?

As an aside, I would also second what someone said about the influence John Hagee and like-minded preachers have on the base of the Republican Party. I’m not sure one can laugh away the supporting of Israel because of End Times theology influence.

==Are we not supposed to be different (better?) than the animal world? ==

Not according to those who claim to be homosexual. They point to the animal kingdom as the authority for their choice of the homosexual, altgernative-lifestyle orientation option. ‘N other words, “If they can do it, we can, too.”

Mr. Blifil,
“So if conservation is the point, why not fight the problem of unwanted pregnancy with contraceptive programs aimed at educating people about how to prevent pregnancy? Name me one conservative organization dedicated to such a proposition?’

And free contraceptives from Planned Parenthood has done so well in combatting unwanted pregnancies. Gee, why didn’t we think of that?
I think it is the Liberals who seem to be out of touch and unable to grasp reality. Maybe it’s time to come back to the real world.

==Here’s another Truth: Women (Girls) will have abortions. Always have, always will.==

Translation: “Choice cannot be eliminated.”

In other words, if we overturn Roe, choice is still there.

==Mr. Blifil,
…going on websites and arguing points with people that you don’t even know?==

Uhhh, isn’t that what these kinds-a sites are for?

==In less than a 24-hour period you have posted more than 20 comments on this single post. ==

Is he taking up more than his share of electrons? Are we runnnin’ out, or somethin’?

==Maybe you should start your own blog to voice your opinion?==

Why should he when he can come here — just like you — and post answers to what you and others say?

== Or read a book?==

Maybe he does already and, in his spare time, comes here and posts.

== Play with your kids?==

Maybe he does that, too.

== While your comments and insistence on being right…==

You insist on your being right, no?

==… is much appreciated here, I’m sure there are much greater things you can contribute to your community at large.==

Maybe he can chew gum and walk at the same time, huh? A multitasker. You don’t have a prob with his doing several things are once, do you?

==I’m just saying, for everyone’s sake.==

Oh, you’re just worried about everybody else’s sake.

To conserve implies that something important is being lost that is worth holding on to. It’s also why we aren’t terribly interested in future utopias, new forms we can evolve into, we don’t dream a lot because there can be no hope for the future if the true things of the past are rejected or forgotten. So something must be conserved for there to be conservatism.

This is something Ive been saying since the mid-90s! I love this article…say it more, say it often!

How do you protect them? That is — the minds and hearts from being corrupted by immorality.

[...] http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/01/22/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident/ No comments currently exist for this post. Leave a Reply:Get a Gravatar Click here to cancel reply. [...]

You must be logged in to post a comment.