- No Left Turns
Home - Donate to the
Ashbrook Center - Ashbrook Home
- RSS Site Feed
- Ashbrook Podcasts
Enter Monthly
Drawing for the
No Left Turns Mug- Comments by
Our Readers - Recommend
No Left Turns
to Your Friends - No Left Turns:
What's in a Name? - No Left Turns
Archive
- Other Ashbrook
Web Sites - Ashbrook Center
- Ashbrook Scholar Program
- Social Studies
Teacher Seminars 
Congressional Academy for American History and Civics
Presidential Academy for American History and Civics
Master of American History and Government- VindicatingThe Founders.com
- Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy
American Speeches, Letters, and Documents
On-Line Library
Constitutional
Convention- Ratification of
the Constitution
Search
Authors
Blogroll
Categories
- Ashbrook Center
- Bioethics
- Congress
- Conservatism
- Courts
- Economy
- Education
- Elections
- Environment
- Foreign Affairs
- Health Care
- History
- Journalism
- Literature, Poetry, and Books
- Men and Women
- Military
- Political Parties
- Political Philosophy
- Politics
- Pop Culture
- Presidency
- Race
- Religion
- Shameless Self-Promotion
- Sports
- Technology
- The Civil War & Lincoln
- The Founding
Yes, gross misreading of the mood of the country in 1994. Even today, the only way to make the pkan work out is with stuff like this :
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
"The JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain 'acceptable health insurance coverage' and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."
They would be wiser to make the fine something like a parking ticket and imprisonment? Why not make that really onerous and promise offenders a stretch at Guantanamo? What else are we going to do with the facility? I hear it has a good hospital attached.
Since support is falling and since Congress has to gear up for next year's elections and they do not want to be explaining stuff like that back home, this is a now or never moment. Obama was right last summer that a bill had to be passed in a hurry. I am presuming that there are true believers in favor of national health care and it seems to me that they are saying to America, "Open wide and take your medicine."
Did a scientist train the bird to drop the baguette? No? Maybe it was a robotic bird, sent from the future? This sounds more like Terry Pratchett than Michael Crichton.
Austen, yes . . . or Aristotle, maybe. But why complicate things when we can think it through on our own?
You ask, "Is it that women "tame" men or that men "tame" women? I answer that it is both. Men make women behave less like women are inclined to do when left to themselves. And women make men act less like men are inclined to do when left to themselves. We are, neither of us (male or female), complete beings. We need each other to be our best and to make our civilization as good as it can be. An entirely male world or an entirely female world would be a desperate and a nasty place.
You will object that some gay men can have a similar civilizing effect upon one another. Perhaps, in individual cases, there may be some shred of truth to this. Ideally, we all should be made better by our friends. But you forget that you have the benefit of living in an already strong civilization--made strong, of course, by the presence of strong families composed by equal but different parts. It is considered uncivilized to oppress the weak, in large part, because we learn that truth within the structure of a traditional family by watching fathers restrain themselves with mothers and watching mothers lovingly recognize the not-so-obvious weaknesses of those fathers. You do not need to point out that this ideal is not always the case. There are bad marriages, just as obviously as there are bad people. But this is also true in homosexual unions.
You grant that on the physical level marriage is a union of opposites. But in order to deny that it is something beyond that, you have to deny that physical reality does not transcend into anything beyond that on an intellectual, spiritual, and existential level. You have to suggest that apart from physical differences, man and woman are exactly the same. Do you really want to make that argument? Are we interchangeable parts? There is nothing uniquely feminine and nothing uniquely masculine? That defies reason. Does any serious person even make that argument anymore?
Julie, I sense that you've become weary of this debate, but one last thing...if we remove children from the equation for both gay and straight couples, how does heterosexual marriage "encourage civilization?" You don't explain how, again, removing the children from the argument, how a heterosexual coupling is so integral for civilization. Is it that women "tame" men or that men "tame" women? For gay couples does one not "tame" the other? Does one not take responsibility for the other just a husband and wife do? Your only argument against this seems to be that marriage is a uniting of opposites. I'll grant you that on the physical level this is, indeed, the case. But I still don't see how you leap from that to the civilizing effect. Clearly, I don't read nearly enough Jane Austen. It has been fun
Does that mean that, if it passes, it will be a Triumph of the Will?
Earnshaw . . . I have no doubt that for you and for your friend your relationship is very meaningful. The question I pose to you is how meaningful do you think it is or ought to be to the rest of us? Subtracting the question of children (because that is a separate issue altogether) what does your relationship do for society? What, in itself, does a homosexual union do to encourage civilization? However wonderful and productive the two parties involved may be, their coming together (and I don't mean this in merely a sexual sense, as you imply) is a private affair. That is to say, it is only tangentially of any use to the rest of us--as it is when two friends get together to pick up litter or work a food bank. There is no inherent benefit to society in your coupling. In marriage there is a benefit to society that comes from the very fact of it. Let me explain, if I may . . .
When you really think about it, the coming together of two opposites like man and woman--though, in a sense, more natural or more according to biological design--is also something more to be wondered at--especially in human beings. Most of us--once we are beyond infancy and toddlerdom--don't immediately prefer the intimate acquaintance of the opposite sex. Boys play with boys, and girls play with girls. It is easier to find peace and familiarity with your same sex peers. And in a large variety of animals the male and female live almost entirely apart--but for copulation--and then, sometimes, the females are "kept" or herded by dominant males. But they don't often live together in equality and harmony.
But here we humans are, put on this earth as two similar but amazingly different types of the same kind of being, just like the animals in that sense, and yet we have managed, through biological impulse and reason, to figure a different way--and one that makes both of us, well . . . better. How easy it would have been for one sex to oppress the other--and, in fact (as you note) how often that is actually the case in (what we used to call, quite rightly) less civilized cultures.
The logical problem that homosexual couples who demand that their relationships be regarded on an equal footing with marriage is that it is not in fact or in theory on an equal footing. Because of the civilization that we have--thanks, in large part, to marriage--we can observe that toleration for homosexuals is a just and a humane thing. We can afford, right now, to tolerate even fairly open homosexuality partly because our civilization is so strong and because people are inclined (again, thanks in part to marriage) to be generous in spirit to those who are born with (and, yes, I do think that in most cases people are born with these tendencies) what they might consider a problem or a deficiency that cannot be helped. That homosexuals now want openly to embrace their difference as a positive good is a different issue--but I hope you will recognize that my pity for it is not of the patronizing variety. You cannot blame me for being happy that I don't have to walk in your shoes. And I cannot blame you for trying to make the best of the hand you were dealt. But I think it fair to insist that we not ignore the truth about nature as we discuss it.
Up until now, homosexuals and homosexuality itself have not presented a real threat to civilization except in the "minds" of the occasional brutish sort of small-minded Cretan or zealot. (Why people make the things that these sort of people do the focus of any public discussion is always beyond me . . . they're not going to go away no matter how the laws change. They can only be reigned in . . . and the best way to do that generally isn't by threatening them. They do not represent anything like the mainstream . . . and it's usually best to ignore them. But I suppose there are political reasons for one side to paint them as being more powerful and important than they actually are--but the practical truth is that the more this is done, the larger their numbers grow as people unable to articulate their revulsion to the change are drawn to them in desperation. Recognizing them is counterproductive nonsense if you really are in favor of a civilized approach to the debate . . . but it is easier to argue with them, I guess, than it is to argue with rational people.)
Again, I am willing to discuss and, possibly, to make concessions in matters of child custody if it is on behalf of the children who are parented by homosexual couples. I do not think homosexuals are necessarily bad parents to children, that they are more likely to molest them, nor do I think that they will necessarily be inclined or able to "convert" them . . . It is just that I generally think it is better for a kid to have the opportunity to have both a mother and a father. I understand that that is not always possible, and God bless those homosexual couples (and single people) who are willing and able to take in children who do not have that better alternative. But can't we admit that (all other things being equal, e.g., no abuse etc.) married heterosexual parents are better? And can't we admit (though I probably would not make it a matter of law) that it is morally wrong for people knowingly and purposefully (oopsies are a different matter) to bring a child into the world if there will not be a mother and a father for that child? That ought to be the standard. Everything else is what we do to compensate in a pinch.
But in those homosexual unions where there are children involved, and custody becomes an issue, I would say that the interests of the particular children would have to come first. But in that recognition, there could also be no general concession that equates the homosexual union with a marriage. Still, if a child recognizes two (or however many) people, whoever they are, as their parents then courts should do what they can to respect that. But it is important for people who are involved in non-traditional unions--or serial unions--where there are kids involved to take responsibility for that too. We should do what we can on behalf of children. But we should not, as a society, have to clean up all the mess that people are making of their lives through irresponsibility. We cannot make law to fit every possible permutation of what we want to do with respect to family. We can be tolerant, but we don't have to be stupid. (And this is true of heterosexuals who shack up, have kids out of wedlock and all the rest of it.) There may be room to streamline some of these procedures and regulations and make custody questions easier. I am no expert in that. But the burden really should come down on those who seek to be parents outside of marriage. Lawyer up. Be responsible. Do your job and protect the interests of your children. And because it is much more complicated for homosexuals to have children in the first place (we don't need a discussion of why that is, do we?) shouldn't it be obvious to them that the legal protections and ramifications of custody disputes are going to be all that much more complicated. I really don't see why it is too much to ask that people accept the limitations and obligations imposed on them by the choices they make. If they don't choose their homosexuality, homosexuals (much more, in fact, than most heterosexuals) certainly do choose it when they become parents. But in the end, all I really ask in all custody disputes, is that the interests of the children are paramount. I am sure we can agree about that.
Thank you for a good and a civilized conversation about these matters, Earnshaw.
I heard that some are suspicious that there are scientists sabatoging the thing because they are nervous about what will happen. What is interesting to me is that no one claims the black hole or other doomsday events are outside the realm of possibility, yet so few question this project. The entire thing is like a Michael Crichton novel.
Nor should the 10.2% unemployment rate help Pelosi & Co. They offer one stupid and ruinously expensive proposal after another and call them all wisdom.
Leaders are not going to be able to resolve those problems of abortion and immigration because they are insoluble problems in a government plan, except if we all agree to pay for abortions and the inevitable immigrants who will need medical care in emergency situations. Paying for immigrants would come sooner and paying for abortions would come later and gradually, but come they will. We have set the ethical issues of treating the terminally ill or supposedly terminally ill aside for time being, but expense will force everyone to examine the question of "quality of life" for the chronically ill. National health makes us all, especially the young, look at inevitability of death and taxes in a whole new way. Forcing the young into paying for the health care of the old through weird "not a tax" taxes is going to make everyone else's grandmother look like a considerable liability.
--------------------------
But this brings me to an aside: my Navy Corpsman son's wife is carrying my grandchild who has a considerable birth defect, detected through a routine ultrasound. The rate of survival is 95% if the child is delivered in the US in a good NICU. However, he has a snowball's chance in Hell if he is delivered at the Navy hospital where my son works in Okinawa. The Navy is sending her (and maybe my son, too,) to the US probably to Bethesda Naval Hospital for maternity care, the delivery, as well as the post-natal surgeries to repair the defect. This is your national Defense Department dollars at work.
I feel like I should thank the American taxpayer for this, but lacking a loud enough voice, I thank all of you who read this.
Pete . . . we basically agree--and your discussion above is masterful. (Why are you not working for the RNC?!) I know you do not want to make the case that the GOP should abandon social conservatism. But I wanted to draw you out on that because I thought your argument might be confused with that silly and more prominent argument. There are many things about what David Frum and others like him are doing with which I sympathize. They do, like you (and I) seem rightly to sense where the major problems for the GOP reside. They don't want the GOP to be blind to them. I think he means well but that he has the wrong prescription in the end--in part because Frum and others view cities through a single lens. I, like you, agree that we ought not to give up on the big urban centers--the GOP cannot thrive only as the party of the Midwest and South. I only wanted to remind people that all cities are not alike.
Julie, you seem to think that all we are is "friends, with benefits." While I've never been in love with someone of the opposite sex, if it's anything near what I feel for my partner then it's obviously significantly more substantial than friendship, with or without the benefits. Part of why I want the rights and responsibilities of marriage is because I don't, fundamentally, believe in "shacking up."
Women have always been treated as property in the world of marriage. I would hope that we have moved past that view of the dynamics in relationships. Additionally, as we in gay relationships continue to have children and raise families I would think that you would want society to protect those innocents. Wouldn't they benefit from the protections that parental marriage would provide them? I agree that society has a role in promoting stable relationships, and that while standing in front of a minister and reciting vows is one form of commitment, the state has a few strings that when attached, make it much harder to leave a relationship. These strings benefit the children.
Make it harder to get married; make it harder to dissolve that marriage; but allow all who want to make that commitment to another to have access to the rights and responsibilities that word embodies.
Fantastic job, Julie. All the way around, especially your initial discussion on African Americans and this particular question.
I couldnt agree more with brutus and am curious why no one cares...
Also, here is change I can believe in!:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design
I agree with you, Earnshaw, that there ought to be some concession within (state) laws to make partnership agreements more general and less complicated. I would not agree with you, however, in all that you seem to demand.
For example, the bit about testifying against a partner (not spouse) in court. Because here, again, you tend toward equating your friendship with a marriage. It isn't. If you think about it, you will understand that the reason for laws protecting spouses (and, let's be clear . . . this is mostly wives and meant, mostly, for wives) from testifying against their spouses in court has to do with respecting a certain amount of inequality between man and wife that no laws or romantic papering over can hide. Wouldn't there be a certain amount of obvious cruelty in forcing a woman whose husband is a criminal to testify against him openly in court? What would this likely mean for her in private, later--either as regards to life and limb or property? And, even if he (apart from his criminality) is a generally decent man, for a wife, testifying against a husband is rather like testifying against herself because of the subtle and conjoined interests that she has with him (in some cases, even, flesh and blood). You may dread testifying against a friend . . . and sometimes the pain may be equally horrible (I won't discount that--especially if there are children involved) but it is not obviously or even, often, the same. The presumption in favor of protecting the innocent cannot be extended in these cases in quite the same way. There are similar problems with some of your other objections. You don't quite want to recognize that there is a difference between what you are doing and marriage.
Right now, in most states, I suppose (and you acknowledge) that most homosexual couples can enjoy the majority of the so-called "rights" you delineate above if they lawyer up and are smart about how they go about setting up their households. But, in general, they face most of the same problems that heterosexual couples face in shacking up. Should we extend these benefits to them too? If you want to argue that there should be an easier way for homosexuals to set up a household, I'd agree that it is fair--and probably time--for us to discuss what would be the best way to go about doing that. But it is unfair and rash to demand that we call homosexual unions "marriage" when, clearly, they are not. Marriage ought, still, to hold a privileged and special position in society because of the good it does--ironically, you might say--in teaching the civilizing virtue of toleration.
Julie, I think you have the wrong guy. I don't think that social conservatism is why the GOP is in trouble. I'm with Ramesh Ponnuru when he writes that social conservatism has been keeping the GOP in the game as economic conservatism's appeal has declined as the across the board income tax agenda has become exhausted and has not yet been replaced with a new positive economic agenda. I eas actually going to add one more thought yesterday before parental responsibilities called.
The thought was that GOP candidates would be smart to focus on the humanity of the late term fetus and on restricting late term abortions, alongside a healthy and relevant economic agenda. I've lost track of how many young, urban folks of solidly Democratic political identity are horrified at the practice and think it is already illegal or that it ought to be. The "social conservatives are ruining the GOP" thing is so prominent because liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans find it easy to spin journalists who have a false sense of themselves as fiscal conservatives (because they want higher taxes to go with higher spending) and a very real sense of themselves as social liberals. This makes those journalists very gullible for a "good fiscal conservatives/social liberal vs. bad social conservative storyline".
I think that a much bigger problem than social conservatism is more subtle and doesn't have much to do with policy issues. Its more of a suburban and rural oriented rhetoric that seems to dismiss people who live in urban areas. The McCain campaign was almost a parody of this approach. They seemed to work alot harder at telling people that Palin was a hockey mom than on Obama's abortion extremism. Conservative should remember that Reagan was pretty careful to balance urban and rural images in his rhetoric.
I happen not to think that moving left is the key to cutting down the Democratic margins in urban areas. I think that a strategy for cutting the Democratic margins in urban areas would include but not be limited to:
1. A huge investment of time and money. And especially advertizing on Spanish language channels and media with large African American audiences. Having conservative candidates learn a couple of hundred words of Spanish wouldn't hurt either.
2. A prudent understanding of how the African American community's dominant narrative of the last fifty years differs from that of the standard conservative narrative you hear on the populist conservative media. The different narratives don't mean that common ground can't be found on the benefits of free market economics, limited government, and human dignity, but one must be careful. You might be able to sell a free market oriented health care plan the reduces the growth of premiums, an energy policy that cuts energy costs, and some restrictions on abortion. But you can't do it in terms of how Reagan saved America in the 1980s. One has to respect one's audiences sensibilities and perspective.
3. A willingness to take hits and hit back hard and quickly. The Democrats will hit below the belt by calling you racist of whatever. Hit back with numbers as much as possible. How much will cap and trade cost the average African American family? How much will tort reform and removing regulations that prevent people from buying insurance across state lines save a middle class Latino family? The think tank wonks should be crunching those numbers and conservative politicians should publicize them constantly. We also have high resoultion sonogram technology. What does a full term African American fetus look like? How does he or she move? Under what circumstances should it be legal to stop that human heart? Conservatives should seek to frame the issue as a liberal racial identity politics that is corrupt vs conservative policies that offer real life improvements and that uphold important shared principles.
The biggest danger is less that the GOP will move left, but that conservatives will take a fatalistic approach to Democratic margins in urban areas.
I am impressed with your reasoning. Homosexual marriage is not in the same category as slavery. When the constitution was developed slavery was a hot issue. Even though it wasn't legally resolved until the Civil War and still lacks greatly as far as equal rights are concerned, it was considered to be a point of controversy. The people who created the constitution would be absolutely amazed if they could see today how we are trying to manipulate what they wrote concerning this issue. I can't believe that homosexuality has ever gotten as far as it has in societal consideration, and I was born in 1956.
I hope that the future doesn't bring what I think it will within the boundaries of our country. I fear greatly for my posterity!
The History Man
I am not protected from testifying against my partner in court (not that we anticipate needing this right). The right to social security inheritance, joint insurance policies, the filing a joint IRS return and attending deductions, credits, etc (although we do this....how many auditors could the IRS really have to investigate this little fraud), the right to sponsor my spouse for immigration purposes (again, not really an issue for us, but it is for some), shared property rights, custodial rights to children, domestic violence protection orders, right to inheritance of property, etc. Granted, some of this can be taken care of through partnership agreements, but the very fact that we have to have all of this additional paperwork in order to get the benefits that are conferred upon you as soon as the court processes that pesky little marriage license strikes me as patently absurd. If you really look at the list of 1000+ rights, you'll see that this is a legal contract focusing on property rights, and not some treatise about the philosophical union of two separate souls.
I really cannot think of any "right" that you don't have. If you can irrefutably prove that there is one, I would not oppose efforts to include you, Earnshaw. I would, however, stipulate (as I did above) that it is perfectly acceptable for adoption agencies first to seek out married heterosexual couples when seeking to place children and allow homosexual couples, unmarried couples, and single people to adopt only when there is no better alternative. I also would not approve of laws that demand private insurers cover "domestic partners"--though certainly some insurers (at least in a competitive market) will. I think it should be clear, from the point of view of law, that there is a real and important difference between the activity of a marriage and the activity of close friends. But I think it is unreasonable and cruel, for example, if the partners in a homosexual relationship are denied visitation rights in a hospital, etc. There is probably room to streamline some of these laws to make things less complicated and confusing (and, therefore, more compassionate) for homosexual couples. As long as there is no way to construe a law as a government sanctioning of homosexual unions (i.e., if the same laws might apply to two sisters living together, for example) then I probably would have no problem with it.
That the surface of things often points to deeper lessons--but that few people take the surface seriously enough to go deeper. But foreign observers, scarcely disinterested, do take seriously our vulnerabilities and how easily we are flattered. McCarry, like Roberta Wohlstetter (whose book I recently revisited), invites us to see the world as one not simply brought to be by chance but to a greater extent than we suspect by intention.
Julie,
So you will grant to me and my same-sex partner all of the federal rights and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples who file a marriage license with the courts? In exchange for all of those thousands of legal rights and protections, I am more than happy to call it anything you'd like. If you're not willing to afford me all of those thousands of rights, then which ones do you I should be denied?
That was funny, Craig. Now pull the other one.
That is all very interesting. But it is complicated, don't you think? Isn't it easier to explain to a person that you have no political objection to two guys living together and (for me, given certain concessions to the fact that a mom and dad are to be preferred to two dads whenever possible) no objection to them adopting or having children and living together as a family--and no objection to them calling it a family. I have no problem with having them for friends or even, really, with my kids playing with their kids. (Though I want the freedom to be able to teach my kids that this is not the preferred route.) My problem is with calling what they're doing a marriage. It isn't. It can never be one no matter what they want to call it. It isn't a joining together of equal but opposite partners. They are really good friends who happen, REALLY, to enjoy each other's company. And whatever good they do for each other and their immediate circle of friends, they still don't offer society that same civilizing influence stemming from the building of one entity out of disparate and opposite parts like man and woman. The dichotomy this presents to the mind and the understanding of truth that is born out of it from the mere operation of day to day life is felt on so many levels that it is impossible to articulate.
I find that when people understand that THIS is the thing that motivates your desire to demand that the difference be recognized, there is very little logical opposition to it. I also find that it tones down the emotional rhetoric. It is hard to blame people for getting defensive if they suspect that you hate them. When they understand that you don't, conversation becomes possible. As for benefits and other legal matters, I'm perfectly happy to concede to their side most, if not all, of what they want. Just don't call it marriage. That is the lie we must fight.
But Clint . . . if you accept my premise, then Huckabee may not be the best candidate. The BEST candidate will be one who does not reject social conservatism out of hand (one, indeed, who embraces it) but does not put it into the forefront of his day to day campaign. He will be a candidate who, on the basis of his established social conservative credentials, can make a satisfying case to social conservatives that persuades them about the need for economic conservatism and does not, at the same time, alienate big city and suburban voters who are sick of high taxes but more liberal in social matters. He cannot be an "in your face" sort of religious person--either in reality or even by perception. I think that rules Huck out. Maybe that's too bad. But I also think its true.
Julie, I pretty much think (and have a certain Platonic and Madisonian and Solzhenitsynian and Mansfieldian political science of polarization patterns in republics to back it up) that the reasonable position I try to sketch above for gay marriage advocates cannot become a mass position. There is no logical reason it cannot, only certain lamentably predictable patterns of democratic instinct that prevent this. A major stumbling block for reasonable (i.e., Constitution-repsecting) gay marriage advocates obtaining popularity for this position would be the continual activity of individuals with their court cases. So even if the main gay advocacy groups were to adopt the reasonable position (a la Jonathan Rauch), these groups could not shut down the judicial push for reading a right to gay marriage in the Constitution. More importantly, we have no reason to think most of those folks would want to or even could resist the gay grass-roots rooting for that judicial strategy. In the heat of typical resentment-filled democratic politics, which I sense is even more resentment-filled than usual when it comes to gay activitsts, there is no way we can expect the distinction I'm pushing for here, between an argument that gay marriage is a natural right (or otherwise a moral imperative), and an argument that it is (already) a Constitutional right, to be firmly articulated and popularized by gay marriage advocates.
Thus, in terms of what is actually likely to happen, I endorse your fears that the gay marriage understanding of rights deals the very logic of the American body politic a severe blow. Judge-rulers will rule us, with the hearty approval of almost all gay marriage advocates. I just want to spell out the fact that it doesn't need to be so. With genuine moderate leadership in the ranks of gay marriage advocates and especially in the broader progressive/Democrat ranks, it is conceivable that America could adopt gay marriage without a further "constituionalization" of the culture wars. With such leadership, it is conceivable that moderate progressives and social conservatives could share the non-Rawlsian "overlapping consensus' that our fathers did: the Constitution. We could remain unified in our dedication to it, despite the other divisions pulling us apart. You and I could continue to say "vote against gay marriage because it will be one more weakening of already beleagured traditional marriage," and most gays could continue to say, "vote for gay marriage because full justice demands it," and both sides could probably learn to live with the outcomes of the various votes. "At least," either defeated side could say, "the Constitution remains intact, and future votes might be won."
When we social conservatives present the case that gay marriage will be the catastrophe we think it will be, the logical possibility of the (in truth highly unlikely) moderate and constitution-respecting way of pushing for it must be highlighted. Otherwise, our slippery-slope and death-of-America-as-we-know-it arguments begin to seem crazy. Our argument cannot be that gay marriage in and of itself is catastropic, but that our politics makes it almost impossible for us to ever get gay marriage in of itself (which we do think would be a very bad and irresponsbile experiment with our social fabric, esp. long-term). Our politics at present makes it so we cannot get gay marriage witthout the Constitution becoming an innocent bystander mortally wounded in the fight for it. That is, to make our point all the more powerfully about why the "debate about gay marriage" is practically inseperable from the question about the Constitution, so that the debate should really be characterized as "the debate about sacrificing a coherent Constitution for the sake of getting gay marriage," we must acknowledge that these debates are THEORETICALLY seperable, that moderate progressives could THEORETICALLY insist upon that public recognition of the separation.
What exactly do you think is the instruction?
I'd say Julie's mostly right about Ohio and other Midwest states. Don't compromise on social values. McDonnell just won Fairfax County!
New poll shows Huckabee leading the GOP field for 2012! http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/11/05/usatgallup-huckabee-has-most-gop-support-for-2012/
Kate, see this for a better idea of true center:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
and this:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?ak=on&az=on&il=on&ny=on
and this makes for an interesting comparison:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
Craig, I am sorry about the slip of the verb tense. Aside from that, I probably shouldn't grin and type at the same time on some days. Mostly, I didn't think Peter Schramm was too far off in his characterization of Scozzafava.
What the heck is the "true center" in American politics? I'll bet if any political scientist could actually define that position effectively a lot of politicians would be right on it. I'll also bet that said politicians would not win elections. Really, I think the "true center" is something like true north as in when you get there, you find you are facing the opposite direction, i.e. south. That "true center" has to be a slippery thing.
Here's another very good explanation of Scozzafava's true location on the political spectrum, quite interesting:
http://bshor.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/scozzafava-is-a-conservative-republican-in-new-york/
I can see where Scozzafava is to the left of conservatives, conservative Republicans, or even most other Republicans, but that hardly makes her left-of-center. And I can easily concede that Owens is right-of-center, but I think the evidence is slim that he's actually to the right of Scozzafava. And here I mean center as true center, not the median center of the American electorate, or the delusional center of the right-wing fringe (the Goldbergs, the Becks, etc.)...
and "...he must had been acceptable to enough moderate voters..." ???
Kate, I had to do a double-take on that one - don't you teach English???
Pete: Are the things that drive Democrat majorities in big cities like those in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania the same things that drive Democrat majorities in Ohio? I wonder. The social conservatism that seems to turn off urban (and many suburban) Easterners and West Coasters may not be as unpopular in Ohio as your suggestion (or the NRO suggestion) implies. I think that what makes conservatism unattractive in Ohio's big cities has less to do with social conservatism (which is something even many Dems in Ohio share) and more to do with so-called economic conservatism. Ohio is more blue collar/middle class--folks are more likely to work for a struggling small company than for a big sophisticated publishing firm, for example. Of course, the poor in Ohio are like the poor in most places. But the forces that drive day to day existence in Ohio's big cities--the things that move our middle class--are different from what drives them on the coasts where larger firms dominate and the "sophisticates" of the popular culture have taken root and thrived and made it "uncool" to be conservative.
Instead, Ohio seems to resist conservatism, at least as my memory (and now only occasional experience) serves, more out of suspicion that it is in the service of the wealthy. In other words, it is old fashioned New Deal politics handed down from generation to generation.
The good news there is that social conservatism is usually a unifying force and the beginning (if the candidate is savvy) of a conversation about the purposes and limits of government--and that can and often does have strong appeal for social conservatives. I have, generally speaking, found that it easier to persuade a social conservative to accept the general principles of economic conservatism (hint: you talk about what real justice is) than it is to persuade a purely economic conservative to accept the premises of social conservatives. People like to do the right thing by their neighbor and are open to arguments about how best to do that--even when they are really suspicious of the wealthy. But people are also inclined to sin . . . and when they do (as we all do) it is hard for them to abandon arguments that absolve them of their guilt. This is why social conservatives, if they want to succeed on a larger scale, need to focus less on guilt (i.e., pointing out and bemoaning all the horrible or naughty things people do) and more on developing a sense of humor about human foibles. They should make the case that it isn't up to government to excuse those things or pick up the pieces that are too often the natural consequences of bad behavior . . . but rather, it is the job of government to do what it can (which isn't as much as either side thinks) to encourage virtue. Above all, government ought never to encourage vice. Social conservatives should remember that it's not up to them to save our eternal souls . . . they should focus on helping to do what they can to help us choose to save our own.
On the other hand . . . Ohio just passed the casino thing today. So maybe I'm all wet.
"government intervention into the banks by the Federal Reserve and they will dictate banking policies and police their income."
Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is a pivate for profit business/banking cartel that usurped the power to coin money from congress at the turn of the 20th century by promising to end the depression cycles.
Hey everyone, I have nothing to be angry about. Up in New York the Republican and Democrat united to defeat the small-tent reactionary. So, there is one more Democratic seat in the House of Representatives.
Let's see, there are now how many republican representatives from all of New England and New York? 2 count'em, 2. And how many GOP senators from states east of Ohio and north of North Carolina? 2, count'em, 2 (and Senators Snowe and Collins are rather open-minded republicans.).
I hope the American taxpayer has finally opened their eyes to what is happening in/to America at this point in time. This President is a very smart man but he is also a Socialist and has many Marxists in his hidden czar underground of the White House. If the crown jewel of socialism gets passed (healthcare with the government option of any sort), the United States will become a Socialist government run country. Next on the list.....government intervention into the banks by the Federal Reserve and they will dictate banking policies and police their income. Not good!
Carl Scott . . . perhaps I was unclear. Your quibble may not be one after all. My point was in response to Ms. Banauto's assertion that the fight should be taken to a national level and that the argument has to be about the Constitution itself. In other words, she wants to find a right in the federal Constitution for homosexual marriage; to make an actionable argument that it is an extension of America's promise. Perhaps, as you say, Americans could, at some future date, amend the Constitution to include a provision that required states to recognize homosexual marriage (though, again, as you say there are strong reasons for fighting that as well--some of which have a great deal to do with the meaning of equality and the purposes of the regime). But this really would be something else, wouldn't it? Equating this issue with the 13th and 14th amendments?
I do suspect, however, that we may have more than just a "quibble" about what is at stake in that scenario . . . though I appreciate your attempt to encourage progressives to comport themselves more like democrats.
Good post, Julie. It is probably important to highlight this vote, along with that of California. Together they suggest, as if those who actually read the polls didn't know, that there is no new consensus on the issue. That being the case, Courts ought not to change long established precedents.
Many good points Julie. Very strong on the black reaction.
For those who haven't read my take on this before, I'm very much against gay marriage, but think it would be fundamentally less harmful if it is adopted by regular ol' VOTES as opposed to judicial decisions, i.e., by a slow process, painful to many gay-marriage advocates, of getting the nationwide public opinion to switch from 52% against to 52% in favor, and then keepeing that opinion heading in the gay marriage direction, despite the inevitable back-and-forths, epseically if this remains a state-by-state issue.
Accepting that pain, on the part of gay-marriage advocates, would be for the sake of preserving sane, explainable to the average American, and basically originalist interpretation of the Constitution. There really is no other coherent or republican way to interpret it, and liberals invite a loss of fundamental constitutional common ground and basic regime legitimacy if they keep forcing things on the electorate via livinging constutionalist interpretations. And such decisions are illimitable with respect to violations of religious freedom, polyamory/polygamy, and heterosexual demands for marriage-lite.
But ultimately, I also think it is smart politics. One can go the way Julie mentioned, and try to reinterpret what the Const. (specifically, what the 14th means by "liberty" and "equal protection") means, and thereby "reconnect" with the founding, a la Justice Kennedy in the Lawrence decision. And one might "win" that way. At what cost to the civil and constitutional fabric of the U.S., no-one knows.
But if the winds of public opinion are ultimately going the gay marraige way, perhaps what is smart politics for the long term for gay rights advocates is simply to be patient, and do this state by state via elections, eventually nationally, and then perhaps even get the right to gay marriage into the Constitution via amendment. You win elections, fair and square, and social cons like myself and our descendants will say, "well, we tried; this pains us, this will harm our society, but we have to obey." You "win" the other sort of way...who can really say what future American social cons would ultimately do.
I of course understand that regardless of whatever the main gay advocacy groups push for, cerrtain individuals with their lawyers will push for judicial alteration of our constitutions anyhow. That will play out as it does. But responsible gay marriage advocates, who care about their fellow citizens, can at least not insist on that route and call for restraint in mass support for it. They can at least have the civic decency to not speak in public as if gays ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT to marry, and that meany politicians and hate-filled Americans are denying it to them. In terms of our constitutions, gays have the right in a few places, but not in most. Perhaps you do have an argument to say it is a natural right that should be protected by the U.S. Constitution, very well, but then you should be calling for an amendment.
FDR, what he did is take the vague-oh route. He said that the American people have "so to speak" adopted a second bill of economic rights, and in the same landmark speech he called, NOT for judicial reinterpretation, NOT even for amendments, but for laws that would strive to achieve the ends of those rights. The case is obviously a bit different, but my point is he did not have the full chutzpah to say the rights he wanted were always there, or to say that we need to big-time change the Constitution. Smart. But everything he was counting on would be acted upon as regular ol' LEGISLATION, passed by regular ol' VOTING. Yeah, yeah, conservatives like me have a lot of beefs with what he did(esp. in terms of empowering bureacracy), but I'm trying to meet the progressive side half-way here, and say, yeah, do the very smart and very American politics that Julie's FDR example really implies. If time and public opinion is on your side, you can afford to be patient, to accept that some of yours will suffer some more, for a better day is coming without judge-rulers to force it upon unwilling Americans. Right? Or do the unwashed masses need to be ruled?
My one quibble with Julie is that she says gay marriage adopted by America would "not be an extension of America's promise to recognize the equality of all human beings" but "a bastardization of that promise and an attempt to undermine the true meaning of it. To suggest otherwise is, let us be clear, to suggest that our rights are not natural or, even, necessarily permanent." No, this is not the case IF it is adopted by plain old votes and laws, and eventually amendments. None of those things would demand that anyone impluasibly argue that the Founders' notion of liberty and rights 'really" demands gay marriage, or ditto with the framers of the 14th, but the framers/founders just didn't realize it. Rather, when the progressive victory you assume is inevitable is won, one can just say, "here's the evolution of what we thought ought to be guaranteed by law vis-a-vis marriage. That evolution happened in front of everyone's eyes in all these votes, even though, yes, there were some impatient judges and lawyers who tried to force the evolution along in anti-democratic, and anti-constitutional, ways. But their lack of faith in democracy proved to be wrong. We didn't need their rulings. We now know Americans by and large accept gays, because they voted, repeatedly, to let us marry. The Americans of 1776 or 1868 would not have done so, nor understood NATURAL rights in the way we think they should be. Thus they voted the ways they did. Thus, we had to change our law codes and constitutions and the CONSTITUTIONAL rights in them with new votes." Wouldn't that better? If progressives have the Faith in Democracy and Progress they so often avow, wouldn't this way be not simply smarter and more civil, but far truer to themselves?
Some other time for why I'd vote against gay marriage every time, and recommend even gays do the same. Much harder arguments there.
And, a good deal less at stake there.
P.S. I repeat myself on this topic so often because it is so important.
Some thoughts,
1. On Cantor: Putting him next to George Allen looked like some kind of cruel joke.
2. NY-23 wasn't that bad. It showed both the potential energy and limits of a base-driven campaign that didn't focus on plausible policy solutions. A McDonnell type conservative candidate probably wins. Maybe its a stage for Tea Party/Club For Growth economic conservative politics. The left went through something similar. Its energies were channeled by an alienating figure like Howard Dean in 2004, but did much better with a more broadly appealing (and no less liberal) Obama in 2008.
3. Right on the demographics being more Republican friendly in this election, but even with that, Obama had 52% job approval in Virginia and 57% job approval in New Jersey according to the exit polls. Thats in a terrible economy. If the unemployment situation does not improve at all, those numbers will cone down. If it improves a little then its a jump ball on the economy.
4. Over at NRO one of the people in the election symposium mentioned that in a high turnout election, the big Democrat margins in the big cities of Ohio would make it tough for conservative candidates to win. Thats a really big problem. Conservatives should not like being in a position of having to pray for rain on election day - or election month when you consider early voting. Conservatives are going to have to find a way to cut down on the Democrat margins in the cities if they are going to win statewide elections in populous states outside the South in all but the most favorable conditions - like in New Jersey this year.
This would never happen at Fox News.
"This article gets into the nitty-gritty of the devilish details, and, I think, shows your assertion to be false."
How can it do that when it doesn't say anything about Owens? My understanding is that he's a Blue Dog Democrat.
It's a great day for America, but a bad day for Antichrist.
Oh, do read the Washingtonian article linked from that staid account you pointed to. It's much more lively. As a former newspaper colleague of mine remarked the other day when I shared the story, "Now that's what I call hands-on editing!"