Posted under Election 2008
According to Greenville County Republican officials, Buddy Witherspoon clearly won this poll and … it wasn’t even close.
Source: SC Hotline Press and CofCC.
—
Is this a sign of things to come? Well, it has South Carolina’s The Shot worried. Expect more smears as the primary (June 10th) approaches.
—
The Southern Avenger is standing opposed to Graham, but judging by this post he won’t be backing Witherspoon due to Witherspoon’s stance on Iraq, which is a shame. Witherspoon is right on every other issue and is no war monger. Does the war in Iraq issue then truly outweigh the combination of every other issue?
Kyle Rogers of the CofCC responds under SA’s post:
Witherspoon has stated that he will not support war with Iran or any future war without a congressional declaration of war. However, he calls for a dignified end to the Iraq war in the US can save face and the majority of the people in SC can get behind.In twenty years no one will even car about the Iraq War or know where Iraq is on the globe for that matter. You want to sacrifice everything and let people like Lindsey open our borders to the entire 3rd world because Witherspoon is not anti-war enough for you?
Lindsey Graham has also publically attacked the Confederate flag while campaigning with McCain last January.
I hope SA listens. And lest we forget, war isn’t the only thing that kills – immigrants kill too.
—
The American Spectator has a brutal review of Graham’s candidacy.
Filmer on 30 May 2008 at 12:19 pm #
I hope Witherspoon beats Grahamnesty, but I agree with the SA that the War is a problem for him. Witherspoon endorsed Paul and I suspect is probably with Paul to some degree on foreign policy, but feels he can’t say that in a SC GOP primary. But his use of the “cut and run” line is troublesome. If he is going to pander to the pro-war GOP crowd, he should at least do so without using their mindless little catchphrases. What’s next, “We have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here?”
roho on 30 May 2008 at 1:48 pm #
Witherspoon winning makes me giddy!……..Anyone is better than Graham!
It amazes me how well the big MSM’s have orchestrated such well organized denials of SPP? It’s like the husbands in the movie the “Stepford Wives” or all of the parents of children regarding the existance of Santa Clause?……….Noone breaks rank.
At least when watching a Science Fiction movie, you know your watching a movie…………………Go Buddy Go!
Andrew T. on 30 May 2008 at 9:32 pm #
Filmer,
His war stance is just plain shameful. It’s as if the man doesn’t have the self-honesty and the bravery to be sensible instead of being a robotic goon banally uttering those same BS catchphrases that you mentioned, and let South Carolina’s bloodthirsty citizens vote as they may. I can’t stand it when people duck what they know is right, and I don’t suffer fools gladly.
Blowback, my friends. It is called blowback. When you murder their people for no reason over there, they in turn really REALLY want to murder the people over here.
And I agree with the Southern Avenger on this one, and not the race-fetishist CofCC (yes, I know, I must be a non-European PC leftist for even saying that). Kyle Roger’s criticism reeks of intrinsicism, and I say this because the Southern Avenger is a virtual unknown outside of conservative circles. Whoever he chooses to support will have zero influence in the big picture. He should not be criticized for having enough conviction only to emphatically support those candidates he fully agrees with.
dylanwaco on 30 May 2008 at 9:37 pm #
Kyle is wrong and folks like him are about to make the same mistake that movement conservatives made during the Cold War.
The idea that immigration and the national question should take precedent over the war ignores the fact that they are all tied in together. The nature of imperialism and the imperial mindset is largely responsible for the “invite the world” mentality of the liberal establishment. Furthermore anytime we engage in mass internationalism or an aggressive foreign policy the net result is the destruction and decay of what few institutions do exist in the third world. When these fragile nations collapse guess where there people go? We traded Miami to anti-communist Cubans because their politics were “right”. We traded Deaborn, Michigan and Paterson, New Jersey to Arabs and Middle Easterners because they needed a place to flee from the “oppression” at home in wars the U.S. subsidized and sponsored. I am not willing to give up my state, South Carolina, to any third world culture so that we can “leave Iraq with honor” or some other such nonsense.
I understand the political ramifications of saying ‘we must leave now” and agree that Witherspoon could not say that and win in this state. But there is literally no reason he couldn’t take the “we have completed our mission it is time to come home” approach that has been taken by Murray Sabrin in New Jersey and Thomas Fleming from the pages of Chronicles. For Buddy, an otherwise straight shooter, using the term “cut and run” suggests that he just doesn’t get it about empire..and if you don’t “get” empire, you don’t “get” the immigration problem either.
P.S. The flippant nature in which Kyle suggests that Iraq will be forgotten and no one will care about it is frankly disgusting. I know for a fact that he is an opponent of this war, but the idea that paleos or people on “our side” would be suggesting that the Iraq War is a non-issue and a distraction, while thousands of troops come home dead or dismembered is disgraceful.
Andrew T. on 30 May 2008 at 9:44 pm #
You said it, Dylan.
P.S. Don’t forget all the killed and displaced Iraqis. They’re people too. Of course, talk like that is blasphemous to neocons and Red State Fascist Republicans, which overrun the South these days.
Jack Hunter on 30 May 2008 at 10:15 pm #
I am not voting for or endorsing Buddy Witherspoon for the U.S. Senate – who is stellar on illegal immigration – for the same reason I am not voting for Barack Obama – who at least appears stellar, in comparison to his opponents, on foreign policy.
Many conservatives (like Kyle Rogers) have made a good case for supporting Witherspoon. Many conservatives (like Andrew Bacevich and Justin Raimondo) have made a good case for supporting Obama. I find much to agree with from both perspectives.
But as I have said for at least a year now – I have two litmus tests for ANY candidate – they must be right on foreign policy and illegal immigration. In terms of America’s safety, economy, demography, health, identity and future – no other two issues even come close.
We can raise or lower taxes, ban or allow abortion, let gays marry or not, yap about global warming and even have disagreements over more serious issues like NAFTA and CAFTA – but all of this pales in comparison to the irreparable damage being done by our interventionist foreign policy and our complete lack of borders.
Being wrong on either issue means being complicit in causing problems that may very well haunt the United States for decades, and then some.
I have interviewed Witherspoon, consider him leaps and bounds better than Lindsey Graham, and was prepared to write a full commentary endorsing him to be aired both on WTMA the day of the primary election and to run as a column in the Charleston City Paper the week before June 10. I was even looking forward to it. No one finds Lindsey Graham more disgusting than I do. Here’s a reminder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB2av9lS96U
Then I read this on Witherspoon’s website:
“We have achieved some success in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am not willing to set a deadline for withdrawal and I will not cut and run.”
Who wrote this? Bill Kristol? Sean Hannity? John McCain?
As someone who well understands the professional hazards of being antiwar and working in the heavily military state of South Carolina, I can understand any Republican’s reluctance to take a full blown Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul hard-line stance on foreign policy, and even if Witherspoon had remained more muted or silent on the subject, I might have considered endorsing him.
But to blatantly use the language of the neocons, in support of what almost everyone on paleoconservative, traditionalist, and libertarian Right agrees is a complete disaster is not only illogical – but extremely counterproductive.
The genuine conservative’s response to “cut and run!” might be “stay and wither?” but while I don’t expect everyone on the Right to be Ron Paul – I do expect them to not help make the neoconservatives’ argument for them.
I hope Witherspoon does well on June 10, primarily because Graham doesn’t deserve to win. I have even been sarcastically encouraging “illegal aliens to sign up and vote for their boy Lindsey on June 10″ on the radio, to drive home exactly how I feel about Graham.
But I cannot, in good conscience, sign off on any candidate who still doesn’t seem to ‘get it’ on one of the two most crucial issues in the contemporary United States.
Jack
roho on 31 May 2008 at 1:07 am #
I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I am an Alabamian. However, from my simplistic view of life:
“Who is willing to reward Lindsey Graham for his actions over the last 6 years”?………Who could be worse?………If we DONT send bad politicians home, what’s the point?
Exchanging bad polititions for bad politicians beats rewarding bad politicians!…………….At least Witherspoon has to CULTIVATE relationships of corruption vs long, established relationships that Graham already has.
It is the CITIZEN’s right to fire as many bad politicians as he has to, inorder to find what he needs!………..The New Milinium will require a high turnover rate……………….Or accept the status quo.
We control “TERM LIMITS” with our vote!
Daniel Bein on 31 May 2008 at 8:11 pm #
I’m with Southern Avenger and Dylan Waco on this because I agree that trying to divorce the issue of immigration from the issue of empire is not only impossible, but ridiculous. Especially if one understands that they are two sides of the same coin.
I like Kyle but I think that saying no one will remember Iraq in 20 years would have been like saying in 1968 that no one would remember Vietnam. Apparently we didn’t remember it well enough after September 11th, but the consequences are still being felt. The Iraq war is a very serious issue with consequences that may arguably be worse than Vietnam, even if we seek no wider war with Iran/Syria etc.
I hope Buddy wins because there is no other choice and Lindsay is awful. But I’ll say it right now, I hope Obama wins because McCain is far worse. But I won’t be pushing the button for Obama because he’s wrong on so many important issues. And I won’t cast a vote for Witherspoon because he is wrong on the most important.
I recently received an e-mail informing me that a new Ron Paul meet up group was being formed in support of Buddy Witherspoon. But Witherspoon differs on what is arguably Ron Paul’s most important point and the one that most united his supporters: foreign policy. Like The Avenger, I understand that every candidate can’t be Ron Paul, but one must at least have similar answers on the most important questions before they can be lumped in with Paul to this degree.
As Southern Avenger pointed out, Buddy Witherspoon is not only incorrect on this, he’s echoing the language of the neocons. Those opposed to empire and the destruction that it brings must make it clear that this is absolutely unacceptable behavior for any candidate who wants the vote of principled conservatives.
–Daniel
Weaver on 31 May 2008 at 11:33 pm #
Dylanwaco, Jack Hunter, and Daniel Bein,
I fear that paleocons, and you three are far from the only ones who put war ahead of immigration, are allowing the neocons to define the important issues. They care most about the war, so paleos do in response. Also, I fear the libertarians, who have radically different goals, are having an impact: once again libertarians dominate the fusionism, which could be better described as libertarian absorption.
—
Dylanwaco writes:
Yes, but which brings in more people? Illegal and legal immigration via other means or refugees?
The issues can be separated because war is only a small source of America’s immigration problem. I’ll find some statistics shortly, but I’d be very surprised to discover the opposite.
Dylanwaco writes:
Mexico has been America’s chief source of immigration, which has not been caused by American foreign policy, albeit trade policy has been devastating.
The simple solution to immigration: seal the borders, enforce immigration laws, and put stronger laws on the books. The third world will always desire entry into Western nations, and it must always be kept out lest America becomes a new nation, a third world nation.
The border can be sealed but only if America wants it to be, which it doesn’t.
Cubans could have been turned away, and would have been turned away by a patriotic congress.
He’s already being painted as a Paulian. He’s also being portrayed as a nut case for redefining the true major conflict which is between America and Mexico (also America and globalism).
Witherspoon has altered a stance in the past.
Originally Witherspoon wrote:
However, this was altered, presumably in an attempt at moderating his platform so as to defend against the claims that he’s a racist and past member of the CofCC.
Current immigration platform
So, I suspect he’s very much adapting his platform. His true stances are obviously near his official positions, but I wouldn’t read so into a choice of words.
Weaver on 31 May 2008 at 11:54 pm #
Jack Hunter,
I appreciate all you’ve done, however I do believe you’d be a powerful asset to the Witherspoon campaign in the coming week.
—
Justin Raimondo is a left-libertarian who likely has more interests in Obama than merely the war. Raimondo backed Nader in 2004 instead of Peroutka, and Obama is an interventionist, albeit one of a different stripe.
While I value all Raimondo has done in fighting America’s crazed foreign policy, I wouldn’t personally expect to agree with him on much else.
I’ll have to google Andrew Bacevich’s piece.
—
But does the lack of borders (as well as insane legal immigration policy which brings in more than does illegal) pale in comparison with our interventionist foreign policy?
Could Witherspoon have remained silent? Graham’s only appeals are his popularity among elected officials, vast campaign funds, and his anti-terrorism stances. Witherspoon would be strongly attacked for this, and Republicans would be mumbling how, “I don’t like Graham, but that Witherspoon just doesn’t get it on terrorism.” Even now they seem to be being programmed to mumble how “Witherspoon is crazy”, but at least he’s being portrayed as crazy on an issue (NAU) that appeals to right wing sentiments.
—
Ron Paul wasn’t strong enough on immigration for me, so I voted Duncan Hunter because Tancredo had already dropped out.
It’s beyond comprehension how a conservative could oppose a war more strongly than he opposes the demographic transformation of his own land. Obviously people will disagree and that’s fine, but I don’t understand the source of this disagreement.
Obama is preferred to McCain, but not because of the war issue.
Mathew Roberts writes:
And I’ve got to agree with him.
I’ll vote Baldwin.
—
I know you do, and I’m sure you’ll help his campaign some with your attacks. I just wish Witherspoon had more going for him – he needs all the support he can get. People are going to go in there voting against Graham rather than for Witherspoon, and that’s not ideal. Some will stay home.
McBride will of course be the backup candidate, and I really like him, but can an Independent defeat a Republican? I reckon Bob Conley (Democrat) will have some effect too. Witherspoon has a fair chance, and the best chance we’ll get, at overturning Graham.
And, in my view, he’d be superior to Tancredo, Paul, or most any candidate save Buchanan (who will never hold office) or McBride (who will not likely take Graham’s seat). Though again, people disagree, and that’s fine. Anyway, keep doing all you do. We at CHT have sure enjoyed your youtube videos and articles.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 12:14 am #
Daniel Bein,
you write:
Witherspoon and Paul disagree on trade, immigration, and foreign policy.
Witherspoon is a trade protectionist, takes a harder stance on legal immigration (or did in the past…), and does not favor empire. On most other issues, he’s a mirror image of Paul – this is no neocon nor is this a red state fascist.
He only wishes to ensure Iraq succeeds, which of course it can’t.
I think you’re taking his foreign policy stance to mean more than it does.
Regarding illegal immigration, Witherspoon writes:
Few today are willing to make the emoldened claim.
This is a man who gets it. He makes the cultural arguments of Tancredo without using the controversial term “Judeo-Christian” and without being a war monger.
The fact that Witherspoon values such things makes him, in my view, more reliable than Paul on immigration and questions of national interest.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 12:25 am #
Southern Avenger’s recent article: Why I am not supporting Buddy Witherspoon
Daniel Bein on 01 Jun 2008 at 12:31 am #
Weaver,
You wrote:
“It’s beyond comprehension how a conservative could oppose a war more strongly than he opposes the demographic transformation of his own land. Obviously people will disagree and that’s fine, but I don’t understand the source of this disagreement.”
It’s because imperialism is directly linked to big government and the system that allows for massive immigration and open borders. You brought up that foreign policy is not as much of a factor with Mexican immigration as is trade policy. The policy of foreign interventionism is directly linked to the trade policy that drive Mexicans into this country. When interventionism defines US foreign policy we get involved with things like NAFTA. This is why interventionism must be viciously opposed.
As we know, endless and unnecessary wars (and Iraq is the prime example) make it possible for the government to usurp power at home. They violate civil liberties, they justify Congressional cowardice and collaboration with big money. This corporate/state alliance is funded by war dollars. The big money/big government war machine allows for international trade agreements like NAFTA that hurt countries like Mexico and causes the massive suffering that leads to massive immigration. Not to mention the fact the same corporate structure that is in collusion with big government enjoy the cheap labor of immigrants.
The difference here is that you guys think that imperialism and immigration can be separated.
–Daniel
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 2:33 am #
Weaver,
I think that war is extremely important as an issue. If you are a conservative you are presumably religious or at least subscribe to a large amount of the Biblical value system, and that would certainly lead you to oppose mass murder, theft, displacement of innocents, and indefinite occupation. Just imagine, in addition to our own troops, all those poor Iraqi men and especially women and children who have been killed or had their lives shattered, because their whole country has been wrecked and changed forever by the U.S.A. War is the biggest and most destructive socialist program. It underscores and offers false justification to nearly every abuse of power that a government is able to commit. It is the Health of the State. Open immigration is pretty awful itself, but I would say that both issues are so crucial that a candidate is not worth supporting unless he is right on both of them. This may not be true for you, but I have one more issue that I consider non-negotiable: the candidate must be pro-life on the abortion issue. The Southern Avenger is right, and your State-worshiping collectivist ass is wrong once again.
Justin Raimondo is a “left-libertarian”? Though he’s too hippie-esque for me to like him, Raimondo is the man whose most acclaimed book was titled “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement”, and had its forward written by Buchanan, for crying out loud. But then again, Weaver, you advance the inane, indefensible idea that there is not actually such a thing as a “right-libertarian”, that principled advocates of freedom are all on the Left.
You really need to go back and study the French Revolution more, Weaver. Most of the classical liberals did not actually support the Revolution (some, like Jefferson, supported it initially because they believed it was France’s equivalent to the American Revolution, but later withdrew their support when it became apparent that such was not the case), or sat on the right side of parliament. And to compare the terrorist, pro-democracy, proto-Marxist Jacobin party to classical liberals would be a butchery of the English language.
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 2:33 am #
Weaver,
I think that war is extremely important as an issue. If you are a conservative you are presumably religious or at least subscribe to a large amount of the Biblical value system, and that would certainly lead you to oppose mass murder, theft, displacement of innocents, and indefinite occupation. Just imagine, in addition to our own troops, all those poor Iraqi men and especially women and children who have been killed or had their lives shattered, because their whole country has been wrecked and changed forever by the U.S.A. War is the biggest and most destructive sociailist program. It underscores and offers false justification to nearly every abuse of power that a government is able to commit. It is the Health of the State. Open immigration is pretty awful itself, but I would say that both issues are so crucial that a candidate is not worth supporting unless he is right on both of them. This may not be true for you, but I have one more issue that I consider non-negotiable: the candidate must be pro-life on the abortion issue. The Southern Avenger is right, and your State-worshiping collectivist ass is wrong once again.
Justin Raimondo is a “left-libertarian”? Though he’s too hippie-esque for me to like him, Raimondo is the man whose most acclaimed book was titled “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement”, and had its forward written by Buchanan, for crying out loud. But then again, Weaver, you advance the inane, indefensible idea that there is not actually such a thing as a “right-libertarian”, that principled advocates of freedom are all on the Left.
You really need to go back and study the French Revolution more, Weaver. Most of the classical liberals did not actually support the Revolution (some, like Jefferson, supported it initially because they believed it was France’s equivalent to the American Revolution, but later withdrew their support when it became apparent that such was not the case), or sat on the right side of parliament. And to compare the terrorist, pro-democracy, proto-Marxist Jacobin party to classical liberals would be a butchery of the English language.
dylanwaco on 01 Jun 2008 at 3:32 am #
Weaver,
In response to myself, Daniel and Jack you said:
“I fear that paleocons, and you three are far from the only ones who put war ahead of immigration, are allowing the neocons to define the important issues. They care most about the war, so paleos do in response. Also, I fear the libertarians, who have radically different goals, are having an impact: once again libertarians dominate the fusionism, which could be better described as libertarian absorption.”
Let me just make my personal position clear. The big issue, is Empire and its modern ideological agent internationalism. While it is true as you point out that Mexican immigration is not directly linked to this war, the large swath of illegal immigrants from the Latin world and Mexico IS directly linked to trade policy, the continued bailing out of Mexico’s corrupt government (is any country on the Earth more in need of a revolution?) and the ideological and bloody clashes over anti-communism during the Cold War. In other words it is the bastard child of internationalism.
As I have stated before elsewhere, my views on trade were more in line with Duncan Hunters than they were with Ron Paul, but I voted for Paul without regret because while Paul was mostly right on everything (including trade, as the pressing issue at the moment is repeal of agreements, which Paul is right on as you know), Hunter had a blindspot not just on the war, but on the entire concept of the military-industiral complex.
I am not a libertarian, but it seems to me that the libertarians are right more often these days than the paleocons. As someone who absolutely disagrees with the materialist ideological root of libertarianism this is disturbing to me personally, but when paleocon outlets waste time talking about IQ differences between ethnic groups, while the libertarians are running on a return to local control and decentralism, I know where I am casting down my bucket.
Dylan
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 5:05 am #
“but when paleocon outlets waste time talking about IQ differences between ethnic groups, while the libertarians are running on a return to local control and decentralism, I know where I am casting down my bucket.”
Dylan, you’ve basically highlighted everything that is wrong with Weaver’s thinking right in this statement.
But I am totally on Ron Paul’s side on trade. I can not urge strongly enough that everyone read up on Austrian Economics and not just attempt to dismiss it. Not only do people have a right to trade from a distance, it is also an economically sound policy that enhances prosperity and productivity.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 9:27 am #
dylanwaco,
You’re right about Hunter in full.
—
IQ differences and other physical traits are important but not most important. The most important is identity, ancestral traditions, culture.
It is a small step from America’s universal humanism to global humanism. America needs to return to a sense of of what it means to be American or even a hyphenated American. Any sort of identity that separates America from the rest of the world would serve this purpose, but we’ve become an ideological state united by ideas and increasingly without a historical past (as opposed to an ideological past – R.E. Lee isn’t even mentioned while Harriet Tubman is mentioned numerous times).
So, while it’s all connected (trade, immigration, war, big government, etc.) I must argue that culture and identity are more important than decentralisation.
A people are an organic creation, and if you just get people to remember their different heritages and unique regional and local divisions then you’ll get decentralisation. What is needed is a Napoleon of Nottingham Hill.
High gas prices probably help with this.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 9:37 am #
dylanwaco:
You can’t say the old Cold War conservatives were wrong and attempt to fight that old battle.
That’s in the past.
Learning from the mistakes of the past is good, but making worse new errors instead of old errors isn’t an improvement.
Today, the culture war has progressed much further and the hour is far later if not already too late.
Best available candidates are all that can be supported, and there won’t be many – that is to say there is a need for damage control. Libertarian candidates are inevitably liberal. They can’t be trusted, they’re not reasonable, and they don’t wish to preserve a people.
A dumb conservative who loves his people but buys into the neocon propaganda is preferred to a devoted libertarian zealot who lives in a fantasy world.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 9:51 am #
Andrew,
I’ll get in trouble for saying this, but I care more about immigration and trade than abortion, which I think must follow a cultural revival.
I’d vote pro-choice Lou Dobbs in an instant. Dobbs too is someone who wishes to defend America (again as opposed to the ideologues), which is a vitally important trait.
—
Regarding war being immoral… that’s Bush’s war. I opposed it from the beginning, and I cannot be expected to do more.
My first duty is in defending my people, and an Iraqi’s first duty is in defending his people.
The evil empire seeks to destroy both regions, and we each should defend as best we can until the empire crumbles – defend and prepare for the day when an opportunity arises to throw off its yoke, seal the borders, end US foreign involvement, restore liberties, restore trade protections, end the federal reserve bank, restore decentralisation, etc. I love my country, but I’m not responsible for the crimes of the empire that rules it.
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 4:33 pm #
Weaver,
You care more about preventing people from purchasing and selling goods to people in distant regions (something I would regard as an inalienable right) than protecting the developing unborn? That’s a pretty big blind spot.
Lou Dobbs is a national socialist, and I couldn’t bring myself to like the guy, let alone want him in power.
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 4:34 pm #
Weaver,
You care more about preventing people from purchasing and selling goods to people in distant regions (something I would regard as an inalienable right) than protecting the developing unborn? That’s a pretty big blind spot.
Lou Dobbs is a national sociailist, and I couldn’t bring myself to like the guy, let alone want him in power.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 4:48 pm #
The nation comes first, and any pro-life victory would be short lived without a cultural revolution to support it.
Taxing, not preventing, people for buying/selling goods to foreign areas would improve the sense of identity, of separateness and increased self-sufficiency, and thus counter globalism and imperialism.
Give the people a sense of rootedness, and you weaken the cosmopolitan spirit that underlies pro-choice sentiment.
—
Lou Dobbs is no more a socialist than any other electable candidate.
I don’t really believe a libertarian or even a conservative of Baldwin’s stripe could ever possibly come close to winning the Presidency, at least not until the border is sealed, trade barriers, errected, war ended, etc. Small government doesn’t sell, and won’t sell unless the economy were to collapse, though even then that’s a big “if”.
And movements founded on groupist sentiment – be it nationalist, regional, local, ethnic… whatever will help ward off the individualist cosmopolitan decay. So, it’s not only good politics, but it furthers the culture war, which is what really matters.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 5:05 pm #
It would be wrong to support pro-choice policies out of concern of overpopulation.
However, it is not wrong to focus on prioritising the nation before pro-life.
Saving the nation comes before saving the unborn.
To put it simply: an action is right or wrong depending on motive. If the US ever crumbles, the resulting chaos would cause great suffering and would destroy all of the past nation and possibly the nation’s future, since it would be vulnerable to others, including other nations. This… is an important consideration.
Many single issue pro-lifers seem to have been searching out a good cause to join, and join it because they wish to do “good”. They apparently don’t take into consideration that there might be more important “good” things to support. The road to Hell is paved with…
dylanwaco on 01 Jun 2008 at 6:33 pm #
The culture war is a loosing battle. Only decentralization can solve those problems, unless one believes in massive wholesale violence to compel people to believe in Jesus or disagree with gay marriage.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 6:42 pm #
Now, I didn’t say, nor intentionally imply, anything about doing that.
I think if the US reduces its transience, reduces its immigration, increases its autarky, and ends foreign involvement, then it will become more culturally Christian simply by the resulting change of character.
However, when I say culture war, I mean more than just Christianity: in addition I mean people identifying as something more than, something exclusive of, mere Earthlings. I want Americans to remember their ancestors, to build communities, and to develop distinctions and places of belonging – thus bringing about the death of the leftist “ideological nation”.
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 6:58 pm #
No, Weaver, rescuing individual human lives is certainly precedes maintaining the nation (“nation” is a description of collective human action). I am an individualist.
We should raise taxes? Nice, I like how you’re sticking to conservative economic policies…
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 7:01 pm #
What you say of the US becoming increasingly post-Christian is very true – especially in parts.
I can imagine 10 years from now conservatives voting for the global communist who promises to push for a ban on gay marriage.
In addition to the single issue pro-lifers we’ll get single issue anti-gay marriage. And the Republicans will laugh all the way to the bank.
Nah, while that’s very important, I didn’t mean to necessarily impose it by force via the federal government.
I would favor imposing it if such were politically possible and there was nothing else more important, but I agree that such won’t likely be possible in the near future. It’s a lost cause, though the changes I mention would help greatly, in some areas of the US more than others.
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 7:05 pm #
I don’t want to increase spending… but I’ll vote for a candidate who does if he takes certain stands on other issues.
Andrew T. on 01 Jun 2008 at 7:23 pm #
This is aside from everything else, but you are not a fun guy to be around, are you?
Weaver on 01 Jun 2008 at 7:49 pm #
Mm, not when it comes to politics.
Weaver on 02 Jun 2008 at 4:15 am #
Just to conclude this: I meant if politically possible federal power should continue to be used to define marriage. Christianity of course should never be spread by force…
The states would need to take up the power to determine immigration otherwise for how would you handle gay couples with adopted children moving into other states?
Just because this country was founded on Christian mores doesn’t mean everyone must believe in the founding religion. There needs to be a source of morality, and Christianity, as well as deism…, have ultimately been that source for us.
Federal power is not always best, nor is decentralisation always best.
Such varies not only with what is politically possible, but with other circumstances. Just as decentralisation is not always right, federal power is not always right. It depends on what is being accomplished, who is involved, the history and traditions, etc.
Daniel Bein on 04 Jun 2008 at 10:31 pm #
Weaver,
You wrote: ” I meant if politically possible federal power should continue to be used to define marriage.
You’re saying federal power SHOULD define marriage?
Am I misreading that?
Daniel
Weaver on 05 Jun 2008 at 1:20 am #
Yes, at least historically and in the abstract.
Historically marriage was defined by the fed., or at least polygamy had to be banned before Utah would be let into the union. So there is somewhat of a legal precedent. And nowadays the US would need to be further decentralised for the issue to go to the states. What is a state to do with a gay family that moves in? Since the War of Yankee Imperialism, we haven’t used the term “these United States” for a reason – we are now one state…
It also depends on which is least favorable to gay marriage: federal power or states rights. The one or the other would be preferred depending on the outcome. Constitutionally, the issue might well be a states rights issue, but the Constitution is a dead document. If Americans were allowed to vote on whether to return to the Constitution (and were made to understand what such would mean) or to draw up a new Constitution legalising all the junk the fed does today, they would choose the latter overwhelmingly.
If marriage can be used as a wedge to create a sense of statehood, then perhaps states’ rights is preferred. It would just depend on the circumstances.
—
As things sit now, I don’t think it’s a relatively important issue considering how screwed up the US is, and I think the cultural winds moving towards gay marriage. It seems now a lost cause.
So, I would be willing to vote for someone who wished to legalise gay marriage provided he was significantly better on more important issues like trade, immigration, war, and maybe the Federal Reserve Bank. Marriage is important, but these are more so.
—
The big issues with gay marriage are: what is the purpose of marriage? (to produce children). Should homoerotics be allowed to adopt children? (No). Is homoeroticism normal? (No). Is our founding moral order Christian (for the most part, yes).
Weaver on 05 Jun 2008 at 1:43 am #
Note: I’m the only editor here who takes such a position.
We each disagree a bit on the various issues. I used to be more in favor of states’ rights, but such now seems Quixotic and… liberal (for lack of a better word).
I still favor states’ rights on most issues and as an ultimate goal, and I still like the idea of secession, but I’m perhaps more Machiavellian and nonideological now… or just cynical.
Daniel Bein on 06 Jun 2008 at 12:08 am #
Weaver,
To say the Constitution is a dead document may be close to the truth. But calling for a return to it is still the best way to ensure that big government doesn’t rape the citizenry. No conservative should be disputing that.
You also wrote: “It also depends on which is least favorable to gay marriage: federal power or states rights. The one or the other would be preferred depending on the outcome.”
This is basically like saying “I don’t care how the outcome is achieved as long as I get what I want”. You are essentially saying that whatever you consider to be right should always be policy. That’s not conservatism. I don’t really know you so maybe you don’t even call yourself a conservative… but these are not examples of a consistent conservative mentality of limiting big government to its proper role.
Despite whatever historical precedent has been set, the Constitution IS the rule of law, and until it is amended it is ILLEGAL for the federal government to circumvent it by making rules regarding gay marriage. A hysterical fear of homosexuals should not motivate one to ignore the rule of law, and flat out claim that whatever keeps the gays from marrying is the right way to govern, even if it cedes more power to the federal octopus.
Daniel
Weaver on 06 Jun 2008 at 12:53 am #
correct. “Conservatism’s” chief flaw is its ideological rigidity.
What power? There’s nothing left to cede.
You call yourself a conservative? I know, I know, “left conservative”, but still…
In addition to the points listed above, I think it leads to perversion and promiscuity which is damaging to a social order and to virtue. Furthermore, I’ve heard it argued that its acceptance makes males uncomfortable with bonding for fear of appearing gay, and it makes teenagers seek out to prove they aren’t gay by having sex early, with a girl. I’m not opposing it simply because of the Bible, though that’s a good reason to, I also see it corrupting society.