Not bad, guys.
At least you've started the conversation; there is much to be said for that.
And you've made an excellent point; this election was not a mandate by any stretch of the imagination, nor should it be read to be more than what it was.
But the key to dealing with social issues is not to ignore them completely. Indeed, by making them off-limits, you infuriate those whose support you need and leave yourself open for the Obama Party to exploit them against you.
Realize that this election has done two useful things; it's put Republicans in control of the House, and it's driven the left even farther in the direction of shrieking madness.
So don't discard social issues; pick them up and use them. Dare I say it? Triangulate.
Take, for instance, abortion.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the simple fact is this: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi rammed through a bill that not only requires you as a taxpayer to fund abortion, but for that money to be sent to organizations who are covering up statutory rape and refusing to notify parents -- and then donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to that same Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.
Call me crazy, but last I looked, older men getting fourteen-year-olds pregnant, blocking parental notification in the name of getting an abortion, and demanding Federal dollars from the very same people to who you're donating don't poll well with many people other than Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
Use it. Don't avoid it. Grab the abortion issue by the throat and paint the picture for Americans: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid demand that you fork over your hard-earned money to pay off their cronies who are pushing abortions on middle-schoolers and covering up for rapists.
Same with gay marriage. Put bluntly, regardless of how you feel about it, the core value of the American system, the Tea Party, and anyone outside the Beltway is this: We the People have the right to determine our own laws and what they say.
Not racist Latinas in black robes. Not lazy Attorneys General and Governors. We the People. And that means you're going to get votes like in Iowa. You're going to get Proposition 8. And you know what? Until you start focusing on changing minds instead of trying to ram things through courtrooms and disenfranchise voters, those will continue to happen.
The onus is not on people to not change their constitutions. The onus is on you to explain why there's no need for them to do it. So the answer is very simple; "The Tea Party and GOProud supports the right of Americans at the Federal and state levels to amend and update their own constitutions as they see fit."
And last, but not least, we come to DADT.
The math isn't there, guys. Bluntly put, even if the leaked results of the survey are correct, you're demanding that we piss off 30% of our current military to please a minority of 3%, two-thirds of which are irrevocably wedded to a party that calls our military uninvited and unwelcome intruders, demands that it be abolished, and funds the very people who are out to attack and kill those serving in it.
One percent versus thirty percent and divided by two wars is a major loser. I understand that this hurts; you can't understand why something that you feel is supported by the majority of the country should have to wait. But the choice now comes down to whether you are going to put what the gay community wants first, or whether you are going to put what's best for the military and our country first.
And doing the latter will go a long way towards easing any concerns about the former.
Especially if you make it clear what the so-called "repeal" is; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid holding the whole of our military hostage so they can pander to their base that is still rationalizing its addiction to trying to kill our soldiers.
You've gotten this far. Take the next steps. Instead of avoiding social issues, grab them. Reframe them. Own them. And realize that you have a lot more in common with social conservatives than you don't.
Your friend,
North Dallas Thirty
4 comments:
NDT, good post. However, you seem to be saying that GOProud and other conservative gays should "reframe" social issues to advance their socially liberal position on gay issues. In other words, conservative gays should use social issues to undermine social conservatism. Am I right? Again, good post.
That depends on how you look at it, Seane-Anna.
Does it undermine social conservativism to repeal Roe v. Wade and allow the states to make their own decisions concerning abortion?
Does it undermine social conservativism to insist that voters be allowed to choose if they wish to amend their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage?
Does it undermine social conservativism to state that DADT is about pleasing a tiny, tiny minority, the bulk of which are ideologically opposed to military service, at the cost of alienating a much higher number of people -- and that even if that were not the case, now, in the middle of two wars, is not a time to do anything so controversial and divisive?
That's what I mean by reframing. Do you disagree with any of those statements?
Thanks for the clarification, NDT. Now I understand what you mean by reframing social issues. If it's done in the way you describe in your examples then, no, it most likely wouldn't undermine social conservatism. But I highly doubt that B. Daniel and GOProud would reframe social issues, especially DADT, in the way you suggest. And that scares me.
Since we're in a clarifying mood, much like a higher-end shampoo, I have a point I've never understood. While I believe in the importance of States Rights, I've never understood the mindset that allows for a patchwork of civil rights that throwing social policy to the states would create. Fiscal policy, certainly. States are closest to the action in terms of expenditures. Civil rights, however, and in some cases social policy makes less sense. Either a right is a right in our nation or it isn't. Simply crossing a state border shouldn't change the playing field to the extent that a woman does/doesn't have control of her own reproductive system.
Given that, in many cases, if a state law is felt to be unconstitutional, then it can be challenged and debated all the way up to the Supreme Court for clarification of the law. Mind you, while this is how our government works, it seems to be introducing an expensive, time-consuming, bureaucratic level that strikes against the notion of smaller government, but that's the system and it should be used. Also, there are limits on judicial redress for those who feel their rights have been abridged. Further, recent politicization of judicial posts has cast a chill on judicial interpretation and hampered their ability to do their jobs out of fear of a mob-based, shoot-the-messenger mentality, but that's a different debate.
NDT, while I appreciate the need for states to have fiscal autonomy and a certain degree of social policy autonomy, where is the justification for allowing states to decide on a state-by-state basis what rights a citizen of the United States has?
Post a Comment