- comment
Ranger03 - body
- While less taxes and small government are good, I'm not sure if they should be defended in terms of growing business. Business exists for profit, which can help the community but doesn't aspire to any higher purpose. Rather, the government should be structured in such a way as to permit maximum freedom, tempered by respect for life, for freedom's own sake. It is only when we defend it in these terms that it becomes compatible with social conservatism.
An excellent example of the conflict that will arise if we defend it with an end towards business is stem cell research and biotech. With greater frequency we can expect to see R&D come into conflict with respect for life. What do we do in this situation?
- comment Steve Haner
- body
- Two quick comments: I know you think the copyright symbol is cute, but politics is about inviting people to share your ideas, not staking a claim of ownership to them. Just a thought.
Second, the more I read about the early years of our national life the less respect I have for Jefferson. That was another ear of nasty, divisive politics and the case can be made that he and Madison relished it, giving as good as they got. While you are idealizing Jefferson with your blinders on I notice that the Democrats have been reading Hamilton and have built prosperity, free trade and economic growth in their platform, and they are slowing getting those "Reagan" Democrats back.
But carry on, if you wish.
I agree it is a question of leadership for Virginia Repbublicans and Allen is well position to claim the mantle, but it will only work if he draws a larger circle than I suspect you would like.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Thanks for your post Steve. Just a few quick responses.
Firstly, those familiar with Virginia politics understand that Senator George Allen first coined the phrase "Jeffersonian Conservative," and certainly not myself. Reading this beginning to end, those familiar with Virginia politics got the inside joke. Never intended to confuse anyone.
Secondly, with regards to Hamilton, I would recommend the excellent book Reclaiming the American Revolution out of Palgrave Press. It centers around the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (nullification if you'll remember your 7th grade civics classes), but it gives an incredible insight on Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and many of the other Founding Fathers in the early 19th century.
Hamilton was no democrat in the purest sense of the word. Hamilton believed strongly in aristocracy, and in a market that benefited that aristocracy. If what you say is true - that Democrats are embracing Hamilton - then you have a dark road ahead, one that many neocons might envy.
One problem that many who reach back for the Founding Fathers to validate their modern ideas is that they forget that these men were 18th century thinkers, and men of their age. This isn't to say that their ideas don't apply today (as a fan of Aristotle, I certainly beleive the past has something to teach us moderns who are no less intelligent than they), but it is to say that Jefferson and Hamilton are not 21st century political leaders. Both are silent on issues we might consider to be of vital importance, both expound on items we may think to be trivial. It was the spirit of the age.
In short, I wouldn't get too caught up with pitting Jefferson and Hamilton against each other and in 21st century terms. There's much we can borrow, and I certainly beleive there's much Jefferson and any of the Founders have to teach us about our roots as Americans.
Let's just be careful about using them as divisive us v. them poles with 21st century goggles on. Nitpicking over the copyright symbol I hope can be forgiven!
- comment Dave Juday
- body
- With all due respect, I think you are off base Shaun. Consider, ...
Resurrecting pro-life positions and faith and morality created the Reagan democrat; it attracted a huge increase in Hispanic voters to GWBush in Texas - and in 2004 in the Pres race. When Bush ran on taxes in 2000 he barley won; when he ran on a more neo-con platform of virtue at home and strength abroad, he won with a record number of votes in 2004.
I believe this theorem is proved true by its reverse. Why is the GOP at least still competitive in PA, MI - huge union states?, ... because of social values. Why do the Dem's still hang on? Because of the number of pro-life Dems in those states from the Casey legacy of XXX, to Bart Stupak in MI. Elsewhere, the Democrats are willing to drive away voters by being unbending on their pro-abortion stance.
Why, if taxes are the key, did the GOP spread in the last 20 years in states w/ lower than national average incomes - MS, AL, NM,WV, SC?
Same with Mark Warner and Kaine - where did they seek to mitigate the label of liberal? On social issues and abortion more so than taxes.
How did Brian Schweitzer get elected in Red State Montana - by being a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat.
Not that you aren't on to something about lower taxes, shrinking government, which makes sense to preserve certain moral values - i.e. consider the problems for the pro-life movement that having state sponsored license plates where the proceeds go to the STATE to decide what is, and what is not, a suitable pro-life charity!?!?!?
The bigger pole in our tent is morality; most moderate Dems - especially in VA - don't like the fringe left. Most moderate Repubs have more in line with fringe right than not in common.
Taxes are the means to keep gov't in check, to be sure. But, the supply side movement depends on the level of taxes to be appealing. It is relative. Morality and privacy and decenecy are constant and always appeal to people.
- comment Ranger03
- body
- We must not forget that there are differences between national and state issues. When someone references the Bush tax cuts he's dealing with a different electorate than Kilgore and Kaine did. For those wanting a peek at the future of the GOP on the national stage, you could do worse than to read Joseph Bottum's article on the new fusionism.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Here's my point though. Planned Parenthood for instance receives millions of dollars from the federal government to prop itself up.
Without the system of schools, abortion clinics, counselors, social service workers, psychologists, and other government-paid workers to prop up the abortion industry, it would fall apart overnight.
This is where we get into the idea of first causes. If government were maintained at a minimal standard whose job were to regulate and not impose an ordered society, it emasculates the power of government to impose ideologies.
So while I agree that moral standards are important, in order to allow those morals to operate freely we must have a small, limited government.
This is the difference between Thomistic (as in Aquinas) political philosophy (citizens should be able to freely choose virtuous acts) as opposed to Russell Kirk's political philosophy (citizens should be massaged into choosing virtuous acts). Yes, both agree that certain frameworks need to exist for proper government, but Kirk is more of a positivist - might makes right - while Aquinas is more firmly rooted in the natural law (laws stem from a lawmaker, God).
In short, a low tax and limited government is the long pole becasue it is moral and fosters, but does not impose, a moral society.
shipwrecked
I imagine you have already read First Things letters in this month's issue? Wow!
- comment Ranger03
- body
- I'm afraid I haven't been able to read FT this month... while I've asked for a subscription for Christmas/birthday I'm still stuck waiting until its available online.
- comment Ranger03
- body
- I should've mentioned I've had some of my own thoughts on the New Fusionism.
I do think the abortion industry would stand even without government support. What you would likely see is an increase in the cost of each abortion, not the abolition of the industry. This is because of a larger problem: some people suck.
Most folks are nice, but there is a substantial minority that honestly find no problem killing their unborn child, doing R&D even if it takes peoples lives, etc., etc. For these individuals to be restrained we need laws, and the ability to enforce them. Freedom, in these cases, must be restrained. (Even if its bad for business.)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Oh I agree - it would stand regardless. But it would certainly be less prevelant in our society if it were not subsidized by the government.
When the cases are small, then I think we can get to the real heart of the abortion question and start making real inroads into resolving the issue. But as it stands now, the government is ultimately subsidizing a practice designed to kill unwanted, poor, or minority children.
Reduce the power and size of government, and maybe we'll take care of the root problems (want, poverty, and racism) rather than dress up the extermination of all three as "choice".
Get rid of the size and scope of government, and charity rather than blank checks can change the world.
- comment Ranger03
- body
- I agree the government is still subsidizing the abortion industry, and I'd like that to stop. It's one of the reasons I've protested "pro-lifers" like Tommy Norment who weren't willing to defund abortionists.
That said, I'm not sure how the size of the problem relates to our ability to get to the heart of the issue and make real inroads. Arguably, it has been the tremendous size of the problem that has energized pro-lifers to go out and discuss the issue. Through this discussion we will be able to change hearts and minds to create the political environment necessary for success.
Want, poverty and racism are eternals in this world. They've been around as long as there have been differences in people. The government offers a means by which we can ameliorate the worst of the worst.
10 Comments:
An excellent example of the conflict that will arise if we defend it with an end towards business is stem cell research and biotech. With greater frequency we can expect to see R&D come into conflict with respect for life. What do we do in this situation?
Second, the more I read about the early years of our national life the less respect I have for Jefferson. That was another ear of nasty, divisive politics and the case can be made that he and Madison relished it, giving as good as they got. While you are idealizing Jefferson with your blinders on I notice that the Democrats have been reading Hamilton and have built prosperity, free trade and economic growth in their platform, and they are slowing getting those "Reagan" Democrats back.
But carry on, if you wish.
I agree it is a question of leadership for Virginia Repbublicans and Allen is well position to claim the mantle, but it will only work if he draws a larger circle than I suspect you would like.
Firstly, those familiar with Virginia politics understand that Senator George Allen first coined the phrase "Jeffersonian Conservative," and certainly not myself. Reading this beginning to end, those familiar with Virginia politics got the inside joke. Never intended to confuse anyone.
Secondly, with regards to Hamilton, I would recommend the excellent book Reclaiming the American Revolution out of Palgrave Press. It centers around the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (nullification if you'll remember your 7th grade civics classes), but it gives an incredible insight on Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and many of the other Founding Fathers in the early 19th century.
Hamilton was no democrat in the purest sense of the word. Hamilton believed strongly in aristocracy, and in a market that benefited that aristocracy. If what you say is true - that Democrats are embracing Hamilton - then you have a dark road ahead, one that many neocons might envy.
One problem that many who reach back for the Founding Fathers to validate their modern ideas is that they forget that these men were 18th century thinkers, and men of their age. This isn't to say that their ideas don't apply today (as a fan of Aristotle, I certainly beleive the past has something to teach us moderns who are no less intelligent than they), but it is to say that Jefferson and Hamilton are not 21st century political leaders. Both are silent on issues we might consider to be of vital importance, both expound on items we may think to be trivial. It was the spirit of the age.
In short, I wouldn't get too caught up with pitting Jefferson and Hamilton against each other and in 21st century terms. There's much we can borrow, and I certainly beleive there's much Jefferson and any of the Founders have to teach us about our roots as Americans.
Let's just be careful about using them as divisive us v. them poles with 21st century goggles on. Nitpicking over the copyright symbol I hope can be forgiven!
Resurrecting pro-life positions and faith and morality created the Reagan democrat; it attracted a huge increase in Hispanic voters to GWBush in Texas - and in 2004 in the Pres race. When Bush ran on taxes in 2000 he barley won; when he ran on a more neo-con platform of virtue at home and strength abroad, he won with a record number of votes in 2004.
I believe this theorem is proved true by its reverse. Why is the GOP at least still competitive in PA, MI - huge union states?, ... because of social values. Why do the Dem's still hang on? Because of the number of pro-life Dems in those states from the Casey legacy of XXX, to Bart Stupak in MI. Elsewhere, the Democrats are willing to drive away voters by being unbending on their pro-abortion stance.
Why, if taxes are the key, did the GOP spread in the last 20 years in states w/ lower than national average incomes - MS, AL, NM,WV, SC?
Same with Mark Warner and Kaine - where did they seek to mitigate the label of liberal? On social issues and abortion more so than taxes.
How did Brian Schweitzer get elected in Red State Montana - by being a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat.
Not that you aren't on to something about lower taxes, shrinking government, which makes sense to preserve certain moral values - i.e. consider the problems for the pro-life movement that having state sponsored license plates where the proceeds go to the STATE to decide what is, and what is not, a suitable pro-life charity!?!?!?
The bigger pole in our tent is morality; most moderate Dems - especially in VA - don't like the fringe left. Most moderate Repubs have more in line with fringe right than not in common.
Taxes are the means to keep gov't in check, to be sure. But, the supply side movement depends on the level of taxes to be appealing. It is relative. Morality and privacy and decenecy are constant and always appeal to people.
Without the system of schools, abortion clinics, counselors, social service workers, psychologists, and other government-paid workers to prop up the abortion industry, it would fall apart overnight.
This is where we get into the idea of first causes. If government were maintained at a minimal standard whose job were to regulate and not impose an ordered society, it emasculates the power of government to impose ideologies.
So while I agree that moral standards are important, in order to allow those morals to operate freely we must have a small, limited government.
This is the difference between Thomistic (as in Aquinas) political philosophy (citizens should be able to freely choose virtuous acts) as opposed to Russell Kirk's political philosophy (citizens should be massaged into choosing virtuous acts). Yes, both agree that certain frameworks need to exist for proper government, but Kirk is more of a positivist - might makes right - while Aquinas is more firmly rooted in the natural law (laws stem from a lawmaker, God).
In short, a low tax and limited government is the long pole becasue it is moral and fosters, but does not impose, a moral society.
shipwrecked
I imagine you have already read First Things letters in this month's issue? Wow!
I do think the abortion industry would stand even without government support. What you would likely see is an increase in the cost of each abortion, not the abolition of the industry. This is because of a larger problem: some people suck.
Most folks are nice, but there is a substantial minority that honestly find no problem killing their unborn child, doing R&D even if it takes peoples lives, etc., etc. For these individuals to be restrained we need laws, and the ability to enforce them. Freedom, in these cases, must be restrained. (Even if its bad for business.)
When the cases are small, then I think we can get to the real heart of the abortion question and start making real inroads into resolving the issue. But as it stands now, the government is ultimately subsidizing a practice designed to kill unwanted, poor, or minority children.
Reduce the power and size of government, and maybe we'll take care of the root problems (want, poverty, and racism) rather than dress up the extermination of all three as "choice".
Get rid of the size and scope of government, and charity rather than blank checks can change the world.
That said, I'm not sure how the size of the problem relates to our ability to get to the heart of the issue and make real inroads. Arguably, it has been the tremendous size of the problem that has energized pro-lifers to go out and discuss the issue. Through this discussion we will be able to change hearts and minds to create the political environment necessary for success.
Want, poverty and racism are eternals in this world. They've been around as long as there have been differences in people. The government offers a means by which we can ameliorate the worst of the worst.
Post a Comment
Home