Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« Must-read RedState hysteria: It says more than you might think | Main | Attorney General Ken Paxton has it down - cold »

June 29, 2015

Comments

I'll leave it to the guy with the doctorate in history to figure out those points in history where sustained decency ruled the Republican party. For me the important point is that the tides are changing and rapidly. The defensive walls of the Republicans are crumbling rapidly but not only because of shifting demographics but shifting public opinion. This is a generational shift that in many respects is cutting off the Republican party from a huge pool of potential future adherents who don't buy the phony religious sanctimony. The solution to every single blessed problem they have must offend some part of their base. The big tent is on fire.

The most publicized objections to the Obergefell ruling have been by fundamentalist Xians and pandering Republicans, and all have been on religious grounds. Most Biblical law is recorded in the book of Leviticus. It does outlaw homosexual relations, but it also outlaws clothes made of more than one fabric, cutting hair and shaving, pork, shellfish, and more other things than the average person could imagine. One wonders how many evangelicals won't touch barbequed pork or breakfast sausage.

I'll quibble again about the existence of "authentic conservatives," and state that the people noted don't represent conservatism but practical good judgment. Political philosophy is not and has never been static. Classical conservatism seeks to maintain traditions, or conserve the existing order. How can that square with the conservative programs to overturn government regulations and programs that have existed for nearly a century, or overturn SCOTUS decisions that are inconvenient to the Republican Party, sometimes undermining the democracy striven for in the Constitution?

There's also the other side of the coin. To save myself too much thinking I'll quote Wikipedia on what liberalism was in the 19th century: "Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable; they believed population growth would outstrip food production, and they regarded that consequence desirable, because starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders." Would any liberal today want to own up to that?

The comments to this entry are closed.