Saw This on Big Hollywood

May 5, 2009

A Republican Platform for the 21st Century

If you do not want to read it (I’ll call you lazy), his platform can to summarized as: continue the current platform as is on economic and foreign policy issues (emphasizing our love of America) and nix our current positions on the big social issues of the day (focus on reducing abortions instead of wanting to ban it, approve sodomite “marriages”, legalize pot). While some of his over-looked additions to the platform are a good idea (speaking out against sodomite genocide in the Mohammadean world, defunding Planned Parenthood), accepting his plan wholesale would result in the very thing his plan is trying to avoid, namely, the splintering of the conservative movement into irrelevance.

Mr. Simpson argues that we can usurp women and sodomite votes from the Dems by adopting his platform. The problem is, we will be giving up a huge chunk of the social conservatives to do it.

The only reason “squishy” evangelicals (such as Rick Warren) and catholics vote for Republicans is because the Republican party is staunchly opposed to abortion (and, to a lesser extent, sodomite “marriages”); they prefer liberal economic policies under the guise of “social justice”. Whatever your feelings are towards the man, Rick Warren actively promotes the UN Millennium Development goals (outside of the abortion as a women’s health indicator). Do you really think he (and everybody else that think like them) would choose us over the statists once you remove our distinction over them on the overriding social issues? To put it another way, do you really think Huckabee would be a Republican without these social issues? You remove the social issues from the equation and Huckabee would be the spitting image of a “Blue Dog” Democrat.

Speaking of “us”, the only reason the social conservatives that “do” think vote Republican over the various overtly Christian parties (the Constitution Party being the current prime example) is political expediency. Under the current “two-party” mindset (which I detest), the Republican Party is the party that closest fits our values. Throw our values out the window, and you may very well alienate us to start voting 3rd party in droves.

The result? One of the most reliable voting bloc for the Republicans will be split three ways: one group will start voting “social justice”, one group will start voting 3rd party, and one group will stick around. The Republicans stand to lose alot, especially considering that the “evangelical Christian” is one of the voting blocs that is increasing in population.

What we gain in exchange is paltry. Sodomites make up (at most) 10% of the U.S. population. A minority already vote Republican for economic reasons; so we would not even be gaining the whole 10%. And, while they have more money than the voters this shift would alienate, the evangelicals more than make up for it in volunteerism. Given the choice between campaign contributions and grass roots door-to-door walking, most candidates would choose the latter.

Women that refuse to vote for Republicans because they staunchly oppose abortion will continue to not vote Republican if we shift over to trying to minimize it; we are still opposing “women’s rights” whether we are trying to ban it or limit it.

So, may I suggest a different tack to these issues. Instead of giving in the the siren song of compromising values social conservatives care about (and lose their votes in the process), why don’t we do what Mr. Simpson proposes to win over minority voters: expand the arguments supporting various party principles with more classical liberal/libertarian support.

The normal response to being opposed to sodomite “marriages”? “I believe marriage is one man, one woman [with possible insertion of God into the equation]”.

A classical liberal argument (well, other than “why are we even legally recognizing marriages in the first place)? We need to encourage policies and principles that ensure that we are at least at the replacement rate of population growth. Liberty will be destroyed if we cannot sustain our countries numbers with people raised to believe in our values. We are seeing the effects of not doing so in Europe right now, with the “dissatisfied youths” (also known as Mohammadean immigrants) burning cars and rioting. By approving sodomite “marriages”, you give it an air of legitimacy it would otherwise not have. America is just at replacement rate of population growth right now. Encouraging behaviors that would hurt that rate will result in the eventual situation we see in France right now as we have to “import” workers to take care of an aging native population.

The same argument can be made about abortion. Of all the Republican candidates in the presidental primary, Ron Paul (which is the closest fit to the “classical liberal/libertarian” position Mr. Simpson is asking for a shift towards) had the BEST record on opposing infanticide. Abortion can be opposed in libertarian terms (the inalienable right to life, anyone? Bueller?).

There is my two cents. And if I was getting two cents for writing all that, it would be sad. Getting paid a cent for 400 words? No wonder writers are included in the starving artists cliche.


2 Responses to “Saw This on Big Hollywood”

  1. John T. Simpson Says:

    See? As many mountains of [internet-based fecal matter] as I am taking over this R platform OpEd, my desire to see some REAL discussion on the issues, and seeing that happening, is worth it. Hammer it all out, guys. I don’t decide the fate of the Republican Party, YOU all do! And muchos gracias for putting as much thought into your response as I put into my OpEd. That’s what needs to be done. And FAST! Peace šŸ™‚

    PS Let it be known that I am for civil gay marriage licenses, as I believe that will happen anyway, but am TOTALLY opposed to churches being compelled to perform gay marriages if they are morally opposed. That is an infringement on freedom of religion.

  2. liberexmachina Says:

    Thanks for noticing my ramblings and the comment.

    It’s important to civilly discuss the issues and I am glad to throw in my two cents.

    PS: I am not for actively punishing sodomists for what I view to be a purely self-destructive behavior (like the Mohammadeans); in fact, trying to stop the Mohammadeans from their acts of genocide is downright laudable in my view. I just do not think they should be rewarded for it (like granting them the legal privileges of “marriage”, however one phrases it).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: