Against Carthage -- whom would I raze?
By E Pluribus Unum Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[to others -- this is a continuation of a discussion I'm having with Gengisdon, in 'The Deal' posting as of 5/24/2005, noonish -- to wit, he laments 'Carthage Must Burn' to the seemingly single-minded pursuit of many/most conservatives to end abortion as law, but along the way I was kicking around the idea -- who exactly, would I destroy, who is my Carthage, since abortion ain't exactly it...]
Gengisdon, correct and forgive me if I mischaracterize you....
*******************
But as for whom/what I wish to raze. First, ask me what I want. First and most fundamentally, I want the orderly rule of law, where the core social contract of our land is the Constitution, as duly amended, and statutes as properly enacted by the legislative and executive branches (ever-mindful of the boundaries placed on them by the Bill of Rights), and very, very conservatively, carefully interpreted where needed by the judiciary. I want states to have left to them all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government. Now, whom I wish to raze -- everything and everybody that stands in the way of that.
More....The current federal judiciary is a 3-ring circus of law-making clowns who use their power to thwart all of the above. Therefore I wish to remove them, since it seems highly doubtful they can be persuaded to behave. The proper and legal way is to vote in a President (done) and a comfortable Senate majority (done) who can nominate (done) and confirm (not done) federal judges who have a more humble and less meddlesome, imperial bent. However, now the Democrat Party, with the filibuster, stands on the tracks and says 'Death first, we will not let you pass.' They are using a nominally legal method to thwart the apparent meaning of the Constitution (that a simple majority should be able to properly 'consent' to a President's nominee). So I advocate the 'Constitutional' option, also a legal option, to destroy their ability to stand on the tracks.
And now, it seems that some non-conservative GOPers have agreed to deals that thwart the Constitutional' option, and to say the least, I am frustrated with them. Now RINOs are the next enemy to defeat.
After all that, I am a social and fiscal conservative. I abhor abortion as murder, now an unbelievably large-scale genocide that is a moral blight on the nation. I oppose re-defining marriage to include homosexual couples. I oppose the big-school lobby that resists changes that would help children of all socio-economic groups. I oppose pretty much everything the ACLU advocates, and vice versa. I despise big, obtrusive government, and I oppose the nanny-entitlement state, pork, and the Dept of Education as well as the huge majority of the federal bureaucracy.
However, I wish to defeat them legislatively, not have my will imposed on an unwilling majority by having the courts legislate in my favor. I want to be able, by voting, by advocacy, and by joining with like minds, have my ideas win the day in the court of public opinion, and become the law of the land by established and acceptable means.
And be very afraid. The conservative movement has not crested, not by a long shot. Did you notice all the state amendments, passed by popular vote, banning same-sex 'marriage'? Those were huge, huge, majorities, and some of them in decidedly blue states. America. in very, very large numbers, is tired of what the Democrats and the courts have given us. And now we have the internet, and the liberal MSM is no longer the information gatekeeper. The Swifties mortally wounded Kerry, the Freepers shot down Rather and finished off what was left of Kerry.
Actually, my name notwithstanding, my knowledge of Latin does not extend too far past our coinage and the movie Tombstone....
Yes, it has crossed my mind that there is an evolution -- the tent can only be so big before the differences between certain constituencies becomes unworkable. But hey, it'll be fun while it lasts.
And isn't it an interesting coincidence that the rise of the GOP, I guess starting with Reagan, has been happening as the party itself has become more conservative? No, really, not being sarcastic. This suggests to me that the percentage of Americans who are conservative is rising, and rising, and rising. And I believe in part that this is due to the information age.
The 20 years ago proposition is interesting. 20 years ago, even the QUESTION would have been laughed out of the room. But as you suggest, if you could get people to take the question seriously, the numbers would have been 80%, 90%. Nevertheless, I assert here that part of the reason the numbers have been so high, even in a lefty nuthouse like Oregon (apologies...), were as a backlash against judicial tyranny. The 4 Massachusetts idiots and the mayor of SF probably did more for the GOP's 2004 fortunes than the Swifties. I'm not sure what it means, but I THINK it means that there's a much greater constituency for my kind of (originalist, non-tampering) judges than any of us think. Perhaps it doesn't reflect so much on social conservatism as it does on rule-of-law conservatism.
But as for Doverspa and others here, and I'll take your word on all of that, but have you not answered your own question? If he's committed to achieving that end legislatively and not by judicial fiat, then is he not on my side after all? We are working first to return the SYSTEM to working order -- and THEN perhaps we'll have those vicious internecine wars over the details....heh, heh. Very Klingon-like, isn't it?
I'm happy the phrase struck something of a chord. I think you've fairly characterized my position.
I disagree with your belief of cresting. The Republican party may yet expand, but as it continues to grow as a majority, governing party, it will also expand the number of philosophies and belief sets which fit under the Republican banner. Majorities spawn factions, minorities eventually develop cohesion or disintigrate.
Think about this: you point to the same-sex amendments as evidence of conservative groundswell. Would it be untrue to say 20 years ago the margins would have been larger, not smaller? You have several relatively conservative posters on this site who are in favor of same-sex marriage. Doverspa comes to mind off the top of my head. He may prefer legislative means to others, but nonetheless, his conservative Republican credentials are relatively solid.