Sex Politics and the GOP as We Know It: An Interview with Nancy Cohen

"The reason we've gone crazy, in a word, is sex," says Nancy Cohen, author of Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America

Cohen explains how sexual fundamentalists became the gate keepers of election 2012. "That is why we're seeing someone like Santorum, who is really a fringe candidate," Cohen says, "and it's also why Mitt Romney has been forced to talk about birth control and abortion much more than he would want to".

Reason.tv's Tracy Oppenheimer sat down with Cohen to discuss the rise of sexual fundamentalism in America and how it helped shape today's Republican Party and political system.

About 4:30 minutes.

Shot by Paul Detrick, Zach Weissmueller and Sharif Matar; edited by Tracy Oppenheimer

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    This Nancy lady got kept getting more annoying as the interview went on, didn't she?

  • Mo' $parky||

    She may have been a little put off by Tracy's cuteness.

  • Skid Marx||

    It is off-putting.

  • CE||

    Santorum became a viable candidate because Romney doesn't appeal to the conservative base, Gingrich was flawed, and everyone else dropped out too soon. The conservative "thought leaders" in the media needed someone to keep conservative voters unhappy with Romney from defecting to Ron Paul. Santorum served the purpose until Romney locked up the nomination.

  • daveInAustin||

    Have to love Tracy's forced smile when she says "just because we aren't paying for it doesn't mean they don't have access to it". Seriously, if you ever listen to Rachel Maddow, she equates banning and not-subsidizing all the time.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    I can only handle Rachel Maddow for 15-30 second intervals, which coincidentally is the interval of time between her logical fallacies, disingenuous argument making, and just out and out stupidity. So I couldn't tell you one way or the other.

  • John||

    I can only handle Rachel Maddow for 15-30 nanosecond intervals.

    There FIFY.

  • John||

    WTF is a sexual fundamentalist? Last I looked even Santorum wasn't in favor of making adultery or pre-marital sex a crime again. I would say the people who want to use to tax money to pay for abortions and free birth control and want to use the power of the federal government to force people to act against their conscience are pretty fundamentalist. And those people do not include Rick Santorum.

    Should Obama be considered a fringe candidate?

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, dude, he's the first gay president. See, he largely won last time solely for being black, so his handlers are trying a new tactic--getting him elected solely because he's gay.

  • John||

    Well it is not exactly like Michelle was ever a believable beard.

  • ||

    Electrolysis FTW!

  • JW||

  • Paul.||

    No, dude, he's the first gay president

    Ironic. Bill Clinton was the first black president...

  • ||

    Well I guess that means that the next democratic president will have to be an actual homosexual so that he can be the first female Commander in Chief! Progress by degrees, people.

  • Paul.||

    Even I still have a dream that we'll see the first Libertarian president before the end of my lifetime.

  • R C Dean||

    Just so they are more libertarian that Clinton was black.

    And I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Obama is actually gay, just in deep, deep denial.

  • SIV||

    Santorum voted for federal funding for Planned Parenthood so he is one of those people.

  • John||

    LOL Even better. So is that why he should be a "fringe candidate"?

  • Amakudari||

    The original link's dead, but here's a Snopes article on Santorum. The actually truthful part:

    Current federal "obscenity" laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. "If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so."

    I get that abortions-for-all types are statist jerks, but I'm pretty comfortable looping Santorum in with that group of people who should mind their own business. And I'd accept his states' rights objections to Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas a bit more if he were dogmatic about extending that to things he doesn't like, such as drugs.

  • John||

    The laws are on the books. I fail to see how anyone who says "I will enforce the laws as written" is a fundamentalist. They may be wrong. But they are a totally not in the same league of wrong as the people who would use government coercion to force people to act against their conscience.

    Obama's assault on the Catholic Church is a thousand times worse and more offensive and damaging to the country than anything Santorum would do in his biggest dreams.

  • ShagNasty||

    Are you shitting me? Forcing the catholic church to buy birth control for some employees is a thousand times worse than anything Frothy would do? What about restricting acess to contraception? The son of a bitch defended the old texas ban on gay sex for fuck's sake! You think its worse to mandate a minor exta expense for an archaic religious institution with a history of genocide and despicable supression of religious and intillectual freedom than to throw gays in jail for having sex and contributing to the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancy? Take a look at your priorities, dude.

  • ||

    What about restricting acess (sic) to contraception?

    The "access" argument has been refuted to death, troll asshole. Last time I checked, the First Amendment is still in effect (barely) and the right to engage in sexual relations =/= guaranteed freedom from negative consequences provided by others at the point of a gun.

    FUCK OFF SLAVER!

  • ||

    What about restricting acess (sic) to contraception?

    The "access" argument has been refuted to death, troll asshole. Last time I checked, the First Amendment is still in effect (barely) and the right to engage in sexual relations =/= guaranteed freedom from negative consequences provided by others at the point of a gun. you have heard of Planned Parenthood and other medical care outfits designed for this sort of thing? Not to mention other private and non-profit initiatives promoting "safer" and more responsible sexual behaviour?

    Access WRT to consensual behaviour =/= Paid for by someone else.

    FUCK OFF SLAVER!

  • ShagNasty||

    I never meant to imply that people's contraception should be paid for by someone else. I think that the contraception mandate is unconstitutional and immoral. I was refering to Froty's personal views that contraception is a "liscence to do things in the sexual realm
    that is counter to how things are supposed to be," and how he is on record defending the recently thrown-out texas sodomy law. I belive that Santorum would criminalize gay sex and sales of contraception if he tought he could get away with it. In my opinion, this is a greater affront to liberty, and more destructive to society, than the birth control mandate. You don't need to fly off the handle, put words in my mouth and accuse me of trolling just because we have a tiny difference in ideology, or maybe I just see more evil in Santorum than we do. We have virtually the same political philosophy, so chill out.

  • John||

    So what if his views are wrong? I don't care. It is a free country. So me where Santorum wants to make contraceptives illegal. If you can't, then you don't have a point.

  • Amakudari||

    Yeah, this is very nit-picky.

    Santorum was opposed to legalization of condoms and gay sex, but now that they're legal he'll offer no opposition. You could say that makes him philosophically acceptable; I think it's just that those positions are untenable today. Would he just be enforcing the law when he wants to nullify all gay marriages?

    He supports states' rights, he says, but he doesn't for drugs. He'd like to follow the letter of the law for pornography, but that could only be effective by abusing the Miller test and federal inspections to make it so onerous that the industry shuts down. Obeying the law here is philosophically meaningless -- the boundaries seem to be mandatory gay orgies for all and drone strikes on San Fernando Valley -- precisely because the executive has so much discretionary authority, and I can think of several other industries that could be ruined by abuse of discretion.

    I'm just saying, it's much, much easier to understand Rick Santorum as a staunch Catholic and social conservative than as anything else, like a states' rights advocate or a practitioner of judicial deference.

  • ||

    You don't need to fly off the handle, put words in my mouth and accuse me of trolling just because we have a tiny difference in ideology

    I apologize; "Medical Care is a 'Right'" types are my Berserk Button.

    Thank you for clarifying.

  • Ted S.||

    The laws are on the books. I fail to see how anyone who says "I will enforce the laws as written" is a fundamentalist.

    This is more or less the argument I got from my fellow Packer fans when Johnny Jolly got six years for drinking sizzurp. They kept saying, "But he broke the law", so finally I lost it and told them, "Then perhaps the law is wicked."

    They still love themselves some War on Some Drugs, however. :-(

  • The Derider||

    Santorum supported criminalizing abortion.

    That's a fringe candidate.

  • John||

    There is nothing fringe about that at all. At least a third of the country supports that. A higher percentage than support revoking the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion provision, which is what Obama would like to do.

  • The Derider||

    That's bullshit.

    Over 60% of Americans think that the government should force all insurers to cover birth control.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03.....finds.html

  • cw||

    I though you and Tony chastised us for not looking at gray areas in philosophy/public policy.

    You can't see how some people might see killing an unborn person (or fetus, as I'm sure you prefer) as murder?

    That seems to be what you think, given your use of the scare word "fringe."

  • The Derider||

    You don't see how some people might see banning abortion as an immoral imposition on personal liberty? It certainly doesn't get talked about in those terms around here.

  • cw||

    You don't see how some people might see banning abortion as an immoral imposition on personal liberty?

    I can, but none of the pro-abortion arguments have convinced me of their moral superiority.

    It certainly doesn't get talked about in those terms around here.

    Yes it does. I've seen several regulars here argue using that premise. Of course, abortion-threads haven't cropped up lately (much more about the economy), so I am having trouble remembering who exactly. I believe sloopyinca (forgive me, sloop, if I'm wrong!) has here.

  • The Derider||

    So you're for government intervention and restricting personal liberty if it will save the life of a fetus, but you're against government intervention and restricting personal liberty if it will accomplish any other goal?

  • ||

    If you see a fetus as morally equivalent to a person, there's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that position since it amounts to the exact same thing as the state prohibiting the murder of an adult human being.

  • The Derider||

    No, because other state prohibitions on murder don't require women to gestate and birth unwanted babies.

    Let's assume fetuses don't have human rights. If the state could force women to become pregnant and harvested the fetuses to save lives, I assume libertarians would be against it.

  • ||

    That's irrelevant to the moral discussion though. If killing a fetus is the same as killing a fully developed human being then the inconvenience to the mother is not sufficient justification any more than killing your 5 year old because you got sick of feeding it and listening to it whine would be.

    Let's assume fetuses don't have human rights

    That's a requirement for your logic to work. But it's not a moral presumption shared by everyone, and hence the controversy. This is one of the few areas where there is (justifiable) disagreement among libertarians in regards to rights. But it hardly invalidates the concept of minimizing the state in other matters where no such moral ambiguity exists.

  • The Derider||

    You can put a 5 year old up for adoption. You can't evict a fetus without killing it.

    And you're avoiding the question. Why is there moral ambiguity when the government bans abortion to save lives, but there's no moral ambiguity when the government bans anything else to save lives?

  • cw||

    And when you can't put up a child for adoption? I guess it's OK to kill it, then.

  • ||

    I'm not avoiding the question, you just can't comprehend the premise. The people who want abortion criminalized want it criminalized for the same reason murder is criminalized. They believe a fetus has the same rights as any living human and that killing it for any reason other than self defense (...insert "abortion is self defense" argument here...) is morally wrong.

    So substitute "murder" for "abortion" in your premise: Why is there moral ambiguity when the government bans murder to save lives, but there's no moral ambiguity when the government bans anything else to save lives? Either you're stuck making the ethical argument that murder and consumption of trans fats, for instance, are morally equivalent, or else the difference is quite obvious.

    As I said, there is deep disagreement over whether or not a fetus should be considered with the same regard as a fully developed human being. But for people who take the moral premise that it should, there is no persuasive argument in regards to the convenience or personal liberty of the mother anymore than there would be for a born child or an adult. By the same token, if you reject that moral premise, there is no persuasive argument in regards to the "murder" of something that is not human and has no rights. Hence, there is a moral controversy in that regard, even among libertarians.

  • Che is dead||

    Just another Frankfurt School douche bag hawking "Cultural Marxism".

    It was very difficult to understand her with Georg Lukacs' cock in her mouth.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    She blames the "sexual counterrevolution," suggesting that the sexual revolution was the normal state of things and those objecting were extremists.

    The sexual revolution was the radical development. Yet anyone who resists is a counterrevolutionary!

    When we're debating whether the Catholic Church should be compelled to provide birth control, sterilization and abortifacient pills to its employees, then it's not the right-wingers who are the extremists.

  • John||

    She has a totalitarian mindset. Everyone who is not actively supporting her cause is by implication actively against it. So it is impossible for anyone to opt out of the conflict and say "you do what you want I want to stay out of it". You must either join the cause or be destroyed by it.

  • The Derider||

    Abortion. Abortion. Abortion.
    Santorum wanted to criminalize it. Ron Paul supports states criminalizing it.

  • John||

    Lots of people support that. You should get out of your cocoon of stupid once in a while. There is nothing "fringe" about that view. It may not be the majority view. But it is hardly a fringe view.

  • The Derider||

    You're missing the point. People who want to criminalize abortion don't think "You do what you want I want to stay out of it" any more than Sandra Fluke does.

  • ||

    People who want to criminalize abortion believe it is the moral equivalent of killing a fully developed person, therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle, and a legitimate use of the state's authority (yes, Virginia, there are pro-life libertarians).

    There is no such moral ambiguity about whether failing to provide birth control pills to women attending $50,000/year law school for free on a taxpayer-funded scholarship is equivalent to murder, so the comparison is absurd.

  • The Derider||

    Here's a less absurd comparison. Pro-life libertarians believe the state has the moral authority to control a woman's womb in order to save fetus lives, but don't believe the state has moral authority to fund children's health insurance to save children's lives.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's a conundrum alright. Since libertarians believe the state has moral authority to imprison a Ponzi schemer for bilking people out of their money, how can they also believe that the doesn't have the moral authority to force people to pay Social Security taxes to provide someone else a pension? Oh noes, libertarianism is dead!

    These are all false parallels. You are shoehorning arguments where no moral ambiguity exists into an argument whose very nature is its moral ambiguity. Libertarians believe parents should be responsible for their children's health insurance. Some libertarians also believe that it is a parent's moral obligation not to kill their child while it is still developing because it should have the same rights as a developed person. Other libertarians disagree and think that a parent should have the right to terminate their developing child because it does not have the same rights as a fully developed person. There's no conflicting position there, regardless of how badly you want there to be.

  • The Derider||

    Libertarians believe parents should be responsible for their children's health insurance, but I doubt any support the state criminalizing parents who don't. (Some) Libertarians believe parents shouldn't kill developing fetuses. And, they're willing to use the mechanisms of the state to ensure they don't.

    Why do the lives of fetuses trump the rights of others, but the lives of children do not?

  • cw||

    Health insurance does not equal health care, or access. So that's a red herring.

    Not to mention, you conflate positive rights (children's health insurance) with negative rights (the fetus' (unborn person's(!)) right not to be killed).

    Apples to oranges.

  • ||

    For the pro-life set, the lives of (dead) fetuses trump the rights of others for the same reason that the lives of (dead) adults trump the rights of others. when you kill someone (and the pro-life set considers a fetus to be a "someone") for any reason besides self-defense, you lose some or all of your rights by nature of having aggressed the rights of another. According to the pro-life moral premise, the state has legitimate authority in the matter for the same reason the state has legitimate authority whenever the non-aggression principle is violated. Pro-life folks don't differentiate between the rights of a fetus and the rights of an adult. You seem to have a very difficult time comprehending that.

  • cw||

    This whole "fringe" and "radical" bullshit is just vapidness masquerading as politics.

    Those who disagree with my politics are "on the fringes." You know, why should it necessarily matter whether a lot of people agree with one's politics? If a lot of people are wrong, then they are wrong. It doesn't matter if every single person agrees on a given subject.

  • The Derider||

    I'm not the first one to use that word in this thread. But if it makes you feel better, I take it back. It's not "fringe", it's just bad.

  • cw||

    So if, as I presume, you support many policies I think are bad, would you be OK with me asserting you lie on the political fringe?*

    *And I wasn't trying to target you, I just figured you'd be more responsive than if I had made a similar remark to a libertarian-minded fellow.

  • Muad'Dib||

    The minute someone says 'oh universal healthcare all these other people have it shame on us' shit, they should be ostracized. I don't want to pay for loony tune burnout's (Nancy Cohen) birth control or anyone else's for that matter. WTF does it matter how expensive some forms are the generic pill for a month costs less than a couple packs of cigarettes.

  • ||

    universal healthcare medical care

    Big difference b'twixt the two, my desert mouse nom du blog friend.

  • Paul.||

    "The reason we've gone crazy, in a word, is sex," says Nancy Cohen, author of Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America.

    Disagree strongly with this. Methinks that Ms. Cohen has a hammer (sex) and so everything looks like a nail.

    What we're seeing in this election is a kind of tectonic shift-- not a major one, but a minor tremor in major politics.

    There are a lot of issues going on, and the implosion of the economy has been a significant factor, causing all kinds of new and shifting alliances.

    As a result, people in general (including people I disagree with) are tired of the status quo. Not tired enough to cause a major tectonic shift, but tired enough to cause rifts in the early election process.

    The major parties ignore this at their peril. Yes, sex is wrapped up somewhere in this, but Santorum has less to do with Sex than he has to do with not being Romney.

    What's going on with Ron Paul has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with people growing weary with an overactive government.

    The Occupiers and 99% (who alas, will ultimately pull for Obama because the left is offering fewer divergent views than the right) are also disaffected with traditional party politics.

    Sex doesn't really add up to much in the equation.

  • cw||

    ^THIS^

  • Pip||

    "Cohen explains how sexual fundamentalists became the gate keepers of election 2012."

    Bullshit.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Lefties confuse the sexual revolution - in behaviors and freedoms - with sex somehow becoming cheap and inconsequential at the same time.

    Indeed, the term 'safe sex' is a oxymoron, for nothing so powerful can ever be safe. Is a gun with the safety on 'safe?' No lefty would say that. But they think that way about sex. Stupid lefties.

  • John||

    great comment. And don't forget feminism's role in this. Feminist want to deny the reality that men and women are wired differently. And that women are more emotionally affected by sex than men.

  • o3||

    there's plenty of dems who own guns & know what a safety is. this analogy is dipped in stupid & topped w radio entertainment sprinkles

  • Paul.||

    Shrike? Is that you?

  • ||

    Not enough profanity or ChristFAG. Also, no BushPIGS or DICKless Cheney.

  • Paul.||

    Besides, Shrike used stuff like punctuation. And his prose was readable, not the l33tsp34k that o3 uses.

  • ||

    Shriek is also acquainted with the shift key, which has been pointed out more than once.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    there's plenty of dems who own guns & know what a safety is.

    There's also Democrats who type in whole sentences and understand basic grammar.

    this analogy is dipped in stupid & topped w radio entertainment sprinkles

    And you're not one of them.

  • John||

    Even if the weapon is on "safe" it still isn't totally safe. Would you let a three year old play with a loaded weapon on safe?

    That is the analogy. No matter how many free Catholic Church provided condoms you wear, sex, like a weapon, will never be risk free.

  • ||

    Actually, John, you hit on something here. Condoms are not 100% effective (failure rates can be as high as 20%, and is usually, if not almost always, user error) in preventing either pregnancy or STD's. So even though a wrapped rascal is safer than a bareback baloney pony, it's still not 100% guaranteed safe. Latex barrier protection is not the be all end all of preventing STD's. About the closest you could get to the be all end all is both sexes wear the gender specific barrier protection devices for copulation. I would also imagine this would decrease the satisfaction level of sex considerably.

  • Mo' $parky||

    Plus there's the fact that even with condoms involved men enjoy sex. Feminists will be happy when that is no longer true. And I wouldn't be surprised that they do their best to make sure, one way or another, that any man having sex with them isn't enjoying it.

  • The Derider||

    Rush, is that you?

  • dehaul||

    I am about 30 and all the guys I knew in high school who went around nailing every girl they could all have been "caught" and are involved with someone they don't like for life.

  • The Derider||

    Nothing in the world is ever risk free. But a lot of conservatives buy "safe" investments, buy homes in "safe" neighborhoods, etc...

  • cw||

    Yeah, and we don't want to subsidize those, either. What's your point?

  • The Derider||

    Read the whole comment stream.

    Indeed, the term 'safe sex' is a oxymoron, for nothing so powerful can ever be safe. Is a gun with the safety on 'safe?' No lefty would say that. But they think that way about sex. Stupid lefties.

  • cw||

    Dude, work on your reading comprehension.

    He didn't write, "No Democrat owns guns nor knows what a safety is." He wrote, "Leftists wouldn't (rightly) call a gun with its safety on safe, so why would they (wrongly) call sex safe (just from using BC)?"

    Gun safeties don't always work, and neither does BC, so both guns and sex always carry some risk.

  • ChrisO||

    The social issues stuff is just smoke and mirrors: on the left to deflect attention from how bad the economy still is under Obama, and on the right to try and generate enthusiasm for marginal so-con candidates. The latter didn't work in the primaries, and it's unlikely the former will in the general election.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    The Greeks mailing it in this summer will be an inescapable 'teachable moment' for Yanqui politicos.

    The Culture-Clowns on either side can try hiding under Faggle Rock all day but there is no escape from grinding mathematical reality, closing in as it were.

  • Amakudari||

    AFAICT, this will keep the LGBT vote on Obama's side, but I doubt much more. And that's just tossing them a bone to make sure they show up a few months after his convenient "evolution" (or cycle back to a position held before his presidential run). For the vast majority of people, I don't see how this affects the vote.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Gays need money, too.

  • Paul.||

    AFAICT, this will keep the LGBT vote on Obama's side, but I doubt much more.

    He already had their vote, and had it good and hard.

    It was an emotional appeal. Nothing more.

  • ChrisO||

    It's all about turnout. Enthusiasm for Obama among liberals is low, and social issues are great for getting people riled up on both sides. Obama is going to get annihilated in November unless he can get humongous turnout from his core voters. That's what this is about, nothing more.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Anyone who votes based on this or any other ghafla is a fucking moron. Economy. Out-of-control government. The only issues that matter right now. And Obama loses hugely on both.

  • ||

    Anyone who votes based on this or any other ghafla is a fucking moron typical American voter

    Fixed it for you.

  • Amakudari||

    Bad phrasing on my part. They may like Obama over Romney, but I'm talking about turnout. The 18-29, socially liberal vote can make a lot of the difference; it's up 40% since 2000, and that can change.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    He already had their vote, and had it good and hard.

    It was an emotional appeal. Nothing more.

    $$$$$$$$, too.

  • ||

    Not much more to add here, but how much of the actual personal physical acts and enjoyment of sexual relations has blurred and indelibly seeped into the political, and more importantly, the medical aspects of physical sexuality?

    It seems the types who doth too much protest for the complete separation of the two, like this Nancy Cohen at face value, is along the lines of Justice Black's Separation of Church and State Penumbra. Yet it appears that people like Cohen here actually want even more blurring and outright conflation of the two, and irrevocably doing so where separating the two would be a political, economic, and medical impossibility.

    I haven't watched the video, as Warty tends to have a good barometer on this type of thing.

  • The Unknown Pundit||

    Sexual orthodoxy must be maintained. It's obvious. I guess. Obviously bible thumpers think so. After all, a talking serpent set all this this in motion.

    And I have it on good authority that if we would just back to living the the way God wants us to, especially sexually, all our problems will be solved.

    No, really.

  • R C Dean||

    These idiots who spent their yoot jabbering about how "the personal is political" are always taken be surprised when it turns out they succeeded, and turned everything personal into a political football.

  • ||

    What you said, man.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Nancy Cohen is not surprised, she is annoyed that there is pushback on issues her side has already "won". What surprises her is that politics is agame that has no end.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Leave it to Lefty to post a link about shady finance from a tax shelter in...Tokelau is it?

    Sad.

  • dehaul||

    More of Tracy please!!! She is cute, young, female, and kept pushing the issue. I think libertarian ideas coming from a cute, young female plays better than white middle aged guys - especially when trying to convince women to think about them.

  • ||

    Ohmigod! You hate middle-aged white guys! Discrimination! Discrimination!

  • Kevin||

    "40 years ago everything changed"

    Stop it right there. That's never true and the sure sign of someone writing a fictional narrative instead of a history

  • Mickey Rat||

    How does the write-up of the interview come up so different in tone than the interview itself?

    Romney talked about contraception because Obama is forcing every insurer to offer it, and every consumer to purchase it, whether or not it violates their moral sensibilities, much less their economic ones. Ms. Cohen thinks Obama's high-handedness is a praiseworthy thing.

  • wef||

    Whiny-voiced sophomoric Sophia or _insert_npr_pbs_name_here_ interviews whiny-voiced desiccated monologue.

    could not finish

    sorry

  • joy||

    Tracy Oppenheimer sat down with Cohen to discuss the rise of sexual fundamentalism in America and http://www.nikewinkel.com/scho.....-c-36.html how it helped shape today's Republican Party and political system.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Why is "the government should just mind its own fucking business" so hard to understand? If she is really concerned about religious fundamentalists controlling the levers of power, shouldn't she be against government involvement as much as possible, in case the evil, white puritans end up in charge of things? How is it that some people see the government trampling on the private lives of others and they still advocate for more government control?

    On the other hand, a serious question for the "gays kill family values" crowd would be - if there was a huge electoral shift, and politicians outlawed heterosexual marriage and legalized gay marriage, would they consider that a legitimate exercise of government power? If not, why doesn't it work the other way?

  • sweeterjan||

    Celui-ci s'avrrre rrtreque ce traitement avec l . a . grande d'autant plus ceend anysur ce type serveable market vers l'?illinois et aussi se sentir. http://www.ecouteursdrdre.com/.....-c-15.html

  • luohuluohu||

    I really think it is a good and useful article,I'd like you can post more article like this.

  • lala||

    Het meeste van wat je al aangaf is verbazingwekkend legitiem zijn en dat vraag ik me af waarom ik niet had gekeken naar dit met dit licht eerder. Uw artikel dan heeft nog wel schakelen het licht aan voor mij persoonlijk voor zover dit specifieke onderwerp gaat. Maar op dit moment is er eigenlijk een bepaalde functie ben ik niet al te comfortabel met en terwijl ik probeer te rijmen dat met het centrale thema van de positie, staat u mij zien wat de rest van uw lezers te say.Nicely gedaan.
    nike air max pas cher

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement